Intel's Nehalem benchmarked: 2.66GHz faster than 3.2GHz Penryn
By Nilay Patel 
posted June 5th 2008 9:56PM
posted June 5th 2008 9:56PM
[Via AeroXperience]
posted June 5th 2008 9:56PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.