Six-core Intel Nehalem processors in the works?

It's a bit of a whisper on the wind, but bit-tech says Intel's got six-core Nehalem processors in the works for later this year. The chips are said to be compatible with existing Nehalem mobos, so you crazy builders out there will be able to just drop it in and go. If you've got the scratch, of course -- pricing hasn't been revealed, but we'd expect the new part to be more expensive than the quad-core Core i7 975, which runs about a grand.

[Via TrustedReviews]

[Templarian @ Jun 11th 2009 3:43PM]

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)

[Drew Green @ Jun 11th 2009 3:57PM]

and 24 threads

[OneLove @ Jun 11th 2009 4:30PM]

six cores and a fireplace for the winter.

[mirakutea @ Jun 11th 2009 4:54PM]

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?

[Chuckles McGee @ Jun 11th 2009 5:10PM]

@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.

[mirakutea @ Jun 11th 2009 5:23PM]

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.

[Matt @ Jun 11th 2009 5:31PM]

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?

[utahnkid @ Jun 11th 2009 5:45PM]

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."

[bot @ Jun 11th 2009 8:55PM]

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?

[Laughoutloud @ Jun 11th 2009 3:45PM]

I've already got 6 cores, my abs.

[BlurMagic @ Jun 11th 2009 4:24PM]

Douche.

[Nick @ Jun 11th 2009 9:23PM]

That sound's an awful lot like a guy in my Data Structures class....

[Luke @ Jun 11th 2009 3:45PM]

insanity ensues

[Patriks7 @ Jun 11th 2009 3:45PM]

So, where's AMD?

[Vic @ Jun 11th 2009 3:56PM]

They already have a 6 core opteron, i think these processors are meant for servers.

[boomerz @ Jun 11th 2009 4:11PM]

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/

[Shaun @ Jun 11th 2009 4:19PM]

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

[Aaronage @ Jun 11th 2009 4:43PM]

But Dunnington isn't a monolithic die like Istanbul :)

[boomerz @ Jun 11th 2009 5:00PM]

Well AMD is the first six core with a built in integrated memory controller.

[utahnkid @ Jun 11th 2009 5:49PM]

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?

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 11th 2009 6:27PM]

@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

[Kiv @ Jun 11th 2009 6:58PM]

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!!!

[John @ Jun 11th 2009 3:47PM]

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.

[John @ Jun 11th 2009 3:49PM]

Nevermind, their source says X58 motherboard actually so I guess they'd be desktop series after all...

[Sam @ Jun 11th 2009 4:00PM]

well arent they doing 8 cores for servers? it makes sense to make the step up to 6 cores with nehalem

[tuaamin13 @ Jun 11th 2009 4:47PM]

X58 platform is actually a high end desktop/workstation platform, and not meant for mainstream.

[Sam @ Jun 11th 2009 7:46PM]

*with core i7

[John @ Jun 11th 2009 8:04PM]

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.

[kizzeo @ Jun 11th 2009 3:50PM]

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.

[Kamokazi @ Jun 11th 2009 4:07PM]

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.

[Brian @ Jun 11th 2009 4:11PM]

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.

[jason51873 @ Jun 11th 2009 4:53PM]

I don't think there is any software video or otherwise that is programed to take advantage of 6 cores - is there?

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 11th 2009 5:38PM]

I have several programs that use as many cores as I request of them... but I assume you are talking about mainstream apps ;)

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 11th 2009 6:24PM]

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.

[jon @ Jun 11th 2009 6:55PM]

@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.

[jon @ Jun 11th 2009 6:56PM]

Nope, I should have said 5000 series.

[d889 @ Jun 11th 2009 3:54PM]

these are not gaming chips, these are after affects chips and similar programs

[Tony Montana @ Jun 11th 2009 3:54PM]

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.

[Zink @ Jun 11th 2009 3:58PM]

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.

[jon @ Jun 11th 2009 5:41PM]

I almost think it would have to be, I don't remember any rumors about a 45nm hexa-core chip.

[chanmanplanet @ Jun 11th 2009 4:00PM]

My $$$'s gonna be w/ Sandy Bridge

[MG76 @ Jun 11th 2009 4:00PM]

Whispers in the wind? These have been shown on Intels roadmap for processor development and have been for at least a year now.

[junk @ Jun 11th 2009 4:01PM]

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.

[Vidikron @ Jun 11th 2009 4:18PM]

Your SSD isn't going to get you laid either.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Jun 11th 2009 4:23PM]

I smell advertising campaign... "Buy SSD, Get Laid Tonight!"

[elBravo @ Jun 11th 2009 5:06PM]

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.

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 11th 2009 6:25PM]

6-core Westmere chips are for dual-socket SERVERS (and workstations), not your stupid gamer PC in your mom's basement.

[bandigolo @ Jun 11th 2009 7:06PM]

By "getting laid" he mean POV porn in 1080p.

[bandigolo @ Jun 11th 2009 4:01PM]

For PC's? Good God, for why?

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 11th 2009 4:46PM]

... real time ray tracing of course!