Slashdot Mirror
Intel Core I7 Launched, Nehalem and X58 Tested
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."
It's not out until I can buy one from Newegg.
It's not big and it's not clever. I like my bytes and bits, thank you very much.
Squirrel!
What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)
AMD was brave enough to quit using FSBs in PC CPUs and replaced them with HyperTransport. Years later, Intel also says goodbye to FSBs and uses a similar technology. The innovator took all the costs, and now someone with more resources gets the marketshare. After all, the consumers only want a speedy CPU, they don't care who was the innovator, and speedy CPUs are more readily available by whoever has the most resources to build them. It is, therefore, seen that being the innovator is not always a smart movement in the business chessboard, at least not if you cannot build your innovation in sufficient quantity. That said, I congratulate Intel for finally bringing the cores closer to the RAM, which is a much better technical solution than using an FSB. They should, perhaps, have done that much earlier.
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.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Can we actually get any more performance out of our computers with faster CPUs and RAM CPU transfers? I've had processors with a 2.2ghz/core speed for some time now(years), and I always find that the only time I really get a slow-down is when accessing hard-disk, not when playing in memory. Jumping from 2.2ghz quad-core to 3.2ghz quad-core is not going to bring you to a new utopia in desktop performance (like upgrading from a P3 to AMD64 was).
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.
"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.
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.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
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.
love is just extroverted narcissism
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.