Is there any more information on Nehalem octo-core?

[Seggybop]

Before the public really knew anything solid about Nehalem, it seemed that the general impression was that there were going to be 4 and 8 core (presumably MCM of quad) variants available (all with SMT). But now the only 8 core CPU I'm able to find any mention of is for Nehalem-EX quad-socket platforms.

Does anyone know more about the potential release of octo-core for desktop? Can it be assumed it will be absurdly expensive if it does come out? I'm thinking about buying the 920 shortly but I'll feel retarded if I buy it and then octo-core is released and I could've gotten it instead.

 

[JackyP]

No, it won't launch for desktop shortly. You wouldn't feel retarded for not buying it, actually the opposite is true, you'd feel retarded if you bought an octo-version. It will be big, hot, expensive, clocking low and only launched for high-end server in the second half of 09. There it will rule most probably. Thanks to embarassingly parallel workloads.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: JackyP
No, it won't launch for desktop shortly. You wouldn't feel retarded for not buying it, actually the opposite is true, you'd feel retarded if you bought an octo-version. It will be big, hot, expensive, clocking low and only launched for high-end server in the second half of 09. There it will rule most probably. Thanks to embarassingly parallel workloads.

QFT

There's no reason to consider not buying an i7 now and waiting for octal-core variants, because they aren't coming for desktop users anytime soon. Octal-core Beckton is for the MP server market, not desktops. Is it possible that someday there will be an 8-core desktop model? Yes, but not likely in 2009 or on 45nm. And yes, if it does come out for the desktop it will be absurdly expensive.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I thought that the octo core desktop had been pushed back to 2010 and 32 nm...

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
I thought that the octo core desktop had been pushed back to 2010 and 32 nm...

Wikipedia says Q3->Q4 2009?

While getting a quad core might not be so ridiculous, getting an octo-core would be. I have little doubt that multi threaded programs will start to pick up in a big way, but not that big. We are still struggling keeping 2 threads occupied, let alone 16. Interestingly enough, the popular video encoder, x264, starts to have noticeable quality looses at 16 threads due to the way multi threading was implemented in it.

 

[Seggybop]

I want 8-core because my primary purpose is 3D rendering and it's very optimized for multithreading. I'd like it if my system was able to beat or at least equal the 8 core * 3ghz Mac Pro workstations I use at school that are crippled by poor configuration, and it seems that overclocked i7 should be able to do that.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Seggybop
I want 8-core because my primary purpose is 3D rendering and it's very optimized for multithreading. I'd like it if my system was able to beat or at least equal the 8 core * 3ghz Mac Pro workstations I use at school that are crippled by poor configuration, and it seems that overclocked i7 should be able to do that.

:thumbsup: An overclocked i7 (with 8 threads) will most definitely trump a skulltrail-type dual-socket yorkfield system that is running at stock provided you get the i7 clockspeeds up high enough.

( undeniably true statement)

8 core for the desktop though isn't coming until Westmere (late 2009) if even then.

Most leaked rumor/expectations of Westmere is that it will max out at 6 core/12 threads for the desktop version. (in-line with the competition of 6 core Istanbul from AMD)

So we desktop folks may be looking at late 2010 when Sandy Bridge debuts before we get a retail consumer desktop segment 8-core chip.

I have heard no reports, zero, about the prospects of an MCM'ed nehalem chip. Yes they will make an MCM with the IGP but not MCM with another Nehalem.

So 8-core nehalem is the Beckton you read about and you can bet it will be another one of those $3k CPU's which for a price/performance metric alone would prevent a rational person from using as their desktop system (server board or workstation board).

TDP/GHz for the 8-core nehalem could be well controlled if they intend to be selective in their binning process (take the top 10% silicon for example) and fuse-out the rest as 4-core higher cache variants or as 4-core 8MB L3$ variants to be sold off into the desktop markets.

Selling chips for $3k each allows you to be rather liberal in your binning schemes, how else do you think IBM is shipping 5GHz Power6? I would not be surprised in the least if Beckton ships at 3GHz and 130W for top-flagship or something more green like 2.66GHz and 95W.

But for the OP - you can build your own skulltrail system that would easily trumo the Mac because you control the configuration and OC'ing, or you can get yourself an i7 and OC it to the point that it trumps the Mac as well. All you need is a nice budget

 

[RaptureMe]

"Idontcare"
I hardly doubt even a quad 965EE core i7 will trump a dual socket skulltrail qx9770 both cpu's sitting at 4.0-4.2Ghz....
That is somethign I would love to see for myself!!
Personly I think 2 Qx9770 would rape the crap out of a core I7 atleast till the true octo-core core I7's come out.

 

[dguy6789]

I am going to have to agree that 8 core Penryn would be superior to 4 core Nehalem + 4HT threads.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
"Idontcare"
I hardly doubt even a quad 965EE core i7 will trump a dual socket skulltrail qx9770 both cpu's sitting at 4.0-4.2Ghz....
That is somethign I would love to see for myself!!
Personly I think 2 Qx9770 would rape the crap out of a core I7 atleast till the true octo-core core I7's come out.

You added boundary conditions to your statement which I did not, and naturally having selected those boundary conditions your argument is correct. So to is mine if you read it. (OC'ed i7 versus stock skulltrail ala mac pro)

Had the OP said he wanted to know if an OC'ed i7 would trump an OC'ed skulltrail then my post would have certainly contained different words. This is clear now, yes?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I am going to have to agree that 8 core Penryn would be superior to 4 core Nehalem + 4HT threads.

At what clockspeed for each system?

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I am going to have to agree that 8 core Penryn would be superior to 4 core Nehalem + 4HT threads.

At what clockspeed for each system?

Shouldn't matter too much. A Core i7 is not 2x as fast as a Core 2 Quad. Running two of pretty much any Yorkfield based processor out there should offer better performance than a single i7 assuming the application can fully use 8 threads. 8 real cores is better than 4 marginally better cores plus 4 virtual ones.

 

[cessation]

Originally posted by: Seggybop
I want 8-core because my primary purpose is 3D rendering and it's very optimized for multithreading. I'd like it if my system was able to beat or at least equal the 8 core * 3ghz Mac Pro workstations I use at school that are crippled by poor configuration, and it seems that overclocked i7 should be able to do that.

You could just buy a dual socket server motherboard and put in a couple quad cores. You could even buy a quad socket motherboard with four quad core CPUs. If the cost doesn't matter I think Intel just released 6 core xeon CPUs not that long ago, I'm not sure if you can actually buy them or if it's pre-order but they are very expensive.

http://www.intel.com/products/...+body_xeon7400subtitle

only $4,319 (plus shipping)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I am going to have to agree that 8 core Penryn would be superior to 4 core Nehalem + 4HT threads.

At what clockspeed for each system?

Shouldn't matter too much. A Core i7 is not 2x as fast as a Core 2 Quad. Running two of pretty much any Yorkfield based processor out there should offer better performance than a single i7 assuming the application can fully use 8 threads. 8 real cores is better than 4 marginally better cores plus 4 virtual ones.

You guys are missing the point I was making in my post wherein I stipulated the comparison is being made between dual-quad yorkfield running at stock versus a single 4-core/8-thread nehalem running at the appropriate overclock.

The reason I made this stipulation is that the OP is comparing the performance prospects of an overclocked i7 to that of a stock clockspeed dual-socket mac pro (at 3GHz no less, not even the 3.2GHz model).

You guys read these parts of the thread, yes?

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Seggybop
I want 8-core because my primary purpose is 3D rendering and it's very optimized for multithreading. I'd like it if my system was able to beat or at least equal the 8 core * 3ghz Mac Pro workstations I use at school that are crippled by poor configuration, and it seems that overclocked i7 should be able to do that.

:thumbsup: An overclocked i7 (with 8 threads) will most definitely trump a skulltrail-type dual-socket yorkfield system that is running at stock provided you get the i7 clockspeeds up high enough.

( undeniably true statement)

Read again what the OP is wanting to compare performance to, and read what I said.

This has become one of those threads where two guys are talking about 2+2=4 and then another two random dudes walk in and yell "bullshit, 3+3 = 6 you idiots". Also correct math, but hardly relevant to the conversation at hand.