Slashdot Log In
Intel Core I7 Launched, Nehalem and X58 Tested
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Nov 03, 2008 09:43 AM
from the time-to-go-shopping-again dept.
from the time-to-go-shopping-again dept.
MojoKid writes "Today marks the official launch of
Intel's new Core i7 processor, the most major overhaul of Intel's core processor architecture since the release of their Core 2
design. As has been reported, the Core i7 is a major departure from
Intel's aging Front Side Bus architecture of old, now replaced by
Intel's QPI (Quick Path Interconnect) serial links. This 20 lane
bi-directional (40 lanes total) point-to-point connection provides 6.4 GT/s of
bandwidth and scalability for future multi-socket designs as well. In
addition, the Core i7 now has an integrated triple channel memory controller
offering over 3X the bandwidth of the previous Core 2 architecture with
DDR3 system memory. Though the product is set to ship in volume later this
month,
the early benchmark numbers show Intel's new chip is markedly faster
clock-for-clock versus their previous generation CPU and much faster than
anything AMD has out currently."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Dell's XPS 730x Core I7 Gaming System Reviewed 171 comments
MojoKid writes "Shortly after Intel released their new Core i7 processors about a month ago, Dell announced a new update to the XPS 730 with Core i7 tech under the hood.
The new Dell XPS 730x is first and foremost a technology update but the chassis has also been buffed up a bit. The Intel Core 2 processor and NVIDIA 790i Ultra SLI chipset powering the original XPS 730 line have been swapped with
the new Core i7 processor and an Intel X58 Express chipset based motherboard. The XPS 730x retains the original 730's ability to
support both Crossfire and SLI multi-GPU graphics. Like all XPS 700 series machines since the XPS 710, the XPS 730x is available with optional factory overclocking and a H2C edition featuring a two-stage liquid cooling system. And yes,
it rips through Crysis quite nicely and puts up rather impressive benchmark numbers."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You didn't see the bundle offer for one of these with a copy of Duke Nukem Forever?
Re:Not out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The AMD 3-core processor bug was one year ago (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:The Pentium 1 floating point bug was 15yrs ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time a brand new processor architecture comes out there are either errata, unforseen shortcomings, or more often both. It's always a good idea not to adopt a new architecture immediately. Let them work the kinks out over the first few steppings.
You obviously know little about processor design nor how many times over the past two decades new architectures have shipped with bugs or design flaws.
Parent
Sweet! (Score:4, Interesting)
A little hot, but on time, in time for Christmas and slamming the benchmarks. Hey, there is a system that can run Crysis with all the features turned on!
Maybe a price break on the LGA775 quad lineup now please?
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)
But it doesn't magically increases RAM bandwidth.
i7 memory interconnect would help applications which are not hand-crafted to maximize performance. And I expect that games like Crysis already optimized through the nose to utilize all bandwidths to max.
Or to put it in other words: unoptimized code would gain from i7 more than highly optimized code, since in former case CPU would have more opportunities to optimize memory accesses on its own and better fill up the data bus.
But I also can be wrong and hand crafted code of Crysis/etc is simply cannot take advantage of i7 features.
Parent
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
Or to put it in other words: unoptimized code would gain from i7 more than highly optimized code, since in former case CPU would have more opportunities to optimize memory accesses on its own and better fill up the data bus.
I see!! You mean Vista might actually run well on this processor??!!
Parent
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Informative)
3 if you count FarCry which was developed by Crytek but published by Ubisoft rather then EA. It's also worth pointing out that IMHO FarCry was the better game.
Parent
Please stop using the GT/s performance indicator. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato (Score:5, Informative)
What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)
Giga-Transfers per second [tmworld.com] (or at least that's what google found).
Parent
Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato (Score:4, Funny)
What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)
Damn, if you had been looking for a biased answer I'd have linked you to Wikipedia...
Parent
Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato (Score:3, Interesting)
No bits or bytes anywhere to be seen.
i7? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, "Core 3" was what everyone expected them to do, so Intel couldn't possibly use that. Using imaginary numbers is much more logical.
Why would you expect Core 3? (Score:5, Funny)
Core
Core Duo
Core2 Duo
The correct answer should be the 2Core2 Duo, or the Core2 Duo Dos, or the BiCore2Duo. Maybe the DuoCore2 Duo? Anyway, follow the pattern- keep adding things that mean "2." In several years, we should have had BiDuo2Core2DoubleDuo Dos MarkII.
Instead, it looks we're heading for the e8, or the pi9, or the ln10, or maybe the 11!. Except for that they'll change the pattern again, because now everyone's expecting math terms.
Parent
Re:i7? (Score:5, Funny)
Well... I was trying to *IMAGINE* a Beowulf cluster....
Parent
But... (Score:2, Funny)
We're all serialists now? (Score:5, Interesting)
This trend towards serial links reminds me of the INMOS Transputer [wikipedia.org]. Of course, those links were a hell of a lot slower than modern LVDS communications, but it's funny to see these ideas come back around.
-jcr
Re:We're all serialists now? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:We're all serialists now? (Score:5, Informative)
The only major holdout is RAM, but I see it going serial eventually.
Well, depending on how you look at it, is sort of has already. FB-DIMM does parallel to serial conversion right on the DIMM. The DRAM chips themselves still have a parallel bus, but that bus doesn't even make it to the socket anymore.
-jcr
Parent
Re:We're all serialists now? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Remember Rambus? And all the rigamarole that surrounded it? Faster but more expensive didn't work out in that case."
There was nothing wrong with Rambus technology that caused it to ultimately fail. It was the lawsuit happy tactics of Rambus Inc. that caused the problems. The technology was sound, but the owner of the patents went out of their way to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot.
Parent
Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:5, Interesting)
The innovator took all the costs,
Not hardly. There were a lot of other companies [hypertransport.org] involved in developing Hypertransport, and Intel spent their own money to develop their alternative.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought HyperTransport was developed as open technology, allowing anyone to use it. I thought it was one of AMD's advantages, and I can't believe it took Intel so long to ditch the traditional FSB. What hurts AMD is pushing release dates back over and over again. What hurts AMD is not being able to keep up with Intel's fab processes. What hurts AMD is Intel using illegal tactics to bump AMD out of the market. AMD decides the only way to stay in the market is to sell their procs super-cheap, but then they don't make any money doing so.
It didn't help that when AMD was kicking Intel's butt in performance (Athlon 64 vs P4) AMD didn't gain much in market share because guys like Michael Dell said he'd never ship an AMD processor in one of his desktops, regardless of price and performance. Now that Intel is kicking AMD to the curb on high-end performance, all AMD has going for it is the low-cost market.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't help that when AMD was kicking Intel's butt in performance (Athlon 64 vs P4) AMD didn't gain much in market share because guys like Michael Dell said he'd never ship an AMD processor in one of his desktops, regardless of price and performance.
Well, going for higher quality in the windows/PC world was a sucker bet from the day that Dell opened for business.
-jcr
Re:Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't read my post. I never said AMD was faster now. I said that AMD *WAS FASTER* at one point, and these days all AMD has is the low price point.
For instance, the last time I built a computer for me (a little over a year ago) AMD offered a dual core processor for $35. The Intel equivalent that it was compared to in benchmarks cost $150. In the price-performance comparison, AMD came out way ahead at the low price point. At the very high end, AMD didn't have anything that could produce Intel's performance.
Not to mention that scientific computing is vastly different from general processing.
For a scientist, you sure don't seem to understand what I wrote. Go back and reread it.
Parent
Re:Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:4, Informative)
Intel didn't change sockets? How many sockets have they launched in the past six years? AMD has launched 3 main sockets in that time (754, 939 and AM2). Anyone remember Intel ditching Socket 423 after less than a year?
And AMD would release one proc on different sockets so you could still upgrade with your old mobo. For instance, when they came out with Socket 939, they were still releasing new procs under Socket 754. Even though they have Socket AM2/AM2+, you can still get Socket 939 procs.
AM2 came out in early 2006, and when I build my next rig in the spring, I'll still likely be building an AM2 rig. That being said, I'll probably go with a new motherboard for a faster bus, and faster memory support.
I could keep my existing mobo which will support quad-core AM2+ processors with a BIOS update, but to get the full potential, I need a new motherboard for the bus speed and memory improvements.
Intel is in the same boat. Chipsets and cores change often enough that you need to replace everything to get the best possible results.
Your logic was that you didn't want to change sockets and replace your entire system (AMD provided you that option to stay on the same socket) so you replaced your whole system and changed sockets to go to Intel.
How does that make sense?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the Gentoo docs tell you to compile for the more generic architectures, and not the real specific CPU for reasons like that. Then again, I always compiled for the specific CPU.
I miss me some Frys. I loved that store. However I live in Nebraska these days, so I use NewEgg. You can still order a 386 motherboard on NewEgg (I kid you not).
Re:Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:5, Informative)
DEC invented that hypertransport for the DEC alpha. AMD liked the idea and adopted it. it was not AMD's idea.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to be thinking about the Alpha EV6 front-side bus architecture that AMD used on the original Athlon. It's very different from the HyperTransport bus, and predates it by several years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, I was thinking of that. but how radical is the new amd vs that older ev6 stuff?
the whole idea is that its NOT a front side bus and its pt-pt from every node to every node.
intel still has this FSB notion and amd dropped that years ago (?)
Re:Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen. I'm tired of explaining to my colleagues why AMD Opteron servers outperform Intel for use in database servers because of memory bandwidth and ccNUMA architecture. It's nice that Intel has finally realized that they can't keep designing processors for desktop PCs and not care about I/O bandwidth. This does mean I can finally be confident that when I buy a new 8-CPU, 8-core (64 total core) database server from Intel I don't have to worry about my poor MCH (memory controller hub) choking access to that nice 512GB of RAM I have hanging off of it.
Those of us building database servers, VMware clusters, and other high memory bandwidth applications can rejoice because the Nehalem architecture is finally almost here.
Parent
When are the 2 way ones that will be in the mac pr (Score:2)
When are the 2 way ones that will be in the next mac pro coming out?
For the desktop where are the nvidia boards and the lower end MB we need more the just the high cost X58 boards.
Also apple should have a 1 cpu core i7 system as well.
Expen$ive (Score:2, Interesting)
Another great /. post. (Score:5, Interesting)
Link to the middle of an ad-laden article and to the Cinebench of all pages - because, you know, that is what the average /. reader is running...
Also, add a nice touch: forget to mention that while the i7 is faster clock for clock with the Core 2, it currently tops out at 3.2GHz and has some sort of overclock protection (lowers clock when it goes over 110A or 130w).
My cheap Core 2 is running at 4GHz on just the stock fan, I don't see myself upgrading to the i7 anytime soon.
What did you say? ... What do you mean Cinebench would still run faster?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be nice for them to put one or two 'old' processor scores for reference, I am using a 5YO celeron and don't have the slightest idea what these scores mean in to relation to what I am using.
Re:Another great /. post. (Score:4, Funny)
You made me RTFA. The same ad-laden FA I was complaining about. Thanks. So, from the article.
Because the Core i7 Extreme 965 has its overspeed protection removed--i.e. its multipliers are unlocked--we overclocked the processor by raising its multiplier to 25 and also experimented with an increased QPI speed.
My 4GHz Core 2 is not a $1000 *Extreme* part. Humanly priced i7s will have overspeed protection.
I have the feeling you knew this was the case anyway, but had me read TFA just for kicks... shame on you!
Parent
Anandtech Review (Score:5, Informative)
Lot of reviews out, but there is one with 64 bit (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1435&Itemid=14 [planetx64.com]
1) 64 bit macro-op fusion is new. See it tested here..
2) Virtualisation is more efficient with nested pagetables.
3) Gaming should benefit, since all x58 mobos support Crossfire
and nVidia SLI.
4) 12 gigs ram supported with 2gb dims - this is rare for desktop boards.
Numerous other minor tweaks, but read it for yourself..
Have fun with your upgrade dollars!
Real world performance??? (Score:4, Interesting)
And I was *just* about to retire my "old" socket 940 dual-core opteron box for a quad core Intel system. I think I'll just wait another month or two and jump to the i7 platform instead. 8-)
Would be nice to see some video and audio encoding benchmarks and some real world application performance numbers instead of teenmarks (gaming performance).
Cheers,
Servers? (Score:3, Interesting)
More reviews (Score:4, Informative)
Another review with some more data, including memory channel performance testing, good explanations of overclocking process, etc.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=634 [pcper.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's GT/s, not GTB/s, there's no bytes. Just 6.4 * 10^21 per second. Or maybe 6.4 * 10 ^ 9 Teslas per second. Or 6.4 cars per second.
new unit (Score:5, Informative)
actually, it's gigatransfers per second... thanx for dkf ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1016475&cid=25611995 [slashdot.org] ) for informing that link.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
T=Transfers maybe?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming a simple scaling, you're talking about roughly 50% more performance.
Which, in the mid-late 2000s era is huge.
A lot of games that folks play are CPU-constrained. So that's 50% more framerate, or the difference between something that feels pokey vs something that works well.
That's 50% faster encoding / transcoding for videos.
Yeah, it's