Originally posted by: alyarb
you won't get 4 physical 32nm cores until sandy.
Sadly you are probably right, quad-core sandy is likely to beat AMD 32nm to market.
Could you imagine if the process technology gap was this large in the GPU market?
Originally posted by: alyarb
you won't get 4 physical 32nm cores until sandy.
Originally posted by: alyarb
you won't get 4 physical 32nm cores until sandy.
Originally posted by: alyarb
who is complaining? most of us want more FP for multimedia transcoding. most single-threaded mainstream apps are fast enough on a modern architecture, and intel feels the same way. that's why they're focusing on turbo mode and dynamically allocated power efficiency than another risky, revolutionary pipeline that throws inordinate amounts of die area at branchy bullshit. that would only encourage people to write shittier code and postpone the eventual transition to LRBni or what-have-you. if you read the last paragraph in my post, i kind of addressed that.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Are you saying "No Nehalem 32nm quads at ALL" or that there will be none on socket 1156???
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: Lothar
Are you saying "No Nehalem 32nm quads at ALL" or that there will be none on socket 1156???
Well I can't tell you with certainty that socket 1366 or 1156 will never get 32nm quads since Intel can always change their strategy. But Core i7 920/i 7 860 are going to remain at the same performance level in the hierarchy until at least Q3 2010. So there will hardly be any developments on the quad core front for socket 1156 for 12 months from today! If you need a new computer, there is no point in waiting. Both 920 and i5 750/860 are excellent choices.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
We are all guilty of assuming 32nm westmere will be 2C and 6C but no 4C...
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Since 32nm quad cores for 1156 are not even on Intel's Latest roadmap, it's hard to just assume that suddenly they will reappear. Furthermore, since AMD is uncompetitive to Core i7, Intel has little to no incentive to release 32nm quad cores to cannibalize the sales of their 45nm processors on the mainstream. Instead, it would make more sense to ride out their 45nm process in order to reduce the capital costs of the 45nm manufacturing equipment and use 32nm Gulftown as a way to test the new 32nm process (i.e, wait until it matures).
Originally posted by: Idontcare
We are all guilty of assuming 32nm westmere will be 2C and 6C but no 4C...
I am not assuming. It has been stated that no 32nm quad cores will appear on 1156 in 2010:
Keep following; if you want a quad-core Westmere, your only option will be in the LGA-1366 socket with Gulftown. Core i7 will get replaced with a six-core, twelve-thread processor in early 2010. There won?t be a 32nm quad-core part on the desktop until the end of 2010 with Sandy Bridge.
Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
- There are no 1156 32nm quads on the roadmap in 2010.
- Sandy Bridge is the "tick" in Intel's strategy, which means a new architecture (like Nehalem is to Conroe).
- 32nm Gulftown will just be a shrunken 6-core Nehalem with no architectural improvements and $1k+ price tag to boot as far as I read.
- Sandy Bridge is expected Q1 2011 so it's more like 1.5 years away.
- Even if Sandy Bridge was compatible with 1156, the lack of proper power regulation/circuitry as a result of a new architecture would make it incompatible with the current P55 chipset. Let's not forget how often Intel changes chipsets!
BTW, Sandy Bridge and Nehalem are Tocks. It must have confused people because "Tick" is usually the first in line(you know, from a clock, tick comes before tock), but since they count Pentium D 65nm/Core Duo as Tick, new architectures are Tock.
I hear Gulftown will have one lower than the EE. So you might be able to buy at $600.
EE: 2.4GHz base, 2.66GHz Turbo Mode
Non-EE: 2.4GHz base, 2.53GHz Turbo Mode
Turbo won't be impressive on Gulftown.
Originally posted by: drizek
Yes, it is a new architecture, but it won't be like Nehalem was to Conroe. Performance/clock is not going to go up significantly from what I understand, certainly not the 0-60% improvement in performance that came with nehalem.
The problem on Nehalem is that per core performance didn't go up significantly. Even accounting multi-threading, the improvements lie in average of 20%.
We'll see what happens.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Naturally you are allowed to be of the opinion that you aren't making any assumptions. No need to bold it and scream it at me though. I read just fine.
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Naturally you are allowed to be of the opinion that you aren't making any assumptions. No need to bold it and scream it at me though. I read just fine.
Sorry didn't mean to portray an increased tone of voice You are correct in that Intel's strategy is dynamic and will change depending on the competitive marketplace offerings.
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
So the possibility of 4C Lynnfield on 1156 is highly unlikely in 2010 but may be somewhat probable.
Originally posted by: ilkhan
it makes sense to a degree. Pentium will continue as duals without turbo or HT. i3 are duals with HT (4 threads) without turbo. i5 are 4 threads with turbo. i7 is 8 threads with turbo. To a degree it doesn't matter, just referring to them by series 3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/7xx/8xx/9xx provides more info than the i3/i5/i7 does.
Originally posted by: ilkhan
IDK if you hadn't noticed this before or were just being amusing, but: 'dale refers to duals, 'field refers to quads (not process tech, IE: wolfdale(45nm)/kentsfield (65nm)/yorkfield(45nm)). "clark" being used on both simultaneously is an annoying and confusing coincidence. I suspect 'town and 'ton will live on for a while beyond gulftown/beckton.
Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
I've been thinking the difference between 'dale vs. field' is "mainstream desktop"
vs. "high end desktop".
See, the first "field" CPU was Smithfield, a dual core MCM based on two Prescott cores. Then again we might all be dreaming up something non-existent.
Chipsets have some patterns too.
"3 series"(P35/G35/Q35): Bearlake
"4 series": Eaglelake
IGP inside Clarkdale: Ironlake
Originally posted by: Idontcare
So we can expect the next chipset to be named either Putterlake, or Birdielake, or Salmonlake. :laugh:
Could you imagine if the process technology gap was this large in the GPU market?
GPU and CPU on the same die? This is going to be the top chip?
I believe it is going to be all chips.
GPUs seem to be taking on more roles lately than just graphics processing. This looks to be the start of specialized cores being integrated along side regular x86 cores. So, for things that work better on GPUs, programmers can use that, and for things that work better on x86, there will be plenty of cores for that also.