Intel Core I7 Launched, Nehalem and X58 Tested 194
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."
Not out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop using the GT/s performance indicator. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato (Score:5, Insightful)
Being an innovator not always smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Expen$ive (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, but I don't buy a new pc whenever I get a haircut.
I got my first PC, an 386, around 1992. Next thing was a Pentium 1. Then it was up to a P4, which died on me some two months ago. Still haven't bought a new one,but when I do, I expect it to last me another five years at least.
2k$ over 5 years makes for 400$ per year. That's a lot less of an investment than what a lot of people spend on their PC.
That being said, I have no burning desire to play the every new game at the top of it's pixel range, either. The PS3 does a fine job of that, for me.
Re:Not out... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What good is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
For CPUs and memory, the market needs to focus on power usage reduction and fabrication cost reduction, thereby decreasing the cost to all end users. I think they've brainwashed everyone into thinking that more processor power equates to a better PC experience.
Until storage devices can operate at near bus speeds, the average consumer (and even you uber-gamers) do not need these types of numbers for CPU performance. One caveat: there will always be someone who needs the processing speed, but they are not typical of the audience these chips are marketed to.
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.
Re:We're all serialists now? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the crappy Rambus controller on the Intel i820 chipset helped it's technical reputation too much, but you're right that the legal shenanigans probably damaged them to most.
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.
Re:Another great /. post. (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: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.
Re:What good is it? (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 not the doubling of performance every 18 months like we had back in the 90s... but it's a pretty darn good improvement if it is 50% better.