http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 9:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
It's probably a quadcore because the first nehalem chips to hit the market will be quadcores.]]>Jun 5th 2008 11:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
Intel says Nehalem will have 10-25% higher single thread performance, and 30%-100% higher multi-thread performance than Penryn.]]>Jun 6th 2008 4:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 9:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
Sorry I'll stop cracking bad jokes now...]]>Jun 5th 2008 11:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
very satisfying indeed. =]]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
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..]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
Yeah, it's BEEN AMD's turn to move ever since the first Core 2s came out. Still waiting...]]>Jun 6th 2008 8:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Good luck AMD indeed.]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 9th 2008 2:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
Didn't you learn about primary and secondary sources in high school composition?]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
Would be nice in future if we could get the direct source please :)

Thanks]]>Jun 6th 2008 3:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
Pretty logical, IMO.]]>Jun 6th 2008 7:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
The cost of making chips are going up...and Intel has the "junk" to take care of AMD.]]>Jun 6th 2008 6:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/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).]]>Jun 6th 2008 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
(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)]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
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!]]>Jun 5th 2008 11:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
AMD should take the time to make a powerful, energy efficent chip to push into that market. OTHERWISE THEY ARE F*CKED.]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/
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
]]>Jun 5th 2008 10:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 10:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 6th 2008 12:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 9th 2008 7:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/intels-nehalem-bechmarked-2-66ghz-faster-than-3-2ghz-penryn/Jun 5th 2008 11:13PM