Intel's Nehalem benchmarked: 2.66GHz faster than 3.2GHz Penryn
By Nilay Patel 
posted Jun 5th 2008 9:56PM
posted Jun 5th 2008 9:56PM
[Via AeroXperience]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Damn, Nehalem is going to be brain-meltingly fast!
Is this Nehalem shown in this benchmark picture above a dual core? or quad core? or...single?
It will be brain meltingly fast right up until the Crysis Sequel demands a 2.6 Ghz Nehalem as a minimum requirement with a video card that has 2 GB of Ram.
@Wesley
It's probably a quadcore because the first nehalem chips to hit the market will be quadcores.
After reading from AnandTech, I can confirm it's a quadcore.
It's a quad core with core executing two threads so it kinda functions lika a octa core.
This Engadget post makes little mention of a BIG warning by Anandtech saying that the early prototype motherboard and chipset may be impeding performance, especially in memory-intensive tasks.
Intel says Nehalem will have 10-25% higher single thread performance, and 30%-100% higher multi-thread performance than Penryn.
There is no crysis sequel. So probably "does it play crysis 2 "
Well as I always say "Knee - all - of - em"
What are you, twelve?
No he's 8 - he's got an octacore :P
Sorry I'll stop cracking bad jokes now...
it would be nice to see AMD come out of nowhere and kick intel in the nuts.
very satisfying indeed. =]
Lol! You made me laugh. I agree.
LOL! I'd love to see that too, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
that it would..but considering their lineup is to consist of broken quad core parts I MEAN TRI-CORE! ;)
i say this coming from a turion mobile 2.0ghz..
sadly..AMD has fallen behind much in the same way intel did way back.
IMO, the only way for AMD to come back would be to completely start from scratch (i.e. C2D) and create something completely new, as their current architecture is clearly failing..
Although I agree that AMD is behind, I actually like their triple core idea. Instead of the consumer having to pay both for the actual quad-core chip and the chips defective in one core, they're only paying for their one quad core processor (and the supreme defects, of course). It also allows people to buy triple core processors for nice and cheap. Good for the consumer in my mind. That's not going to do much for the gamer, or for AMD as a company, but that's one move I actually like.
If only they can pull a C2D. Only problem, they don't have resources. Intel's C2D came from Israel, but AMD DOESN'T have a team in Israel or so...
I have an AMD in my current computer that's 3.5 years old, and I'll have an Intel in my next. AMD/ATI turned me off when I bought one of their branded TV Tuners and had to deal with their craptastic drivers, of which the install of a new version would cause unrecoverable hangs that I needed to force reboot to escape. It's not even really a matter of price anymore, since you can get an extremely good wolfdale dual-core for about $200.
I expect that to happen about the same time Ed McMann rolls up to my front door with one of those giant checks from Publishers Clearing House. I wouldn't hold my breath....
"Your move AMD"
Yeah, it's BEEN AMD's turn to move ever since the first Core 2s came out. Still waiting...
it begins...
DO WANT!
Bahahaha....
Good luck AMD indeed.
AMD doesn't care
Yeah, if they cared they'd compete in some way.
Yah same as Palm not caring about the Pocket PC and you can see where that lead them. AMD is doomed if they truly don't care.
Engadget, why do you quote your "read" source as an obscure blog, when the actual source is Anandtech (which you have mentioned above). Why not link directly to the source article?
The "[via X]" tag is NOT the read link. It's Engadget's way of crediting their source. Nilay originally found this information on AeroXperience, including the citation of Anandtech, so he credits AeroXperience with his information. The read link will put you through to Anandtech. It's like reading in the newspaper about court proceedings, wherein a spokesperson says "the judge's decision says [blah blah blah]". Technically, the source IS the spokesperson, but they got their information from the judge's decision. So you credit the spokesperson.
Didn't you learn about primary and secondary sources in high school composition?
This isn't a school essay/paper. This is the web. The web was designed so you could go from one point to another *without* having to troll through a whole load of crap to get there. That's why we have hyperlinks.
Would be nice in future if we could get the direct source please :)
Thanks
I wrote the AXP article, and I sent the link. They got the information via the AXP post, which is why is says "via AeroXPerience".
Pretty logical, IMO.
AMD is screwed.
AMD has been screwed for years. the difference is that there is now double...check that quad penetration.
Soon to be an unheard of octo-penetration, ouch!
And is that a good thing?
Put it this way, would you want eight sources penetrating various orifices in your body?
If AMD is screwed then we're screwed...think about it.
Very good point, but look at the other competition around here...like that chip that plays Crysis...I think Intel still has some good competition.
The cost of making chips are going up...and Intel has the "junk" to take care of AMD.
AMD is only screwed when Intel lowers their prices. History has shown Intel doesn't do this.
Before AMD was the faster chips they were the cheapest and a much better bang-for-the-buck. Intel is only faster in the real high end chips and they are expensive. There are a few exceptions and price overlaps but it is generally true. Like the E8400 is fast but it's $220 right now. If you want to build a $400 box that is too expensive. AMD has fast 2 cores for under $100; not as fast as the E8400 but fast enough for most and over $100 cheaper.
In the quad game they are down right now because the Q6600 is pretty fast and about on par with the Phenoms for price. In volume I suspect they are much cheaper though because the lower end quad machines from HP and gateway are cheaper that the Intel machines(at retail).
Dude..... !!
(Nothing else to say, I really, really wish I had one of these)
(But still I'm a bit curious as to what will AMD come with)
Well Niley Patel, if you write for Engadget you would be smart enough to know that Nehalem has double the interface speed as Penryn, has 8MB shared L3 Cache (Which Penryn does not have).
You should know this is a COMPLETELY new architecture that has tons of new technologies that were not even public at the release of Penryn. Just like your 3.0 GHz P4 is slower than a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo.
It's ALL ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE!!!!!
Wish Engadget had smarter people than you writing there articles!
Yeah half the time engadget doesn't know what it's talking about when it comes to PC hardware. Although to be fair hyper threading and the integrated memory controller was really a big reason for the performance increase.
uh, i think he knew and was just confirming... give him some credit... he does write for a gadget blog
TGGGD86 - You should be careful about calling people stupid when you don't seem to know the difference between "there" and "their".
analyists estimate over 50 million Netbooks will be sold by 2011.
AMD should take the time to make a powerful, energy efficent chip to push into that market. OTHERWISE THEY ARE F*CKED.
AMD should spend its time making its multicore cpus more stable
This is why i'm not even flinching about Penryn/Montevina, I was even gonna stay put at Napa but circumstances forced me to an SR machine.
Its the same ol story with all recent processors/platforms: Powerful processors choked by FSBs
Nehalem is where it's at and i cant wait
If it wasn't for competition with AMD, intel would have never bothered to bring the technology so much forward, and by now they were selling us 90nm Pentium 5 or some crap like that. But anyways Intel 32nm FTW.
Actually, it is not true that we would be still running 90nm pentiums now if not for AMD. Some people seem not to realize that if AMD was not around, Intel would still have competition - from itself. In short, since processors are not consumable items (largely), then consumers have the option of not buying a new processor and staying with their current processor. This means that Intel can only generate sales by coming out with something that is better than what consumers currently have. Given that an already purchased processor costs $0, the new processors need to be substantially better to compete against a competitor that is free. This, much more than the competition from AMD, is what has driven the increase in processor speed over time.
Well, tbh, Intel doesn't have a competition atm with their penryn out. But are still going to push their Nehalem platform, by your thinking they wouldn't need to...
I'm glad I didn't wasted money on the Penryn.
You make it sound like Nehalem is available now, or will be in a few months, which is not true.
I misread the title and thought this was going to be about a 5.86 GHz processor.
Damn.
Would be nice, but it doesn't much matter when it's running faster than a Penryn counterpart clocked with a 600 MHz advantage ;)
Does anyone know when Nehalem chips are going to be available?
desktop chips are supposed to be late this year, with mobile processors early 2009. I don't think this has been confirmed yet by Intel.
I'm laughing at all of you who are hoping (saying) AMD is fucked. If AMD tanks, your Nehalem will cost $400 until 2010, and you can choke on that all the way to the bank.
I personally hope AMD fires back with _something_ competitive, to drive further innovation, and keep costs down. If Intel steamrolls AMD into the ground, we as consumers collectively lose.
Um, the Q9450 is around $400 right now. My E6600 cost that too, when I bought it. There's also the lower end available for $100-300. Since the Conroe (eg. E6600) was launched in late 2006, and the Q9450 just recently, combined with the fact that AMD has been sucking the whole time.. I don't honestly believe prices are going to change that much.
You don't really get the point do you? Without AMD, intel would make the prices much higher and would stop developing new technologies so fast. It's just common sense, without competition there is no reason for intel to bring the prices down, ever.
I don't agree. C2D is still beating AMD, and Intel are still going all-out.
They could have held back on a few of the advances in Nehalem in order to make more money in the next revision. And indeed, that's what the 'old Intel' would have done. Since the C2D and branding change, Intel have been working very hard to push as far ahead as they can with each new model, apparently regardless of the fact that they're already miles ahead.
I never used to like Intel - they held the monopoly, and behaved like Microsoft and IBM - leaving product planning to accountants rather than engineers. But they've changed, and I'm really starting to like Intel. They deserve their success now, because they're actually out-innovating AMD and making great products.
Read the article - many things that help the performance boost, such as the IMC, have been in AMD processors for ages. In spite of the head-start, when Intel introduce it they do it better.
No, Nehalem will NOT cost $400 until 2010 if AMD tanks. Don't you understand that Intel is in the business of making money? How could they continue to make sizable money if Nehalem still costs $400 in 2010???
that super great chart reminds me of Crelm Toothpaste
MacPro Nehalem FTW. Otellini says Steve Jobs gets first pick of the best chips because Apple's the only company that does justice to Intel processors, so there's no reason for them to stick "Intel Inside" on every case.
Or maybe because Apple is exclusively Intel, so they don't have to brand "Intel Inside", unlike PC's? Duh?
PS. No avatar screams "fan boy" quite as well as a photo of a CEO!
You say "fan boy" I say brown noser lapdog.
Hack Pro Nehalem FMW
I hope whoever invented the hackintosh gets shot.
AMD is screwed in the high end user market, I'm a high end user myself who builds my own PCs, and my current computer still runs an AMD X2, and wow is it becoming a dinosaur. My next will be Intel.
That aside, a majority of the world's computer users do not need the fastest chip on earth, or anything near it. They need cheap and AMD beats Intel there in multiple areas. That means AMD won't die, they are just losing the hardcore gamers/PC enthusiasts like myself. However, the latter group is very small in the grand scheme of things.
Yeah, for the sake of competition and price, you'd be crazy not to be rooting for AMD right now. I hope they put up a better fight. They're over a year behind Intel right now.
How much overclocking would I have to do to my q9450 to get it to perform like that?
Well first of all you cant even OC the Q9450 that much. If you have really good parts you can get 3.6Ghz maybe. But the Nehalem can probably OC like crazy too so it's a moot point.
With all of these major changes, it might be better to wait for Sandy Bridge in 2010 (if you can wait two more years).
And on top of that you'll need to get a new motherboard for the new socket, along with DDR3. While Mac, and pre-built buyers will be getting a whole new $900 - $3000 computer. Which probably won't even be able to game, which is very, very sad. (I'm talking hardware wise here, not about OS X not being supported by nearly all games.
Although I agree that Apple would be wise to update their graphics cards faster, you can HARDLY say that a desktop 8800GT or even an 8600GT can't play games. In fact, although I'm not a big gamer, but my Geforce Go 7900GS card does quite well in my laptop.
Only crazy game-nerds need something like a 9800GX2, and most of them would be very unlikely to buy a Mac Pro anyways.
Hence the reason for Boot Camp. That's what I use it for. Crysis runs pretty well on "Very High" settings.
From the Anand article: "Sorry guys, stop making interesting chips and we'll stop trying to get an early look at them :)"
Well, I hope they don't
the Intel monopoly begins! i love the intel processors, best in the industry but the lack of competition is going to SCREW us -- THE CONSUMERS!!
I feel AMD would have been much smarter if they had bought VIA instead of ATI, then they could have had some Nano chips to exploit, now that Intels new chips have that onboard memory controller and a 45nm production process its time for AMD to put the gun to their head and pull the trigger.
How coould they waste all that investment money on ATI they are still using Athlon64 crap, which i loved 4 years ago but stinks now.
Maybe they are betting on a nice big payout/ patent access from their lawsuit against intel ?
They'll only get a payout if Intel has been bribing OEMs to use Intel chips. The way things are right now, Intel really doesn't need to bribe anybody.