Posted September 12, 200816 yr First of all I would like to recognize that this is probably better off in the computer discussion section. However, I don't think it would get enough exposure there because few people seem to read that section. This is Intel's new processor line that is sporting the new Nehalem microarchitecture. I am very excited for the release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3 http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=608 Here are a couple links with information on it. I'll highlight a few important parts for gamers. I mentioned before that Intel is using Nehalem to mark the return of HyperThreading to its bag of weapons in the CPU battle; the process is nearly identical to that of the older NetBurst processors and allows two threads to run on a single CPU core. But SMT (simultaneous multi-threading) or HyperThreading is also a key to keeping the 4-wide execution engine fed with work and tasks to complete. With the larger caches and much higher memory bandwidth that the chip provides this is a very important addition. Intel claims that HyperThreading is an extremely power efficient way to increase performance - it takes up very little die area on Nehalem yet has the potential for great performance gains in certain applications. This is obviously much more efficient than adding another core to the die but just as obviously has some drawbacks to that method. Starting with Nehalem and moving forward Intel's processors will feature a direct connect architecture that is point to point and will transmit data from socket to socket as well as from the CPU to the chipset all while scaling nicely as the number of CPUs and QPI links goes up. Part of the reason the QPI technology was needed on Nehalem was due to the new integrated memory controller on the processor. As AMD introduced many years ago, an IMC allows for higher peak memory bandwidth and lower memory latency though Intel is taking it another step up by offering a three-channel DDR3 memory controller from each CPU. The QPI is also a requirement of efficient chip-to-chip communications where one CPU might need to access datat that is stored in memory on the other processors memory controller. The Nehalem core also has a new trick in its bag that enables it to lower the power consumption of a core to nearly 0 watts - something that wasn't possible on previous designs. Here is a diagram of how the Core 2 CPUs worked this over time. You can see that early on in the graph Core 1 goes "idle" since it has no more work to crunch on. Core 0 is still chugging away though so the lowest power state that Core 1 can reach is C3. Once Core 0 is ready to idle down it and Core 1 can both reach C6 states lowering the power consumption significantly. However, if Core 1 is then assigned new work by the operating system, it must turn on its clocks and thus BOTH cores are required return to at least the C3 state. How is this changed with Nehalem? Well with the independent power controller in the PCU and the different power planes that each core rests on, the power consumption for each core is completely independent from the others. You can see in this diagram that though Core 3 is loaded the entire time, both Core 2 and Core 0 are able to power down to practically 0 watts when their work load is complete. The idea is pretty straight forward: if you have four cores that run at combined power consumption (and heat dissipation) of X, then if you only have two cores loaded (with the other two at idle) then you have additional power headroom to overclock the working cores to a higher frequency. For enthusiasts and gamers this should been an exciting turn of events. While Intel wasn't very specific at this point I imagine we'll see ranges of 200-300 MHz going from the full quad-core clock rate to the a dual-core or single-core (based on idle cores at the time. This means if you purchase a 3.2 GHz Core i7 Nehalem based processor, you will likely see clock rates as high as 3.5 GHz when running single threaded or just dual threaded applications. Gamers should also take note of this! Intel claims that with the power of the PCU inside the chip the Nehalem core is aware of its surroundings and conditions. If your system is running very cool, say you have water cooling for example, the chip will recognize that it is well under its own TDP and push the clocks even faster. This is possible even while loading all four cores as the above diagram shows. The on-board micro-controller tunes voltages based around a given frequency, operating conditions and specific silicon characteristics. In some ways it appears that the Nehalem core will be able self award enough to find out how far it can be pushed without burning up. Short Version: * The return of HyperThreading as a very energy efficient way to increase CPU performance. * The addition of an integrated memory controller (IMC) creating the potential for a much larger memory bandwidth and lower memory latency. * If a core is not being used, then it can be completely powered down. This will decrease energy consumption since if a core is assigned work on a processor that exists now, then the idle processor also has to power up to a certain energy level. * Turbo Mode. If a program is not utilizing all the cores, then the CPU will use the additional available power to overclock the utilized core(s). This is Intel's answer to the quad-core versus dual-core debate. Turbo Mode is bolded because it is something gamers should take note of.
September 13, 200816 yr Why did Intel stop using HT in the first place? Edit: A 2.93 GHz Core i7 900 system has been used to run a 3DMark Vantage benchmark and gave a CPU score of 17,966.[11] The 2.66 GHz Core i7 800 scores 16,294. A 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 scores 4,300. Holy shit
September 13, 200816 yr Author With the Netburst microarchitecture hyperthreading was really hit or miss from program to program. It was also believed to use a lot more energy than a dual-core machine. I just don't think the old microarchitectures were ready for the technology.
September 13, 200816 yr Author On a related note, the Intel X58 chipset will have native SLI support. This is the chipset required for the i7 bloomfield cores released next month. This is important because this will make it 1 of only 2 chipsets in the entire world that can support both SLI and CrossfireX. The vendor will have to be certified by Nvidia in order to have the SLI technology unlocked on the board. They will be given a key to put in the bios. When the Nvidia drivers are installed they check for the key. Nvidia is doing this because they will not make a LGA-1366 chipset for Nehalem. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3395&p=1
September 13, 200816 yr Omg, I LOVE the i7 specs... if I upgrade I will be upgrading to that even if I have to wait.
September 13, 200816 yr Jedi Pimp;584943']SLI is nice and all' date=' but the truth is that unless you are pushing native resolutions higher than 1600 x 1200, you are better off (cost/power consumption/$ per performance) with a single video card. Not to mention that some people do not mind switching between Nvidia and ATI depending on who has faster cards. Opt for SLI and you lock yourself into a single architecture. But I digress, I will not make my MB choices based on graphics form factor.[/quote'] Hear hear. I've been building my PCs around my HDD connections(I have 4 HDDs, 2 SATA and 2 PATA). Because I'm too lazy to spend the money to consolidate data on a larger SATA HDD from the PATA HDDs, I've been forced to get a mother board with an PATA slot. And to make it even worse, two of my optical drives are still running off PATA connections. So preferably a new PC would have two PATA slots. This isn't really a good idea. At all. Anyways, I personally like the look of the i7. However, what the sweet shuddering fuck do I need THAT much power for? What's the point of sinking shit loads of cash into a CPU that just basically going to add inches to your e-peen right now? Maybe in a year or so it will look appetizing, but not right now. And will the i7 fit existing LGA775 sockets? Or are you going to have to buy some overpriced motherboard too?
September 13, 200816 yr Author Jedi Pimp;584943']SLI is nice and all' date=' but the truth is that unless you are pushing native resolutions higher than 1600 x 1200, you are better off (cost/power consumption/$ per performance) with a single video card. Not to mention that some people do not mind switching between Nvidia and ATI depending on who has faster cards. Opt for SLI and you lock yourself into a single architecture. But I digress, I will not make my MB choices based on graphics form factor.[/quote'] Discussing whether SLI is good or not wasn't the point of the post. The point of the post is that you can choose between SLI, CrossfireX, or neither on a single chipset. Anyways, I personally like the look of the i7. However, what the sweet shuddering fuck do I need THAT much power for? What's the point of sinking shit loads of cash into a CPU that just basically going to add inches to your e-peen right now? Maybe in a year or so it will look appetizing, but not right now. And will the i7 fit existing LGA775 sockets? Or are you going to have to buy some overpriced motherboard too? There is supposed to be an enthusiast CPU released with the high end ones next month. You won't be sinking all that much cash into it. Early indications are that it will have a better $/performance compared to the CPUs out now. You obviously didn't read about the i7, otherwise you would know why it is worth buying right now. The X58 chipset will be LGA-1366 Edited September 13, 200816 yr by Russell_Crowe
September 15, 200816 yr Author bump, getting close cmon someone has to have more to say btw if anyone plans on buying it @ release post here please i am curious
September 16, 200816 yr bump, getting close cmon someone has to have more to say btw if anyone plans on buying it @ release post here please i am curious It's hard to say anything more without any new info. Just wait for it to come out.
