Saying Nehalem copies Phenom is like saying Ferrari copied the Model T.

digodemais

@Monty:
So this is more of a vapor-ware product for home usage as far as normal apps written for 2 cores or less?

I wonder what the ET is on the home side of this.......not that most any home user, (me included probably) would honestly have a need for it.

"Integrated memory controller" = About damn time!!

Out2gtcha

@rainfever: I think it will come to benefit on more cpu-driven games, like Spore and its use of Procedural generation. Anything that deals with more logic than pure graphical horsepower.

P3nnst8r

@wetboxersguy: Onboard memory was one of the big advantages in AMD's chips. Now that Intel is following up, it's just another kick in the pants, really.

matt buchanan

@Monty: Awesome!
I wasn't aware, not being in that area.

Thanks for the info!

strider_mt2k

As far as consumers go, i think gaming is the first area that will show dramatic increases in multiple processors. I dont know the itty gritty of programming, but I think developers are able to program so it scales to however many processors you can give it.

...then you're just limited by the videocard, and other bottleneck area's in your system. ;)

rainfever

@strider_mt2k: You are absolutely correct, from a consumer perspective. However, from a business perspective, virtualized servers use every core they can toss in these things. We have eight cores (2 four core processors) in each server we use for virtualization, and if it had double the cores we would be able to use that, too.

That said, from a home user perspective, these processors simply do not make sense. Not yet, at least.

Monty

@wetboxersguy: Which is why I'm concerned about the Nehalem. See, AFAIK the reviews of Phenom have been that Core 2 is better. And now Intel is going down the same path that AMD went to.

Terminal-Alkyne

Intel is copying AMD again. Nehalem's shared L3 cache is similar to Phenom's, the QuickPath/CSI is something AMD had years ago (HyperTransport), as well as the onboard memory controller.

wetboxersguy

@strider_mt2k: Most bleeding edge-tech doesn't have consumer value right away. The consumer value will follow once the tech is integrated into some solutions and developers create apps that can utilize it.

On another point, we're seeing more developers creating apps that can utilize as much resources as there is available, specifically for server-based apps.

yachius

@matt buchanan: I'm down with that. :)

strider_mt2k

@strider_mt2k: Nehalem is scalable, so you'll see its benefits hit consumer wares at some point—"notebooks to servers," notebooks being the key there.

matt buchanan

Sexy times for encoding and multi-processor usage.

P3nnst8r

But most applications are still written for two cores or less, am I correct?

Just looking for the consumer value here.

strider_mt2k

@Terminal-Alkyne:
no, the HT design is inherently better than the old FSB design. the core2 performs better than AMD's chips right now because Intel essentially brute-forced the FSB using their spare $billions, plus the processor itself IS better.

AMD still outperforms Intel on memory bandwidth though.

Intel knew they would have to abandon the FSB, and switch to HT eventually.

willyolio

Amdahl's Law

brutek

I read a while back about Nehalen on Maximum PC as the chip to watch.
Apparently it's frequency is adaptable to power usage unlike any other chips. If a core is not doing much it sends it into idle speed (low power / low Hz) and if a single core is doing most of the work it can overclock it by itself past 3 Ghz (or 4GHz) as total power dissipation will still be low since all other cores idle.
Pretty cool idea. That would increase overall system speed incredibly when you think about it.

aec007

I'm really glad automotive manufacturers don't use the same kind of naming scheme as these people...

Stang70Fastback

I've found it's best when the applications are only written to use a single core. Mostly because the majority of applications aren't written well and sooner or later they try to steal 100% of the CPU. But in the case of mulitple cores, they only steal a single full core.

Right now, I have 2-3 different Adobe apps that think they should be given full and sole CPU usage. Google's Picassa will do that as well if left up for a while. McAfee does it so often I've had to uninstall the program entirely. Firefox on occasion gets a little out of control. All told, I'm thinking 8 cores would be PERFECT. All of these different apps could steal a single core and I'd still have a couple of cores left over to still be able to use my box and do important stuff, like play Spider Solitaire. :)

cad3

I'd be impressed if Intel could make an 8 core 64-bit mobile processor for mobile workstations such as the MacBook Pro ;-)

imagine-engine

@imagine-engine:
yeah and the battery life will last 3 mins.

johnnnD