Nehalem Benches by Pcworld

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: aigomorla
dude...

the guys at intel are not happy with leaks.

So i ask you guys please be patient and stop posting leaks until the final launch.

This has been discussed before, by Virge in the Video Cards forum. My understanding (and you can ask him for clarification), is that the rest of us, who have signed no NDAs (unlike you, the Intel guys, AT staff, etc), are under no obligations not to post or discuss information and leaks that are freely available on the web.

Quote from Virge, from that thread I linked:

As for what you may talk about, Keys is not a video mod, so while he's always of great help his word is technically not law here (he's just a member, like anyone else). You guys are allowed to discuss anything related to the video business as long as it's done in a respectful and constructive way. If it doesn't meet that criteria, then we'll close it down.

Why would I care if Intel is pissed off?

EDIT: Actually, in this case, I think Mark might be the moderator for this forum, so his word is probably law here.

As far as I know, these processors are 4 core each with HT

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

EDIT: Actually, in this case, I think Mark might be the moderator for this forum, so his word is probably law here.

Yes, but I am governed by AT's rules, and while I would like to help aigo out, I can't do much unless people get out of hand.

Agreed. There is really nothing that can be done. We can't censor members from talking about publicly leaked info. We can only enforce AT TOS and guidelines.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: lyssword

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: aigomorla
dude...

the guys at intel are not happy with leaks.

So i ask you guys please be patient and stop posting leaks until the final launch.

This has been discussed before, by Virge in the Video Cards forum. My understanding (and you can ask him for clarification), is that the rest of us, who have signed no NDAs (unlike you, the Intel guys, AT staff, etc), are under no obligations not to post or discuss information and leaks that are freely available on the web.

Quote from Virge, from that thread I linked:

As for what you may talk about, Keys is not a video mod, so while he's always of great help his word is technically not law here (he's just a member, like anyone else). You guys are allowed to discuss anything related to the video business as long as it's done in a respectful and constructive way. If it doesn't meet that criteria, then we'll close it down.

Why would I care if Intel is pissed off?

EDIT: Actually, in this case, I think Mark might be the moderator for this forum, so his word is probably law here.

As far as I know, these processors are 4 core each with HT

The picture on the cover of that mag, could just be the embellishment of an "8" core CPU.
4 actual cores acting like 8 via the new method of HT. I don't think each of those rectangles were meant to represent quad core CPU's. They just took die shots and used them. "Artistic License". Maybe.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: lyssword

Originally posted by: AmberClad

As far as I know, these processors are 4 core each with HT

The picture on the cover of that mag, could just be the embellishment of an "8" core CPU.
4 actual cores acting like 8 via the new method of HT. I don't think each of those rectangles were meant to represent quad core CPU's. They just took die shots and used them. "Artistic License". Maybe.

Based on the comments of the Intel guys here and reviewing pictures of Nehalem die shots, I think I miscounted the # of dies in that embellished picture.

If this is the die shot of the Nehalem quad core, then it really is 16 physical cores depicted in the picture , isn't it?

I don't know if it's artistic license...or if the artist didn't realize that the die shot pictures of Nehalem showed all four cores, not just one.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: lyssword

Originally posted by: AmberClad

As far as I know, these processors are 4 core each with HT

The picture on the cover of that mag, could just be the embellishment of an "8" core CPU.
4 actual cores acting like 8 via the new method of HT. I don't think each of those rectangles were meant to represent quad core CPU's. They just took die shots and used them. "Artistic License". Maybe.

Based on the comments of the Intel guys here and reviewing pictures of Nehalem die shots, I think I miscounted the # of dies in that embellished picture.

If this is the die shot of the Nehalem quad core, then it really is 16 physical cores depicted in the picture , isn't it?

I don't know if it's artistic license...or if the artist didn't realize that the die shot pictures of Nehalem showed all four cores, not just one.

Nehalem is monolithic first of all. The PC World cover looks like the artist used 8 Core 2 Duo or 4 Core 2 Quad die pics and put them together.

Here, look at a C2D die shot and compare them to the PC World cover:

C2D die shot

PC World Cover

Notice any similarities? Thats why I said, artistic license. A symbol of 8 cores. Not the actual core.

Here is your Nehalem core shot from Hexus:

Nehalem

So it "should" look like this: (scale is off of course).

MS Paint Nehalem

 

[AmberClad]

Hmm, looking closely, it does looks more like the die shot of Core 2 than it does of Nehalem (those four little squares in the middle of the top half of the Core 2 die). Which makes it all the more ridiculous.

I wonder how much of a die shrink they'd have to do to get the cores to the size they're shown in the picture.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Hmm, looking closely, it does looks more like the die shot of Core 2 than it does of Nehalem (those four little squares in the middle of the top half of the Core 2 die). Which makes it all the more ridiculous.

I wonder how much of a die shrink they'd have to do to get the cores to the size they're shown in the picture.

Uh huh. And here is how it should look (not to scale)

MS Paint Nehalem

 

[AmberClad]

I wonder what the real scale should be, because seeing your Photochop makes me concerned about two dies on the sides, especially if you're using a LGA775 heatsink with a smaller footprint. My current method of putting a tiny drop of TIM right in the center isn't going to fly in that case.

Actually, I found a (I assume) to scale picture of Kentsfield under the IHS.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I wonder what the real scale should be, because seeing your Photochop makes me concerned about two dies on the sides, especially if you're using a LGA775 heatsink with a smaller footprint. My current method of putting a tiny drop of TIM right in the center isn't going to fly in that case.

Actually, I found a (I assume) to scale picture of Kentsfield under the IHS.

Yeah, but keep in mind, my photochop is probably no where near the size it's actually going to be. And besides, looking at the Kentsfield shot you provided, those cores seemed close to the edge of the heat spreader, but they really didn't have any cooling problems. I have a Q6600 with stock heatsink running 3.0GHz full time. Never got over 67C as far as I can remember. And that was under two instances of Orthos. I wouldn't worry about it. The monolithic die may even provide a more even heat dissipation over two separate cores. Who knows.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
So triple channel does nothing over dual-channel, except increase the latency? That seems to be what the numbers show.

Numbers have got to be bogus for the dual vs. triple channel bandwidth. Not surprising, it is PC World after all.

 

[waffleironhead]

The simple solution would be for aigomorla to stop posting. Since he is the only one that may be in violation of a nda, its him that intel would have issue with.

 

[AdamK47]

I'm still waiting for the important benchmarks, actual games. None of the meaningless 3DMark fluff.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: AdamK47
I'm still waiting for the important benchmarks, actual games. None of the meaningless 3DMark fluff.

+1

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
So triple channel does nothing over dual-channel, except increase the latency? That seems to be what the numbers show.

Numbers have got to be bogus for the dual vs. triple channel bandwidth. Not surprising, it is PC World after all.

Other leaked tests have shown something simular. Maybe the bottleneck is on the chip.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: AdamK47
I'm still waiting for the important benchmarks, actual games. None of the meaningless 3DMark fluff.

+1

How many games are actually CPU bottlenecked at the resolutions that most of us play at? Aren't games a better comparison for GPUs?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
So triple channel does nothing over dual-channel, except increase the latency? That seems to be what the numbers show.

Numbers have got to be bogus for the dual vs. triple channel bandwidth. Not surprising, it is PC World after all.

Well, when this came up before, someone pointed out that there was a glitch (BIOS? Hardware? I dunno), and that for some reason, triple-channel wasn't any faster than dual-channel. So either they tested a bugged system, or if they tested released chips/mobos, then they never fixed that "glitch".

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
How many games are actually CPU bottlenecked at the resolutions that most of us play at? Aren't games a better comparison for GPUs?

It not only depends on the game, it also depends on the resolution you're running, and the video card you own. For instance, a 4870X2 is CPU-bound @ 2560x1600, even with a >4Ghz C2D, in almost all games (assuming you aren't also trying to max out AA). For other cards, it will depend on the resolution and the card.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Well, when this came up before, someone pointed out that there was a glitch (BIOS? Hardware? I dunno), and that for some reason, triple-channel wasn't any faster than dual-channel. So either they tested a bugged system, or if they tested released chips/mobos, then they never fixed that "glitch".

I honestly don't think there are any glitches. I believe that two channels of DDR3 is all that a Nehalem needs, at least on the desktop. I bet it will be killer with some of the server apps, though.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
How many games are actually CPU bottlenecked at the resolutions that most of us play at? Aren't games a better comparison for GPUs?

It not only depends on the game, it also depends on the resolution you're running, and the video card you own. For instance, a 4870X2 is CPU-bound @ 2560x1600, even with a >4Ghz C2D, in almost all games (assuming you aren't also trying to max out AA). For other cards, it will depend on the resolution and the card.

dont even need a 30 inch to bog you down.
I have that hardware and sometimes even 24 gets bogged down.

Original crysis for example.