Nehalem i7 965 @ 3.2GHz vs. Yorkfield Q9550 @ 3.2GHz

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill be sitting on my hands for 6 cores and 32nm.

You be waiting a long time then as Nehalem is going to be 4 or 8 cores(with HT that gives "8" or "16" cores).
You are confusing the 6 core"Dunnington"(Core2Duo tech) with Nehalem...but that is a server chip.

And I don't see a 6 core I7, even with a dieshrink (the tock) to 32 nm of the Nehalem core?

Westmere, the 32nm shrink of Nehalem, is currently expected to debut as a 6-core 12-thread processor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmere_(CPU)#Successor

This is the one I will be waiting for

This I would have to agree.:thumbsup:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Sounds like ya want one bad. If I may. For max e-penis effect I would hold off. This thing is going to be a limp dick fast, Buy the the Nemesis M/B . You will get max e-penis effect and tremendious stanama.

Anyone need a sig quote?

 

[Tempered81]

haha tremendious stanama!

 

[Atechie]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Idontcare
You want an atta-boy for Prescott? Or is there some other announced product that Intel is willing to comment on that has come from team Oregon recently?



Kidding. Looks like you guys did a bang-up job with Nehalem. Not bad, not bad indeed.

edit: hey I just saw where Microsoft dropped the other shoe on this whole "Bloomfield = i7" marketing thing. Introducing Windows 7.

So AMD does Athlon XP to go with Windows XP and Intel does i7 to go with Windows 7. Classy. Year-end bonuses for the marketing team for sure this year.

While I never worked on Prescott, on the academic side of things, Prescott was full of impossible circuit problems made possible by the Oregon design team. Unfortunately, customers don't care about circuits and the bottom line performance/power wasn't so great.

I suppose if we really wanted to speak to the bottom line, Prescott enabled Intel to still make billions in profits. So just how dastardly of a product could it have been?

No doubt Intel would have preferred to have made many more billions during the same timeframe, but nonetheless Prescott hardly put the hurt on Intel as Phenom/65nm has put the hurt on AMD.

Hey I just saw the toms article where they help us enthousiasts understand how you guys took all those AMD architectures and rebranded them as Nehalem.

Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD? : Introduction

Way to go copycats I always suspected circuit design (and implementation) was no more complicated than photocopying a page out of a journal in the local library. Now thanks to tomshardware my suspicions have been proven correct.

Not only are you way off base, but are you saying that the "copycats" did a WAY better job?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I suppose if we really wanted to speak to the bottom line, Prescott enabled Intel to still make billions in profits. So just how dastardly of a product could it have been?

No doubt Intel would have preferred to have made many more billions during the same timeframe, but nonetheless Prescott hardly put the hurt on Intel as Phenom/65nm has put the hurt on AMD.

Hey I just saw the toms article where they help us enthousiasts understand how you guys took all those AMD architectures and rebranded them as Nehalem.

Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD? : Introduction

Way to go copycats I always suspected circuit design (and implementation) was no more complicated than photocopying a page out of a journal in the local library. Now thanks to tomshardware my suspicions have been proven correct.

Not only are you way off base, but are you saying that the "copycats" did a WAY better job?

You thread-necro'ed this just to harass me over some VERY obvious sarcastic comments I made in jest over 8 months ago? (you do know what the emoticons are for...don't you?)

Also, you may have forgotten it by now but you actually quoted and responded to this exact same post once before already:

Originally posted by: Atechie

Originally posted by: Idontcare

I suppose if we really wanted to speak to the bottom line, Prescott enabled Intel to still make billions in profits. So just how dastardly of a product could it have been?

No doubt Intel would have preferred to have made many more billions during the same timeframe, but nonetheless Prescott hardly put the hurt on Intel as Phenom/65nm has put the hurt on AMD.

Hey I just saw the toms article where they help us enthousiasts understand how you guys took all those AMD architectures and rebranded them as Nehalem.

Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD? : Introduction

Way to go copycats I always suspected circuit design (and implementation) was no more complicated than photocopying a page out of a journal in the local library. Now thanks to tomshardware my suspicions have been proven correct.

Ignorance is bliss eh?
The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

CSI is more than the onboard memory controller...and Tom's is for n00bs.

But since you bring it up, how about you take it the next step and spell it out for me real clear like as to how it is that I am "way off base" here. Take your time, another 8 months if you need to.