Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Core I7 Launched, Nehalem and X58 Tested

Posted by CmdrTaco on 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."

54 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Not out... by GenP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not out until I can buy one from Newegg.

    1. Re:Not out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You didn't see the bundle offer for one of these with a copy of Duke Nukem Forever?

    2. Re:Not out... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would wait several months before buying from Newegg. This CPU will undoubtedly have some major errata, and you'll probably want to know about it before you go ahead and throw down hundreds of dollars. Personally, I'll be waiting until at least April before I even consider it to be a viable option.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  2. Sweet! by symbolset · · 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?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Sweet! by Wintergr33n · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funnily enough a gaming performance review found not that much difference in running Crysis on i7 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/4) and in fact worse performance for the brand-new Far Cry 2 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/5). It remains to be seen whether or not other new games show a similar effect or not...

    2. Re:Sweet! by ThePhilips · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    3. Re:Sweet! by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    4. Re:Sweet! by Missing_dc · · Score: 4, 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??!!

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    5. Re:Sweet! by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Run is too much for Vista... maybe a walk.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  3. Please stop using the GT/s performance indicator. by ciderVisor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not big and it's not clever. I like my bytes and bits, thank you very much.

    --
    Squirrel!
  4. Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato by mdmkolbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)

  5. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato by dkf · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)

    Giga-Transfers per second (or at least that's what google found).

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  7. Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato by Loibisch · · Score: 3, 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...

  8. new unit by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Informative

    actually, it's gigatransfers per second... thanx for dkf ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1016475&cid=25611995 ) for informing that link.

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  9. Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato by ciderVisor · · Score: 5, Funny

    GoaT/se ?

    --
    Squirrel!
  10. i7? by hcdejong · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:i7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fortunately, the imaginary unit and real numbers commute.

    2. Re:i7? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well... I was trying to *IMAGINE* a Beowulf cluster....

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  11. But... by Computershack · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will it still play solitaire?

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  12. We're all serialists now? by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This trend towards serial links reminds me of the INMOS Transputer. 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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:We're all serialists now? by frieko · · Score: 4, Informative

      Crosstalk and synchronization issues make parallel links impractical in the GHz range. There's a reason USB, PCI Express, HT/QPI, Ethernet are all serial and packet-based. The only major holdout is RAM, but I see it going serial eventually.

    2. Re:We're all serialists now? by jcr · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:We're all serialists now? by Jerrry · · 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.

    4. Re:We're all serialists now? by Vanders · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was nothing wrong with Rambus technology that caused it to ultimately fail.

      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
  13. Being an innovator not always smart? by wikinerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by jcr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The innovator took all the costs,

      Not hardly. There were a lot of other companies involved in developing Hypertransport, and Intel spent their own money to develop their alternative.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by Enderandrew · · 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.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Informative

      DEC invented that hypertransport for the DEC alpha. AMD liked the idea and adopted it. it was not AMD's idea.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2, 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.

    5. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, 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 (?)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by illumin8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      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.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    8. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    9. Re:Being an innovator not always smart? by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, 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).

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  14. Expen$ive by Eddy+Luten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks great and everything but who has money for such toys? Core i7 965 Extreme, 6GB DDR3, NVIDIA GTX 280, X58 Mobo + other junk = easily $1,600 - $2,000.

    1. Re:Expen$ive by vegiVamp · · 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.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  15. Another great /. post. by Ecuador · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Another great /. post. by Ecuador · · Score: 3, 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!

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:Another great /. post. by avandesande · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  16. Anandtech Review by slashuzer · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3448

  17. Lot of reviews out, but there is one with 64 bit by WittyName · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1435&Itemid=14

    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!

    --
    The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
  18. Real world performance??? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, 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,

  19. Servers? by slashkitty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there a comparable intel chip for servers coming out? It's been over a year and still nothing can beat the price/performance of the xeon 3220..

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
  20. More reviews by Vigile · · Score: 3, 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

  21. Re:Please stop using the GT/s performance indicato by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But the bus doesn't transmit bits or bytes always. Different buses have different quantities they send on a transfer, and the Core i7 can feed those available today (PCI, PCI-Express, etc) with 6.4 billion per second.

    No bits or bytes anywhere to be seen.

  22. Why would you expect Core 3? by Phat_Tony · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why on earth would you be expecting the the Core 3 to follow the progression of:

    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.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    1. Re:Why would you expect Core 3? by Spider+Man · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think they were on the same path you were thinking. Then they decided to have a naming scheme that didn't include confusion.

      Core (1) = 1
      Core Duo (1 + 2) = 3
      Core 2 Duo (1 + 2 + 2) = 5
      2 Core 2 Duo (1 + 2 + 2 + 2) = 7

      Thus i7

      --
      Be nice to everyone, they out number you 6 billion to 1.
  23. Love the heat sink!!!! by gsgriffin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go follow the link to the hothardware site. Please don't tell me they are still going to ship their latest CPU ovens with a dorky heat sink that won't allow you to run the CPU beyond 40% sustained usage. I'll buy it after there is at least 50 comments on Newegg saying it works.

    ..and Intel and AMD, please blast through 3.2Ghz per CPU so all programs work faster all the time.

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  24. What good is it? by raijinsetsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What good is it? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

      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.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  25. And security? by incubuz1980 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if they have fixed the security problems of the past.

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/28/1124256

  26. The AMD 3-core processor bug was one year ago by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Informative

    Like software, VLSI circuits have bugs on release day. The Core i7 CPU is HUGELY complex, and will undoubtedly have bugs. I would rather know the severity of those bugs before spending hundreds of dollars on a new CPU.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  27. Re:The Pentium 1 floating point bug was 15yrs ago. by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, 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.