Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Nov 2008 13:32 UTC
Intel Not too long ago, Intel unleashed Nehalem, or Core i7, upon the world. The new Core i7 chips are not just new processors; they also introduce an entirely new platform, and this combination produces some impressive performance figures, according to Ars Technica. "The new performance gap between Nehalem and pretty much everything else of comparable cost is the result of upgrades to both the CPUs core architecture and the platform on which the multicore chip now runs." Respected in-depth review sites AnandTech and Tom's Hardware agree with Ars' findings.
Order by: Score:
Well done Intel ..
by kragil on Thu 13th Nov 2008 13:44 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

.. but I will still buy the cheap CPUs from the underdog vendor(tm) when I can. I really hope that Netbook AMD CPUs with decent graphics will appear soon.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Well done Intel ..
by fithisux on Thu 13th Nov 2008 21:45 UTC in reply to "Well done Intel .. "
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

I agree. My secret love is AMD and especially Sempron.

Reply Score: 2

AMD is still better ...
by evangs on Thu 13th Nov 2008 13:50 UTC
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07

in the AVG benchmark! With the fastest i7, you get an unusable system in 1 minute, while the fastest AMD does the same in 1 minute 48 seconds. The AMD gives you an extra 48 seconds to cancel a scan, hit the power button, pull the power plug. That's a win in my book ;)

Reply Score: 7

SAS
by mdoverkil on Thu 13th Nov 2008 13:58 UTC
mdoverkil
Member since:
2005-09-30

I've been reading about some of the X58 based motherboards, several them come with SAS controllers. I'm excited about this simply because you used to have either buy a server/workstation board that would run north of $500. Or you bought a discrete RAID controller which was also quite expensive.

Not that these boards will be cheap, just nice to have SAS as an option on consumer level boards.

Reply Score: 4

Heat
by dagw on Thu 13th Nov 2008 14:41 UTC
dagw
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well it looks like my next computer will have a i7 CPU. The only thing I'm worried about is heat. I wonder if it will be possible to run one of these without having a computer case filled with so many fans it sounds like jet engine.

Reply Score: 3

Compiling performance
by sonic2000gr on Thu 13th Nov 2008 14:44 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

I hope the vast increase in speed will also show up when compiling long programs. I'd love to have an i7 compiling FreeBSD ports ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Compiling performance
by cjcoats on Fri 14th Nov 2008 12:28 UTC in reply to "Compiling performance"
cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

Elsewhere (http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=9417...), Linus Torvalds says he's been using a Nehalem machine for a while, and really likes the performance he gets compiling on it. The other big deal for him -- even bigger than the processor -- is the boost from using one of Intel's new SSDs.

FWIW.

Reply Score: 1

Are People Going to Pay the Prices?
by segedunum on Thu 13th Nov 2008 15:17 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apparently, Intel is not so happy that buyers are purchasing inexpensive yet highly overclockable CPUs instead of the higher priced and faster models. To put a stop to the practice, Intel has ensured that only the $1,000 high-end model will operate beyond the TDP barrier of 130 W (110 A). The less expensive Core i7 versions - the 920 and 940 - will begin throttling back their clock speeds once they reach this threshold."

I'm afraid that's going to strike Intel out in the eyes of many, and people will simply be waiting for the cheaper and overclockable AMD response - even if it has slightly inferior performance.

Trust Intel to undo all the good work and give AMD the leg-up they've been giving them for years.

Edited 2008-11-13 15:18 UTC

Reply Score: 5

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I agree 100%. This is a mistake on Intel's part. Oh well, I've been an avid AMD fanboi for a decade, and hopefully, they will be able to capitalize on it.

Reply Score: 2

miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Intel Core 2 processors overclock insanely well (especially the cheap ones) even with stock cooling so that's a processor to buy for price-sensitive folks.

AMD is pushed further and further away from the low-end market which was lately the only place they could compete. Soon Intel won't need overclock capability to fight with AMD.

I'm an AMD fanboy (won't go into extremes though ;) ) and bought black edition processor a year ago (mostly because I've already had AM2 motherboard) but I kind of regret that decission now :/

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Shanghai looks like it might be the start of something good, Here's hoping!

Reply Score: 2

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"Apparently, Intel is not so happy that buyers are purchasing inexpensive yet highly overclockable CPUs instead of the higher priced and faster models. To put a stop to the practice, Intel has ensured that only the $1,000 high-end model will operate beyond the TDP barrier of 130 W (110 A). The less expensive Core i7 versions - the 920 and 940 - will begin throttling back their clock speeds once they reach this threshold."

I'm afraid that's going to strike Intel out in the eyes of many

Anandtech follows up:
The concern was that because of these TDP and current draw limitations, you would not be able to take lower end Core i7 processors and overclock them. The $999 Core i7-965 Extreme Edition doesn't have this problem as you can manually configure both the max TDP and current draw values, just like you can adjust its clock multiplier.

It turns out that the concerns are unfounded - all X58 motherboards should ship with a BIOS setting that tells the CPU to ignore its TDP/current limits.

- http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3453&p=2

Of course, it's possible that cheaper mobos won't have that setting, but all the Nehalem mobos so far seem to.

Reply Score: 2

And yet...
by TemporalBeing on Thu 13th Nov 2008 17:47 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

TFA quotes benchmarks against AMDs current stock for Nehalem - which according to Business week hasn't been officially released (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081112_7...).

And yet, AMD has now released a new proc themselves too, which supposedly does better. So where's the comparison?

AMD Previous Gen to Intel Next gen?
Of course there'll be no comparison. That's Apples to Oranges, but all you'll ever find.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And yet...
by evangs on Thu 13th Nov 2008 19:01 UTC in reply to "And yet..."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Perhaps it's because AMD jumped the gun an announced the chips before sending samples to reviewers? It's understandable, given how much pressure they are currently under and the launch of the Core i7 does nothing to help their position.

edit: See http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/07/first-shangh... for some initial Shanghai benchmarks that show it isn't as good as the current Xeons.

Edited 2008-11-13 19:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And yet...
by mdoverkil on Thu 13th Nov 2008 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE: And yet..."
mdoverkil Member since:
2005-09-30

I would take anything on the Inquirer with a very large grain of salt.

Here are some database benchmarks from Anandtech, which were published today

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3456&p=1

"As you've seen, AMD is still competitive with Intel's 3.0 GHz Harpertown in the database workloads that we've shown here. We were quite surprised that Shanghai was able to meet and, in some cases, pass Harpertown at various workload levels in some of the benchmarks. Obviously, when it comes to power, AMD is still leading this space by a significant margin. FB-DIMMs obliterate any power efficiency in Intel's processors, especially when you have eight (or more in some cases) of them present in a server."

There is also price to consider in the equation. Sure, Intel maybe a faster solution but at what cost?

Reply Score: 1

Man...
by google_ninja on Thu 13th Nov 2008 18:12 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I was pushing for a quad core at work (on conroes right now), with this I may wait for this summer and ask for a nehalem.

Edited 2008-11-13 18:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Waiting since april 2008
by wigry on Thu 13th Nov 2008 19:09 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Have been waiting for Nehalem since this article from April 2008:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/what-you-need-to-know-ab...

The architecture is a masterpiece and benchmarks confirm it.

Reply Score: 1

tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

and how their system-wide use of MultiCore programming extends from the low level up to the userspace.

OS X Apple specific applications being redesigned in Cocoa with GrandCentral and OpenCL will show considerable improvement whether you have a current Core2Duo or Nehalem.

The strength of Linux's work in this area and then to Qt and GTK+ use of multi-cores will also have to be measured.

The same goes for Windows, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, et.al.

Reply Score: 2

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Yeah I am definitely most interested as well to see how good the next gen OSes handle these architectural improvements.

Reply Score: 2

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Just imagine Haiku 1.0 on a Core i7 system.....

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Part of the strength of OSX is that it's lowest supported CPU is a core duo (sse3 capable), and thus everything can make use of the features present in these cpus without worrying.

Other systems tend to run on much older CPUs, and thus can't use such features without having inefficient cpu detection code and multiple code paths, which is usually only done for a very small sections of code.

Reply Score: 1

Ladelburro Member since:
2008-05-10

Part of the strength of OSX is that it's lowest supported CPU is a core duo (sse3 capable)


Um, no. If by 'OSX' you refer only to Intel Macs, the Mac Mini MA205LL/A has an Intel Core Solo T1200. Obviously Mac OS X supports ppc also (Snow Leopard has not been released yet).

Reply Score: 1

time to buy?
by Bitterman on Fri 14th Nov 2008 02:43 UTC
Bitterman
Member since:
2005-07-06

I was going to buy a Quad but I might as well wait for the i7. When can we expect prices to be reasonable and quality to be acceptable?

Reply Score: 1

RE: time to buy?
by suryad on Fri 14th Nov 2008 03:10 UTC in reply to "time to buy?"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Well I dont think anytime soon. Given Intel's lesser than expected (I mean their sharedholders) I dont think they will be as enthusiastic in bringing the prices of their products down as quickly as the last time. Also DDR3 is very very stupidly expensive and couple to that fact you have to buy them in triumvirates lol...so 3 sticks instead of two and you should expect to spend a premium. Then also the X58 mobos are quite expensive as well so...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: time to buy?
by helf on Fri 14th Nov 2008 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE: time to buy?"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

8 months, max.

Reply Score: 2

RE: time to buy?
by cjcoats on Fri 14th Nov 2008 12:30 UTC in reply to "time to buy?"
cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

Early next summer, judging by the Penryn release-vs-availability schedule.

Just a WAG...

Reply Score: 1

RE: time to buy?
by dagw on Fri 14th Nov 2008 17:42 UTC in reply to "time to buy?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

When can we expect prices to be reasonable

Define reasonable. The i7 920 costs basically then same as the Core2quad 9550, which it handily beats in most benchmarks. So as such the i7 seems to be reasonably priced.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: time to buy?
by soonerproud on Sat 15th Nov 2008 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE: time to buy?"
soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

"When can we expect prices to be reasonable

Define reasonable. The i7 920 costs basically then same as the Core2quad 9550, which it handily beats in most benchmarks. So as such the i7 seems to be reasonably priced.
"

Correct, the list price of the i7 920 is pretty reasonable for the performance. The problem is that vendors will be marking these up upon launch due to low supply and high demand. You also have to take into account that they require the X58 platform and DDR3 memory.

$300 + for a i7 920

$300 + for a X58 motherboard

$220 for 3 x 2GB of DDR3 DIMMS (6GB total)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231223

$820 absolute minimum on launch just for the processor, motherboard and memory for those that will reuse all their other components. Now add to that a hard drive, video card, (These motherboards will likely not have onboard graphics for those who don't game.) chasis, optical drive and decent power supply and you are looking at a small mint just to build a i7 920 system.

The reality is for most folks this is just too much money. Even most gamers are better served by taking that money and investing it into 1 4870 X2 if their mobo does not support Crossfire and 2 if they do. (If your mobo supports SLI, change that to two Geforce 260's.)

Edited 2008-11-15 17:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1