Want to know more about Nehalem.

[Nemesis 1]

I see a lot of things written about Nehalem. Some is hard to believe some isn't .

Here's a link to Intel . View the Videos about half way down the page. No performance mumble jumble. Just facts:

http://www.intel.com/technolog...arch+body_45nm_nehalem

PS click on the Quick path video when it appears. Good stuff for the geek in ya!

 

[Foxery]

Mmmm, delicious marketing goodness.

The "Loop Detection" feature sounds interesting, and I hadn't noticed that before. Marked for later when I can play the audio.

 

[ibex333]

Thank you OP, for starting this topic. I actually wanted to start one myself, but thought it was too early do do so. Since one is already here, I hope you don't mind if I jump in...

Well here are my thoughts from my perspective.. (please critique, comment, flame, but keep in mind that I dont have in depth knowledge of CPUs)

1)1 through 8 (or more) cores.

As a gamer, I couldn't care less. Many games have yet to even start taking advantage of two cores, and only a select few utilize 4 cores. I cant see how that is going to change any time soon. This is exacly what I said about quad core processors a year ago - people called me a fool, and told me that in a year my dual core CPU will be obsolete because many games and programs will be using quad core CPUs. They were wrong, I was right. My CPU is still very much alive and kicking, able to take any game I throw at it and then some. I am almost certain that even by the end of 2008 everything will remain pretty much the same despite the influx of multi core CPUs.

2)Integrated memory controllers supporting DDR3 SDRAM and between 1 and 4 memory channels.

I cant see how DDR3 RAM will get anywhere near becoming mainstream earlier than the end of 2009 or so... Besides it has drawbacks, and it still very expencive.

3)Manufactured using the same 45 nm manufacturing process as its predecessor, Penryn.

Couldn't care less. Heat is not an issue for me, neither is power consumption. All my temps are within normal ranges, and my electricity bills are never very high.
I rather use cheaper CPUs that generate more heat and eat up more power than expencive CPUs that do the opposite.

4)Some variants will have an integrated graphics processor (IGP) located off-die, but in the same CPU package.

Now this is very interesting... But I think the key word here is SOME variants. We have yet to see how much these variants will cost and when they will become available. On top of that, there's no way of knowing yet when this technology will be taken advantage of by various software - if ever.

5)HyperThreading, which has not been present on a consumer Intel processor since 2006 with the Pentium 4 and Pentium EE

It was mostly useless back then, and I have yet to see any proof of it being useful in the future.

6)Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have:

* 1.1x to 1.25x the single-threaded performance or 1.2x to 2x the multithreaded performance at the same power level.


Heh.. I'd like to see that....




So far, I am not very impressed at all, but this may change if I am proven wrong about what I said above

 

[Munky]

I've read a bunch of technical articles on Nehalem, a good one is at http://www.realworldtech.com/p...icleID=RWT040208182719. The IMC is what interests me the most, because some apps stand to gain a lot of performance from that feature alone. Nehalem will also incorporate some core enhancements that would further increase performance/clock over the Core2 architecture. Additionally, Intel has had great success with their high-K 45nm process, in terms of keeping the TDP and power consumption down, as well as having high overclocking headroom, so it's reasonable to expect the same characteristics from Nehalem. Personally, I have high expectations from Intel's new architecture, and I'm putting off system upgrades until I jump to a Nehalem platform.

 

[formulav8]

I'm not sure why so many people are expecting near P4 to Core2 performance with the new core.

One of the biggest additions is the IMC. If AMD only claimed a 15% performance increase from integrating the memory controller on Barton whose cpus had small caches, why would people expect a cpu with very large caches to get more than that? Especially on a desktop cpu? This cpu is more designed it appears for the server like AMDs current barcy cores. There is no use for that much memory bandwith in a typical computer. The cpu should be a server beast. Maybe gaming will get some decent increases at a resolution no one will ever play. Nearly any modern cpu will give more than enough frames for any game if the video card is decent anyways.

The core change is necessary but I personally do not expect the increases alot of people are apparently thinking is going to accur. I would be surprised if the new core is on average 15-20% faster than the current core2. I could obviously be wrong.

Just my humble opinion of course. I guess we will find out in 7 or so months. Maybe sooner for pre-reviews.


Jason

 

[bryanW1995]

6)Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have:

* 1.1x to 1.25x the single-threaded performance or 1.2x to 2x the multithreaded performance at the same power level.

that's pretty scary to mean from a DC perspective. I'm most concerned about actual work performed, and "1.2x" seems a lot more likely to me than "2x" on a dc project. If I can't clock a nehalem over 3.5 or so then that would be not much performance increase for a (probably) large investment.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: formulav8
I'm not sure why so many people are expecting near P4 to Core2 performance with the new core.

One of the biggest additions is the IMC. If AMD only claimed a 15% performance increase from integrating the memory controller on Barton whose cpus had small caches, why would people expect a cpu with very large caches to get more than that? Especially on a desktop cpu? This cpu is more designed it appears for the server like AMDs current barcy cores. There is no use for that much memory bandwith in a typical computer. The cpu should be a server beast. Maybe gaming will get some decent increases at a resolution no one will ever play. Nearly any modern cpu will give more than enough frames for any game if the video card is decent anyways.

The core change is necessary but I personally do not expect the increases alot of people are apparently thinking is going to accur. I would be surprised if the new core is on average 15-20% faster than the current core2. I could obviously be wrong.

Just my humble opinion of course. I guess we will find out in 7 or so months. Maybe sooner for pre-reviews.


Jason

I would expect at least a 15% improvement per clock in performance. We're not talking about a K7 Barton, but a quad-core, 8-thread cpu, with each core being 4-issue wide. I suspect the IMC will offer a significant boost in throughput-heavy scenarios, where all 4 cores are loaded. That may not make much difference for the average user, or even gamer, but in multimedia applications it will probably offer a noticeable improvement.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: ibex333
Couldn't care less.

How foolish of Intel to ignore your personal needs in their quest to turn a profit on an entire family of products which will appeal to a broad range of market types. :roll: Technology moves forward; you are more than welcome to stand still.

Responses to your bullet list:
1) Future software will be multithreaded. It takes *years* to write complex games. Your old programs don't magically update themselves.
2) We won't use DDR2 forever. DDR3 prices will follow classic Supply & Demand.
3) Corporate customers sure care about heat and electricity. Reducing both is also necessary simply to ramp up the CPU speed.
4) It's an IGP. Software doesn't care where it's physically located. IGPs are ignored if you buy your own video card, so this doesn't even apply to you.
5) The P4's Hyperthreading didn't work very well. Nehalem's is supposed to be better. Also refer to point #1 about newer, multithreaded software.
6) It's a new architecture. You doubt that it will be faster than the previous one?? ...

There's a little more going on here than new car models, who slap on larger tires, a CD changer that holds more CDs, a different paint color, and call it "The All-New 2009!"

 

[bryanW1995]

There's a little more going on here than new car models, who slap on larger tires, a CD changer that holds more CDs, a different paint color, and call it "The All-New 2009!"

hey!! new cars have bluetooth also!!

I would expect at least a 15% improvement per clock in performance. We're not talking about a K7 Barton, but a quad-core, 8-thread cpu, with each core being 4-issue wide. I suspect the IMC will offer a significant boost in throughput-heavy scenarios, where all 4 cores are loaded. That may not make much difference for the average user, or even gamer, but in multimedia applications it will probably offer a noticeable improvement.

hmmm...that could be a strong argument for more than 1.2x performance in a DC-type app...and also for buying bloomfield for its tri-channel...well, I wouldn't want a $1500 cpu anyway, and I suspect that even if bloomfield does offer $400 cpus on bloomfield eventually that it will be timed with the release of the mainstream nehalems in Q1-Q2 09 (or whenever they decide to roll them out).

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: ibex333
5)HyperThreading, which has not been present on a consumer Intel processor since 2006 with the Pentium 4 and Pentium EE

It was mostly useless back then, and I have yet to see any proof of it being useful in the future.

Actually, I would disagree this point directly. I upgraded from a Northwood 2.4GHz/533 to a Northwood 2.4GHz/800/HT and definitely saw improvements when running multiple tasks simultaneously.

My e6400 (even at stock) handles multitasking much more efficiently than my old A64-3200+ (OCed to 2.6GHz).

And as Foxery mentioned, as time goes by more software is becoming more optimized for multithreaded computing.

 

[BladeVenom]

It slices, it dices, and it gets out tough stains.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: ibex333
(please critique, comment, flame, but keep in mind that I dont have in depth knowledge of CPUs)

Gotcha.

Many games have yet to even start taking advantage of two cores, and only a select few utilize 4 cores.

This is true, except for the part about most games today not being able to benfit from more than one core, but there's a reason for it. Software developers won't write code for hardware that has no user base. That's the reason that even the games that support more than just Windows, like UT2004, among others were never ported to be able to run on Itanium CPU's. Sure there are some Itaniums out there, but there are zero of them in their target market's PC's (yours and mine, in other words).

The same thing happened 2½-3 years ago, when dual-cores first came on the market. I was a huge supporter of just buying the fastest single core you could afford, for the best gaming performance. I was right for awhile, and then Oblivion came out, and everyone started saying that no matter how fast a single core ran, it wasn't fast enough for Oblivion, even though all of the people who had slower dual-cores reported no problems, even with the same video card. Today, a single core is almost worthless for gaming, unless you only run older games. Now that the Q6600 has been such a hit, and is installed in so many gaming PC's, watch what happens for the upcoming games. The majority will be multithreaded (capable of utilizing more than two cores).