Six-core Intel Nehalem processors in the works?
By Nilay Patel 
posted Jun 11th 2009 3:39PM
posted Jun 11th 2009 3:39PM
[Via TrustedReviews]
posted Jun 11th 2009 3:39PM
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.
Now throw two of these into one computer and 12 cores of fun.
(the only way to get these quad cores to even flinch is to convert videos)
and 24 threads
six cores and a fireplace for the winter.
The average joe's desktop power needs have been satisfied, he can get what he needs very cheaply indeed.. I bet intel and amd worry for the future, they can live off the pro and enthusiast markets?
@Mirakutea
Yeah, and we'll never need more than 640k of RAM. Give developers more power, and they'll find a way to make use of it.
Average joe's needs are going to be static for a long time to come, it will take a revolution in software to change that.
Oh Mira... there is always room for more speed. Better technology leads to a better quality of life. Are you saying we should settle with what we have, instead of always striving for better?
It's one of those things EVERY SINGLE generation looks back at and laughs about - how the previous generation was absolutely sure the current state of affairs was more than adequate. Like when my parents were buying a computer about a decade ago and the salesperson laughed at the idea of them needing any more than 200Mhz. The processor in the little phone I'm writing this with has more than double that.
Computers are at an absolutely archaic state right as as far as user interface goes. They're extremely complicated to the average person and totally unintuitive. A keyboard and mouse may be second nature to us, but I argue that it's only because we don't know any different. I imagine computers in the not too distant will be controlled more by motion and voice than anything else and be FAR more able to predict what the user wants to happen without being told explicitly how to get there. The Ai and voice/motion recognition required to accurately (and quickly) do this would eat up the puny processing power avoidable in today's computers. As someone already stated, the only reason today's hardware is enough to satiate today's needs is because that's what's available. It's like when USB 3.0 was announced and everyone was saying "why would we need that? no device available requires that kind of throughput". Well genius, of course no current device requires that! Why would someone make a device that can't work with available technology??
"Build it, and they will come."
Those responding to mira, I think he's wondering if the market can survive on mainstream use, if needs have been met already. Obviously, hardcore users like developers can always use more power but I think the point was that they're not the ones driving the market. Unless I'm mistaken. For example, utahnkid: you're giving an example of what mira is talking about right now. You're doing your average every day surfing from a phone. I have one friend right now that uses his phone as his only computer. So the question is, is the demand of these high end chips enough to sustain, when the large majority of people can get by with a low end Core 2 Duo or even much much less?
I've already got 6 cores, my abs.
Douche.
That sound's an awful lot like a guy in my Data Structures class....
insanity ensues
So, where's AMD?
They already have a 6 core opteron, i think these processors are meant for servers.
AMD already has 6 core chips code named Istanbul. It's funny to see that Intel is the one playing catch up now. :p
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/01/amd-ships-six-core-istanbul-opteron-cpu-ahead-of-schedule/
Intel already has a 6 core CPU called Dunnington, Its been out since early last fall...they are not the ones playing catch up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors
But Dunnington isn't a monolithic die like Istanbul :)
Well AMD is the first six core with a built in integrated memory controller.
To say that AMD ISN'T the one playing catch up right now in the processing arena would be pretty much idiotic. I'm sure no intelligent Engadget reader would do that now, would they?
@Aaronage
"But Dunnington isn't a monolithic die like Istanbul :) "
Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#7400-series_.22Dunnington.22
Although this new 32nm Westmere hexa-core will blow the Xeon 7400/Dunnington out of the water
I think Istanbul was AMD's response to Dunnington not this chip, not to mention built to cater to custom demands for a drop in upgrade for current servers.
Question is, what is this Magny-Cours stuff I've been hearing about? 12 cores?!
:'( I have two.
Damned servers are gonna take over the world soon. SKYNET I TELL YA! SKYNET!!!
I would expect these to be server, not desktop chips (e.g., Xeons, not i7s). Intel's only present 6 core chip (to my knowledge) is a socket 604 Dunningham, and I'm sure there are more companies who could cough up the presumable 2k+ for a 6 core nehalem than there are people who could do so in the gaming crowd.
Nevermind, their source says X58 motherboard actually so I guess they'd be desktop series after all...
well arent they doing 8 cores for servers? it makes sense to make the step up to 6 cores with nehalem
X58 platform is actually a high end desktop/workstation platform, and not meant for mainstream.
*with core i7
X58 is the i7 chipset - Xeons use the 55XX chipsets, and X58 is ultimately a desktop chipset - it only takes UDIMM memory, no dual socket. All i7 boards are X58.
For gaming the sweet spot is 3 cores, often an upgrade to 4 cores even results in a very slight decrease. I can't see 6 cores being useful for anything other than power users into heavy encoding and compressing. Especially considering how much they're going to cost.
The only reason a quad core chip would show as performing less than a tri core would be because the cpu cores are less powerful, and the app is not designed to optimize multiple cores. AMD was spreading some muck a while back about how 3 cores alows each core to directly access eachother and improve performance, but that was all just an excuse for it to sell quad core chips that didn't pass QA and disable one of the 4 cores.
But you make a good general point. Very few games optimize for more than two cores. much less 4+. However I think that will change soon, as there has a a been a steady flood of cheap quad cores getting put in PCs, so it's only a matter of time I think.
These processors are very necessary.
I'd like to convert videos in the background while I'm gaming for both a Zune HD and 720p from it's 480p, 1080i, and 1080p source. I'd like to have the option to have psychotic physics calculations running in my games. I would like to run two OS's on a VM, assigning two cores to one and four to the other.
Now... if this processor is more than $1,000, I would probably end up going with a high end video card and stick with four cores.
I don't think there is any software video or otherwise that is programed to take advantage of 6 cores - is there?
I have several programs that use as many cores as I request of them... but I assume you are talking about mainstream apps ;)
They are made for SERVERS! And no, engadget, it is not a "whisper in the wind". The new 6-core is codenamed "Westmere" and is has been on the roadmap for years.
These 6-core "Westmere-EP" chips are made for 2-socket servers and workstations, and are built on Intel's new 32nm process.
Around the same time, the REAL beast should be out, the 45nm Nehalem-EX for quad-socket and larger server, which is an eight-core chip with quad-channel memory, quad QPI, and 24MB of L3 cache.
@loosely
Actually, westmere is the code name for the 32nm process, not an individual chip.
I'm guessing this is gulftown.
These will probably serve in the 3000 series servers, but they are also targeted at high end desktop users.
This is the step up from the i7 975.
Nope, I should have said 5000 series.
these are not gaming chips, these are after affects chips and similar programs
This is almost certainly server usage. The quad cores out there already are absolute monsters.
The Nehalem range is very impressive I was wondering how our friends at Intel would top the Core 2 Duo's but the i7's have been very impressive.
Hopefully this comes in at a grand with a price drop for all the quad coroes.
Go AnandTech! From back at the start of February:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3513
I hope its 32nm Gulftown ahead of schedule.
I almost think it would have to be, I don't remember any rumors about a 45nm hexa-core chip.
My $$$'s gonna be w/ Sandy Bridge
Whispers in the wind? These have been shown on Intels roadmap for processor development and have been for at least a year now.
Reality check. Right now an SSD is the only thing you can buy for your PC that will make it devastatingly faster. So faster in fact that you don't even need a benchmark to see the difference. Quad core and six core are "weener extenders" the only way you would see a difference is by running a benchmark. I wouldn't buy a CPU just to get a bigger benchmark. That wont get me laid.
Your SSD isn't going to get you laid either.
I smell advertising campaign... "Buy SSD, Get Laid Tonight!"
Maybe someone wants to run a VM with 2,3 or 4 cores dedicated. Some people might be looking for more than just speed. Use the right tool for the right job.
BTW, perhaps you can introduce me to these social circles where a faster tech has the assumption of getting one laid.
6-core Westmere chips are for dual-socket SERVERS (and workstations), not your stupid gamer PC in your mom's basement.
By "getting laid" he mean POV porn in 1080p.
For PC's? Good God, for why?
... real time ray tracing of course!