Nehalem coming soon .

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Good grief. One-tenth of one percent will effectively use 12 GB. (Rough guess.) I'm sure I never come close to pushing my 8 GB setup, I just did it cause it was cheap... Also, my guess is that this launch will be minimum 4 cores, with 8 cores being a primary push. The software jocks are buried, we don't even use what we have now for any mainstream stuff. If I'm right, it's as though you'd be building an enterprise server as your main home desktop. Vista? XP? Forget it. What's the point? Windows 2008 Server? Fedora Core 9? Probably...

It looks like their new architecture kicks, so I'll be looking to possibly do a new build in a year or two. But I'm beginning to wonder jsut how successful this launch is going to be. Talk about overkill! Yeah, it'd be the biggest e-penis on the block for months, but Intel seems to typically release their high-end parts first and to target the enterprise/server markets initially with this type of release, as I'm sure everybody knows. I know for sure I won't get one. There's no need, what I have is MORE than good enough. Not that there's anything wrong with doing so if you've got the scratch...

I'm guessing the percentage of desktop consumers who would need 12GB is probably about the same as the percentage of desktop consumers who would need 8 threads on Nehalem running at 3.2Ghz or faster.

Same percentage with tri-SLI...

Yeah, the video cards seem to be the one segment that seems to be stubbornly price-insensitive. It is funny though, we're all mentioning how expensive DDR3 still is, but it IS already starting to drop. In a few years or so my guess is the stuff we'll have on our desk will put our current hot rods to shame and be stunningly cheaper, at least per MIP. Hopefully SSDs will continue to drop and will get design refinements that eliminate the large-transfer bottlenecks they still have.

The killer app hasn't yet come along that would enable masses of people to really take advantage of all that power, though. We all have stuff now that is as powerful as the entire Houston Space Center in the early 70's, yet we spend entire CPU cores doing nothing...

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Yeah, the video cards seem to be the one segment that seems to be stubbornly price-insensitive. It is funny though, we're all mentioning how expensive DDR3 still is, but it IS already starting to drop. In a few years or so my guess is the stuff we'll have on our desk will put our current hot rods to shame and be stunningly cheaper, at least per MIP. Hopefully SSDs will continue to drop and will get design refinements that eliminate the large-transfer bottlenecks they still have.

The killer app hasn't yet come along that would enable masses of people to really take advantage of all that power, though. We all have stuff now that is as powerful as the entire Houston Space Center in the early 70's, yet we spend entire CPU cores doing nothing...

My question is, games that are optimized for multiple cores (let's say 4 cores like Supreme Commander), would they use the 8 virtual cores that Nehalem provides? Does scaling with multiple cores means no ceiling to a max number of cores (just keep using cores as they become available?) I know way before this point we are GPU limited, but still... I would like to find out if you can keep feeding cores to these type of games.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Yeah, the video cards seem to be the one segment that seems to be stubbornly price-insensitive. It is funny though, we're all mentioning how expensive DDR3 still is, but it IS already starting to drop. In a few years or so my guess is the stuff we'll have on our desk will put our current hot rods to shame and be stunningly cheaper, at least per MIP. Hopefully SSDs will continue to drop and will get design refinements that eliminate the large-transfer bottlenecks they still have.

The killer app hasn't yet come along that would enable masses of people to really take advantage of all that power, though. We all have stuff now that is as powerful as the entire Houston Space Center in the early 70's, yet we spend entire CPU cores doing nothing...

My question is, games that are optimized for multiple cores (let's say 4 cores like Supreme Commander), would they use the 8 virtual cores that Nehalem provides? Does scaling with multiple cores means no ceiling to a max number of cores (just keep using cores as they become available?) I know way before this point we are GPU limited, but still... I would like to find out if you can keep feeding cores to these type of games.

it is POSSIBLE to write an infinate core program... but difficult, most provide specific core amount scaling which is much cheaper and easier to program. Which means that the vast majority of programs right now are limited to 2 or 4 cores. Nehalem however has only 4 cores. HT means that it shows up as 8 and reduces the overhead of multi tasking. So 4 core capable programs will still get 100% of the 4 cores, and background tasks will take a little less overhead due to HT. it does NOT however have 8 cores, that is just crazy hype.

Video encoding, picture encoding, audio encoding, and any distributed computing application can fairly easily scale 100% on an infinate amount of cores. Everything else is much more difficult (if even possible).

Video game graphics and physics should scale infinately, the GPU is basically a massivly multi core processor, with AMD now having 800 SP + other processors and nvidia 320SP and others... But those are specialized and have a driver layer. And the scaling is hardware based, there is hardware in the GPU that splits the load between the various processing units. Software based load splitting like in multi GPU solutions are grossly inefficient in comparison. Writing a game engine that does that on a CPU is as difficult as writing a new set of video card drivers from scrath, for multi-GPU, and makes no sense since the CPU provides so little FLOPS

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
The killer app hasn't yet come along that would enable masses of people to really take advantage of all that power, though. We all have stuff now that is as powerful as the entire Houston Space Center in the early 70's, yet we spend entire CPU cores doing nothing...

Not me. Every spare MIP goes towards DC crunching. It's the only way to fly, when you have systems as powerful as we have today.

 

[taltamir]

why would someone program an app that no computer in the world can run?
Someone actually tried recently.. it was called CRYSIS.. it was a failure because nobody would buy something that CAN NOT RUN on their computer.

Making faster hardware has come before making software that takes advantage of it.

 

[amenx]

Re dual channel vs tri-channel, I thought that the latter would be for the server boards and the dual ch for the desktop Nehalems.

 

[Cheex]

Am I to take all this to mean that Nehalem along with the new chipset and the new socket....none of these will use DDR2???

Is it a case where, if you want Nehalem, you have to take DDR3 as well??

Isn't that just awful?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Cheex


Is it a case where, if you want Nehalem, you have to take DDR3 as well??

Isn't that just awful?

Not really, because noone will force you to go Nehalem. You can build a great rig using Core 2 architecture, that will last for years. Nehalem, at least at first, is going to be basically a status symbol. Hell, programmers cant even figure out a way to use DX10, all 4GB of RAM, and the 4 cores I have in my system now.....what makes you think you will NEED a Nehalem? The hardware is so far ahead of the software right now, it makes my head hurt.

 

[taltamir]

Yes you will have to use DDR3, and at least at first X58 chipset boards which will most likely cost over 300$ each... at best over 200$ each board. and the cheapest nehalem at first would be a 300$ 2.66ghz quad core processor.
then again, it is not too bad. DDR3 has been out for a while, and with nehalem being DDR3 only it will probably get enough people buying them to adopt it and the price will go down... older standards have to go sometimes. overall it will be a good transition methinks.

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Not really, because noone will force you to go Nehalem. You can build a great rig using Core 2 architecture, that will last for years. Nehalem, at least at first, is going to be basically a status symbol. Hell, programmers cant even figure out a way to use DX10, all 4GB of RAM, and the 4 cores I have in my system now.....what makes you think you will NEED a Nehalem? The hardware is so far ahead of the software right now, it makes my head hurt.

Its true you can stick with C2 architecture. But I don't agree with unable to use those things you said... 4GB of ram has been needed since company of heroes came out. DX10 is used for great amazing visual effects in many games, like bioshock, and all manners of software and even games use 4 cores.
The first nehalem will be quad core, so it will be much faster for all programs that support quad core right now.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Yes you will have to use DDR3, and at least at first X58 chipset boards which will most likely cost over 300$ each... at best over 200$ each board. and the cheapest nehalem at first would be a 300$ 2.66ghz quad core processor.
then again, it is not too bad. DDR3 has been out for a while, and with nehalem being DDR3 only it will probably get enough people buying them to adopt it and the price will go down... older standards have to go sometimes. overall it will be a good transition methinks.

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Not really, because noone will force you to go Nehalem. You can build a great rig using Core 2 architecture, that will last for years. Nehalem, at least at first, is going to be basically a status symbol. Hell, programmers cant even figure out a way to use DX10, all 4GB of RAM, and the 4 cores I have in my system now.....what makes you think you will NEED a Nehalem? The hardware is so far ahead of the software right now, it makes my head hurt.

Its true you can stick with C2 architecture. But I don't agree with unable to use those things you said... 4GB of ram has been needed since company of heroes came out. DX10 is used for great amazing visual effects in many games, like bioshock, and all manners of software and even games use 4 cores.The first nehalem will be quad core, so it will be much faster for all programs that support quad core right now.

Please post a screen shot of COH using 4+ GB of RAM, and taxing 4 cores.

I play COH regularly, and it ran perfectly fine with 2GB of RAM and a E8400.


Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesnt software have to be specifically designed to be multi-threaded to use multiple cores? I could be seriously way off on this, Ive done a number on this bottle of Patron tonight.

 

[taltamir]

i said programs are using those, not the SAME program.
CoH only uses two cores AFAIK, and with patch 1.71 at max everything @ 1920x1200 required more then 2GB of total system memory it it ran out and frame rates tanked. going to 4GB restored performance. CoH v2+ seems to have lowered the ram requirements.
Please post a screen shot of it NOT requiring that much.

4 cores are not used by COH, they are used by UE3 (UT3, Mass effect, etc), video rendering, audio rendering, distributed computing, photo editing, supreme commander, flight sim X, and supposedly crysis, although benchmarks actually showed crysis (v1) doing better with a faster dualie.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Not really, because noone will force you to go Nehalem. You can build a great rig using Core 2 architecture, that will last for years. Nehalem, at least at first, is going to be basically a status symbol. Hell, programmers cant even figure out a way to use DX10, all 4GB of RAM, and the 4 cores I have in my system now.....what makes you think you will NEED a Nehalem? The hardware is so far ahead of the software right now, it makes my head hurt.

I'm lightly pushing for my company to hold off buying computers until Nehalem comes out. CPU power and memory bottlenecks have been nothing but problems at my job. Unfortunately our software doesn't support Vista 64, so 3.5GB is all we get.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Hmmm, this timing coincides with Apple's projected "product transition" that is supposed to decrease their margins.

Intel is just bang'en these years post-prescott. Otellini deserves whatever compensation package he's getting.

if hector made more than otellini last year then adam smith will turn over in his grave...

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: GundamF91
Is Intel getting rid of that bastard push-pin HSF scheme?

since this wont affect NDA.

NO. Pushpins are still in BOO!!

Example: This is not the stock sink, but you guys get the idea.

http://images.vnu.net/gb/inqui...nehalemmetarammobo.jpg

:thumbsdown:

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Sounds pretty good. Now if only the storage industry can get a move on and remove the HDD bottlenecks. SSD drives are pretty kewl, but I hope we don't have to deal with hard disk drives much longer. All this power, enormous amounts of RAM and multi-core processors could be so much more without this bottleneck.

I heard that the 4 core (8 logical) Nehalem would debut at 312.00. And DDR3 is still wayyy too pricey.
I probably won't be upgrading anytime soon. I'll have to wait till DDR3 comes down to earth.

just checked out newegg...2x1 gb ddr3 1333 is $75 ar right now, the same price that I paid 8 mos ago for ddr2 1066.

 

[taltamir]

actually i think push pins make a lot of sense. Old motherboards are nearly worthless while a CPU still holds value (Especially if paired with a newer mobo), and typically a CPU will cost much more then the motherboard, at least twice and possibly many times more. CPUs are also extremely easy to resell and transport compared to motherboards.
So I would much rather break my motherboard then break a CPU.

@Chaotic42: yea it is a good idea to push to wait.

 

[bharatwaja]

6 sticks of 2GB DDR3-1600 is quite out of reach for most people.... even DDR3-1333 for that matter....

 

[taltamir]

but they don't need to buy 6 sticks, they can run it with 1. They MAY use UP TO 6 sticks... instead of may us up to 4

 

[bharatwaja]

Originally posted by: taltamir
but they don't need to buy 6 sticks, they can run it with 1. They MAY use UP TO 6 sticks... instead of may us up to 4

ya, what i should have said is, even for some enthusiasts, 6 sticks of 2GB DDR3-1600 RAM would be out of reach... (jus sounds crazy at a point...)

I put so much ram in my PC jus cause i could, because the price point was tenable with ddr2.... ddr3 is just not there yet....

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
actually i think push pins make a lot of sense. Old motherboards are nearly worthless while a CPU still holds value (Especially if paired with a newer mobo), and typically a CPU will cost much more then the motherboard, at least twice and possibly many times more. CPUs are also extremely easy to resell and transport compared to motherboards.
So I would much rather break my motherboard then break a CPU.

Not trying to be disagreeable here but I don't make the connection between push-pin HSF's and breaking either your mobo or your CPU.

Is this a problem for some people? How on earth do you break a CPU or a mobo with either a puch-pin HSF or a bolt-thru?

I am just not getting a picture in my mind of how one goes about accomplishing that.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
actually i think push pins make a lot of sense. Old motherboards are nearly worthless while a CPU still holds value (Especially if paired with a newer mobo), and typically a CPU will cost much more then the motherboard, at least twice and possibly many times more. CPUs are also extremely easy to resell and transport compared to motherboards.
So I would much rather break my motherboard then break a CPU.

Not trying to be disagreeable here but I don't make the connection between push-pin HSF's and breaking either your mobo or your CPU.

Is this a problem for some people? How on earth do you break a CPU or a mobo with either a puch-pin HSF or a bolt-thru?

I am just not getting a picture in my mind of how one goes about accomplishing that.

If the pins are on the cpu and you bend on, it's dead, Jim.

If the pins are on the mobo and you bend one, it's dead, Jim.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dug777
If the pins are on the cpu and you bend on, it's dead, Jim.

If the pins are on the mobo and you bend one, it's dead, Jim.

You do know what push-pins are, don't you?

They are on the HSF, not the CPU or the mobo...

But I can't argue with your logic though If for some reason Intel decides to put the HSF push-pins on the CPU or the mobo and you bend them then you certainly will end up ruining your CPU or mobo...but that'd be one weird CPU or mobo to have the HSF push-pins on it

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
If the pins are on the cpu and you bend on, it's dead, Jim.

If the pins are on the mobo and you bend one, it's dead, Jim.

You do know what push-pins are, don't you?

They are on the HSF, not the CPU or the mobo...

But I can't argue with your logic though If for some reason Intel decides to put the HSF push-pins on the CPU or the mobo and you bend them then you certainly will end up ruining your CPU or mobo...but that'd be one weird CPU or mobo to have the HSF push-pins on it

I got the impression he was referring to the habit of either putting the pins on the cpu or in the socket, rather than these mysterious push pins you refer to.

That makes sense in the context of his comment here: "CPUs are also extremely easy to resell and transport compared to motherboards.So I would much rather break my motherboard then break a CPU."

You got me in one tho, I have not an idea what a push pin is

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
12GB of ram? Why on earth would anyone want 12GB of RAM?

That should go in someone's sig, eventually I can see it being really really funny!

But I'll bet the "six memory slots, all populated" means there will be two pairs of tri-channel slots and they were all always filled because the testers could fill them.

If it actually comes down to needing to fill six slots just get 6x512MB if running XP or 6x1GB if running Vista64.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Extelleron


X58 boards are not going to cost $300-400. I don't know exactly how much they will retail for but I doubt they will sell for much more than X38/X48 motherboards. I suspect you will see most boards in the $200-250 range, with the best versions selling for $300. The only real reason to expect prices to be higher is the addition of the nF200 chip for SLI compatability.

12GB of ram? Why on earth would anyone want 12GB of RAM?

I'd say 3GB of DDR3 will be the way to go with the tri-channel interface.

heh...

i dont know the prices on boards. I was basing them off enterprise counterparts.

As for the ram, I thought you need to populate all 6 slots i thought for trichannel to work no? To be honest, there isnt a beta board out there where the DDR3 feature is working. I heard Foxconn was very close. But i havent heard after that.

6GB is doable, however there isnt that big of a break out point between 6 and 12 if your looking at DDR3 as long as you chose a more conservative company.

I don't see any reason why more than 3 slots need to be populated. With dual-channel now all you need is two slots to be filled with memory and with tri-channel you should need three filled.

It would be seem to be that 6GB or 12GB would be overkill unless you are doing something out of the ordinary with your system. With 4GB now I have more than enough memory and I didn't feel I was being held back with 2GB of memory when I had that either. 3GB would be probably be enough for most people.

It isn't exactly hard to breach 3GB in Vista x64 (provided you have enough ram to begin with) thanks to superfetch. That being said, 4.5GB (3 x 1GB + 3 x 512MB) would be the absolute bare minimum I'd run on a tri channel Nehalem. However considering tri channel Nehalem isn't a platform anyone should be skimping on to try and save money, 6GB would be a more realistic minimum, and I personally wouldn't want to settle for less than 9GB.

In vista64 right now i have 6.9GB cached with superfetch on an 8GB rig.

Superfetch will eat all you throw at it as long as you have enough frequently loaded programs.