Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

Thread: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    28,790
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,863 times in 636 posts

    Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Eight-thread monster promises impressive benchmarks
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    13 times in 12 posts

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Just can't see it offering much performance. The memory controller is replacing, not adding to, the existing on die logic that reduces latency and most of that prefetching will go as there isn't cache to use it. Unlike the jump from low cache, highish latency Athlon XP's to a low latency ATh 64 with onboard mem controller directly responsible.

    High latency P4 to massively reduced latency Core 2 Duo has already happened. Infact, DDR3's higher latency with massive bandwidth is perfect for a latency hidden accurate predicting prefetch large cache setup. Low speed high latency DDR3, or high speed very high latency DDR3 with large bandwidth strikes me as worse for a chip that will lose a lot of its latency hiding ability and rely directy on quick memory access. Especially with triple channel, theres going to be massively more expensive to buy bandwidth than we remotely need. DDR2 would actually work better, lower latency, triple channel, new bus, you'd be talking about a fairly easy 30gb/s anyway and the system will never ever use that. But it would be quite a bit lower latency than a DDR3 setup.

    THe only place Nehalem will be gaining in performance will be in the all 4 cores 100% loaded area. But even now the Kentsfield/Yorkfield, despite the lack of bandwidth is actually very good, scaling from 1-3 cores is almost perfect, the 4th core in many applications scales very well and only in a few area's is there a significant drop, and thats where the 30% performance will come in, a very few select apps.

    Its a necessary move, but nothing thats going to provide useful benefits for now. Its the stepping stone to on die intergrated gpu, and intergrated PCI-E control and possibly some better sli/crossfire scaling in the future on a whole better faster system architechture. But none of thats now, this is just whats needed to enable that in the future.

  3. Received thanks from:

    dangel (02-04-2008)

  4. #3
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,173
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked
    2,930 times in 2,374 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    I disagree - we never thought we'd talk about low latency at the same time as DDR2 once upon a time, but now you are throwing it about. Why won't the same thing happen with DDR3 eventually?

    Prefetching and the other improvements in Core 2 only mask the higher latency of off-die memory controllers, not eliminate it, and they don't do so in every scenario. The onboard controller done right should still enable a further reduction in latency, and have much better behaviour where the Core 2 was previously weak.

    Lets not forget that QPI and the onboard controller have another important effect - reduction in complexity of the motherboard. How much that directly affects performance I'm not sure.

  5. #4
    Chillie in here j.o.s.h.1408's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    a place called home
    Posts
    8,512
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked
    254 times in 191 posts
    • j.o.s.h.1408's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6T Delux
      • CPU:
      • Intel core i7 920 @ 3ghz
      • Memory:
      • 3GB DDR RAM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung F1, 500GB Seagate baracuda + 320gb Seagate PATA +150GB WD PATA
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 480GTX SC edition
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 600W Module PSU FTW
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-A7010B (the rolls royce of pc cases)
      • Operating System:
      • vista ultimate edition and windows xp
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22inch 2005FPW dell monitor
      • Internet:
      • 24mb BE There Broadband

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    looks impressive but will cost an arm and a leg when it first releases and like someone already said, is it needed? todays quad core are already an overkill for many of us

  6. #5
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,173
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked
    2,930 times in 2,374 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Quote Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408 View Post
    and like someone already said, is it needed?
    Hehe the technology world wouldn't exist if we were concerned about that question.

    Some people will always want the latest. Others will be upgrading from an older generation and so will see a significant performance increase. I'll be getting a nahalem system I'm sure. Do I need it? Of course not, but it'll still be a noticeable upgrade from my 939 based system.

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    171
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • DeSean's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P5K Premium Wifi/AP
      • CPU:
      • Intel Q6600 B3 @ 2400Mhz
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Dominator PC2-8500 2x2048MB
      • Storage:
      • Raptor 36GB, MaXLine III 2x250GB, HD501J 2x500GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • BFG 8800GTS OC 320MB
      • PSU:
      • Silverstone Zeus ST75ZF
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ-09
      • Operating System:
      • Vista Ultimate x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 225MW
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 10Mb

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    We must have progress for the sake of progress in the tech world. Even if few people use (or have the need for) Nehalem, at least Intel can learn from it and it will keep AMD on its toes. The same principle applies to the graphics card market. Nvidia is currently playing marketing games, making small advances in technology compared to Core2 -> Nehalem, and slapping new model numbers on them, but even small steps are better than stagnation. Even if a handful of techies buy the 9800GX2, at least it drives the market forward a little.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,585
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    309 times in 247 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Firstly, I think Intel know a bit more about how to design a faster CPU than you.
    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenmaster View Post
    Just can't see it offering much performance. The memory controller is replacing, not adding to, the existing on die logic that reduces latency and most of that prefetching will go as there isn't cache to use it. Unlike the jump from low cache, highish latency Athlon XP's to a low latency ATh 64 with onboard mem controller directly responsible.
    Any links to support that? I know the cache is reduced on Nehalem, but I'm pretty sure they have "improved" the prefetchers. With an on die memory controller, I suspect that any losses through reduced cache will be more than masked by the lower latency access to main memory.
    High latency P4 to massively reduced latency Core 2 Duo has already happened. Infact, DDR3's higher latency with massive bandwidth is perfect for a latency hidden accurate predicting prefetch large cache setup. Low speed high latency DDR3, or high speed very high latency DDR3 with large bandwidth strikes me as worse for a chip that will lose a lot of its latency hiding ability and rely directy on quick memory access. Especially with triple channel, theres going to be massively more expensive to buy bandwidth than we remotely need. DDR2 would actually work better, lower latency, triple channel, new bus, you'd be talking about a fairly easy 30gb/s anyway and the system will never ever use that. But it would be quite a bit lower latency than a DDR3 setup.
    This is a common perception, yet it is totally wrong.
    DDR 3 is not higher latency than DDR 2
    Here are 2 examples DDR-2 1066 5-5-5-15
    DDR-3 1600 7-7-7-18
    The DDR 2 Looks lower latency because it takes less cycles to do XYZ than the DDR 3, however you have to take into account that the DDR-2 only runs at 1066 MHZ rather than the 1600 MHZ of the DDR-3.
    The DDR-3's CAS latency is 4.4 ns whilst the DDR-2's is 4.7 ns
    The CPU will be waiting longer in actual time for the memory to respond with DDR-2, and when it does respond, it will with a fraction of the bandwidth.
    DDR-3 is faster, end of.
    No amount of trying toexplain in terms of cycles etc will change that, and trying to do so will show another lack of understanding about how things work.
    THe only place Nehalem will be gaining in performance will be in the all 4 cores 100% loaded area. But even now the Kentsfield/Yorkfield, despite the lack of bandwidth is actually very good, scaling from 1-3 cores is almost perfect, the 4th core in many applications scales very well and only in a few area's is there a significant drop, and thats where the 30% performance will come in, a very few select apps.
    Intel disagree with you. Yes, it may be their product, but I'll take their word over yours.
    Its a necessary move, but nothing thats going to provide useful benefits for now. Its the stepping stone to on die intergrated gpu, and intergrated PCI-E control and possibly some better sli/crossfire scaling in the future on a whole better faster system architechture. But none of thats now, this is just whats needed to enable that in the future.
    It might be a stepping stone, but its one thats undoutably going to be faster than its predecessor.
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  9. #8
    Buzz Lightyear Azza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buckley / Birmingham
    Posts
    1,373
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked
    39 times in 33 posts

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    *starts hyperventilating*


    Can you get Nick to do one of his sneeky slide the side panel jobbies off again please and get some shots of the inards pretty please.
    www | F | T | @

  10. #9
    boop, got your nose stevie lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    southport
    Posts
    2,567
    Thanks
    400
    Thanked
    389 times in 296 posts
    • stevie lee's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-870A-USB3
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II X6 1090T 6core 3.2ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair DDR3 1600 MHZ
      • Storage:
      • Hitachi 500, 640GB + 1TB. WDblue 2TB, Crucial M500 240GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia Palit 750 Ti
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Naxn 350 W
      • Case:
      • Xigmatech Midgard
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" Samsung SM2233BW
      • Internet:
      • 20mb plusnet unlimited!

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    what i noticed in the article was the mention of tri-channel ram.

    will the ram makers start producing sets of 3 sticks of ram?

    how many ram slots will there be on motherboards? 3 or 6?

    say we own a dual set of ram now, upgrade to nehalem and a new mobo, if we buy a single stick of ram to make it up to 3 total ram sticks, will tri-channel work? or do we need special memory coded tri-channel ram?


    and will a skulltrail 16 core nehalem run crysis? (only joking but needed asking)

  11. #10
    SiM
    SiM is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,787
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    633 times in 422 posts
    • SiM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 8GB PC2-6400 OCZ ReaperX + Platinum
      • Storage:
      • 3 x 320gb HD322HJ single platter in Raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • PNY GTX285
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650W
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2407-HC

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    I guess tri-channel memory is only for DDR3. So you don't need to worry about getting another matched stick, Stevie. Expect them to start selling DDR3 in threes

  12. #11
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,173
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked
    2,930 times in 2,374 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Quote Originally Posted by stevie lee View Post
    and will a skulltrail 16 core nehalem run crysis? (only joking but needed asking)
    Not if you use an Intel gfx card which they want you to

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Wink Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Hi there,

    Finally the Intel moves to point-to-point links after 7 years from the production of AMD Athlon processors, and one another thing is that, DDR2 there exist Patriot memory modules at 1066 MHz CL-4-4-4-10-1T, or if you want more MHz there exist DDR2 1333 MHz Transcend at CL-5-5-5-15-1T, Thanks!

  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    819
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked
    15 times in 15 posts

    Cool Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Quote Originally Posted by stevie lee View Post
    will the ram makers start producing sets of 3 sticks of ram?

    say we own a dual set of ram now, upgrade to nehalem and a new mobo, if we buy a single stick of ram to make it up to 3 total ram sticks, will tri-channel work? or do we need special memory coded tri-channel ram?
    Any official news/details from Intel about this that anyone can share?

    and will a skulltrail 16 core nehalem run crysis? (only joking but needed asking)
    Put it this way - it had better do.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    I guess tri-channel memory is only for DDR3. So you don't need to worry about getting another matched stick, Stevie. Expect them to start selling DDR3 in threes
    Bit "odd", wouldn't you say?

    Baius
    Tech: NAS | D2 | L1 | N1 | T2 | U1 | P3

    0iD@TWDJT: P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
    S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.

  15. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,585
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    309 times in 247 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    Apparently the Nehalems were only running at 2.13 Ghz according to the inquirer Nehalems appear everywhere at IDF - The INQUIRER
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  16. #15
    Chillie in here j.o.s.h.1408's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    a place called home
    Posts
    8,512
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked
    254 times in 191 posts
    • j.o.s.h.1408's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6T Delux
      • CPU:
      • Intel core i7 920 @ 3ghz
      • Memory:
      • 3GB DDR RAM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung F1, 500GB Seagate baracuda + 320gb Seagate PATA +150GB WD PATA
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 480GTX SC edition
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 600W Module PSU FTW
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-A7010B (the rolls royce of pc cases)
      • Operating System:
      • vista ultimate edition and windows xp
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22inch 2005FPW dell monitor
      • Internet:
      • 24mb BE There Broadband

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    doesnt matter what ghz its running at. you must know that ghz dont determine how fast a cpu is, its the architecture. if nehalem is THAT good, a 1ghz nehalem would probably be the same speed has a core 2 e6550

  17. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,492
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    230 times in 195 posts

    Re: Intel Nehalem CPU running at 3.20GHz, right now

    It's the clockspeed and architecture. It's pretty safe to assume that all else being equal a 3.2Ghz Nehalem will be faster than a 2.13Ghz Nehalem. Has it been suggested anywhere that the Nehalem is over 2x faster clock for clock than the Core2?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Q6600 "Guaranteed overclock" editions!
    By Richdog in forum SHOPPING AND CLASSIFIEDS
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 13-09-2008, 02:48 PM
  2. Abit IX38 QuadGT and Cpu Intel E8400.
    By Myrmeleon in forum abit.care@HEXUS
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 03:25 PM
  3. 250 in sight
    By 0iD in forum Software
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-01-2008, 09:48 AM
  4. cpu running at wrong speed!
    By chet in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25-03-2005, 11:12 AM
  5. SFF FAQ And Drivers - Updated 13th June 2004
    By XTR in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-08-2003, 02:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •