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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-04
Member since:2006-01-22
Member since:
2005-07-07
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.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2007-05-20
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.
Member since:
2005-07-06
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
Member since:2005-08-11
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 :/
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:2005-11-11
Anandtech follows up:
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.
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.
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
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?
Member since:
2006-02-05
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.
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.
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-07-22
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.
Member since:2008-05-10
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).
Member since:
2005-07-06
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...
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-16
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-03-05
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