![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
6-Core Nehalem Coming to LGA 1366 This Year
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Sorry to get off topic guys.
Cut unclewebb some slack, his posts over the years have been generally very helpful and he has contributed to the community quite a bit, especially in the area of accurate cpu temperature (distance to tjmax). Unclewebb is the author of "Real Temp" which may of you guys use.
Everybody has a bad day now and then.
Cut unclewebb some slack, his posts over the years have been generally very helpful and he has contributed to the community quite a bit, especially in the area of accurate cpu temperature (distance to tjmax). Unclewebb is the author of "Real Temp" which may of you guys use.
Everybody has a bad day now and then.
Because now that Intel has lured people in with an affordable i7 chip (920) you will either have to purchase a very expensive CPU to upgrade, or buy another motherboard and chip to switch to i5.
The i5 is not an i7 replacement dammit!
Again:
The i5 is not an i7 replacement dammit!
and once more for the
The i5 is not an i7 replacement dammit!
The i5 is MAINSTREAM, socket 1156, no QPI and it can just tap into 902 (stock) performance.
We need to sticky this and spoon feed it to the noob's.
Or just stick with your 920...have all people gone soft in the top over this i7/i5 crap?
Don't bother... they won't listen.
Umm... when was the last time you actually upgraded a cpu and kept the same motherboard?
Nope. 1366 has been dubbed the high-end platform since its announcement, why did you expect anything different?
He had more than a bad day, he a a brain meltdown.
XS is for suicde runs, worthless Super-Pi and other synthetic benches...try sking for REAL world game performance...they will ignore you...because it might shrink their e-peens, when the gain are not as high as compare to fuzzy-benches...
He can run of and stay gone, then I will enjoy my i7 without his bickering...
Chill out and read what i wrote once more.
It replace the elcheapo i7 parts mainly 920/xeon W3520 that is phased out in favor of i5.
That i5 lacks feature or have other that i7 dont have are not of intrests here as what i wrote is what is gonna happens. Why else kill the 920 if you dont plan to replace it with a cheaper part on same/other sockets? It does not matter if it replace in sentence of the same socket or is a new sockettype, 920 is EOL in favor of i5 and that is all i said, not that it "replace" like you think you read it..
I never said it fit the same socket nor i never will say it as i alredy know that there is bigger difference than this so chill out for god sake.
The X58 LGA1366 boards will likely have a solid upgrade path for some time to come. Do not forget that the Xeon W3xxx series CPUs are essentially rebranded Core i7's. We'll have those and on the ultra-high end we'll have the Core i7 975 and the 6 core monster when it is available. Intel is simply removing the Core i7 920, 940 and 950 as those products will have some performance overlap with some of the Core i5 processors, or at the very least, cost overlap. Intel is simply tightening up their product line.
This is correct lol, i was running an 8800gts 512mb for a year on a socket 939 2.2ghz which is slightly newer then your CPU i believe.
Moved to an i7 system for around 1000, kept same graphics cards. My average fps doubled to quadrupled depending on the game. TF2 was the most noticeable increase, i just dont worry about not being able to aim anymore as a fast action scout, the fps is very smooth all the time.
WoW, has its limiations due to network path information, but even still it at least on average went up from 2.5-4x depending on the situation. Wintergrasp was the only situation due to limitations that it didnt help much, it went up maybe only 30-50%, which isnt much when i was originally only getting 9fps average.
My only dissapointment is issues with left 4 dead, fps seems about the same or even worse, not sure what thats about, will probalby trying reinstalling since i did a direct copy from my old computer.
EDIT: And this is without any overclocking yet. Not expecting to get much out of it but i will at least be pushing 3ghz soon here for bragging rights
I'll be replaying Crysis soon, since i seem to be one of the few people who thought it was an awesome game. Amittedly im an FPS junkie, although i dont approve of many FPSs because they feel ... mmo grindy if that makes sense. Crysis however being potentially too simple i enjoyed alot, the story sequences were quick but interesting, i liked approaching situations instead of just a RUSH HEAD ON, or "Throw grenade now and mow down the rest of them", it really gave alot of choices to how you want to approach it, and it didnt feel like you were learning the complexity of an RTS to take on these different approaches.
Last edited:
I don't understand why people run amok about the 45nm I7 line being discontinued ?
It will be replaced by 32nm Gulftown variants this Q4/early Q1 2010. Instead of a 2.66GHz 920 you get a 6 core Gulftown ( probably at the same speed ) in the same price range. Same for other models. It's not like you'll be left with only 1 CPU for 1366.
In this way, the 1366 socket will differ from mainstream by more than the number of memory channels, just how it should.
It will be replaced by 32nm Gulftown variants this Q4/early Q1 2010. Instead of a 2.66GHz 920 you get a 6 core Gulftown ( probably at the same speed ) in the same price range. Same for other models. It's not like you'll be left with only 1 CPU for 1366.
In this way, the 1366 socket will differ from mainstream by more than the number of memory channels, just how it should.
Because you really don't seem to understand reality, let me re-iterate:
The 920 is NOT EOL.
It is NOT going away (until the $266 gulftown comes out).
The (going off of memory) 2.8Ghz i5 and the 2.66Ghz i7 will both be sold at a $266 MSRP.
Repeat. BOTH be sold.
The (still going off memory) 3.06Ghz i7 and the 3.06Ghz i5 will both be sold at a ≈$550 MSRP.
Repeat. BOTH be sold.
The 940 went away for the faster at the same price 950. The 965 went away for the faster at the same price 975. Intel hasn't said ANYTHING about stopping production on the 920. Nor will they until they release the equivalent 3 models of gulftown.
Im sorry for screaming at you, but you aren't the first person to frustrate me on this topic in the last few days. Don't take it personally. I really don't understand why people are having so much trouble with the concept of BOTH being sold at the SAME time and the SAME price.
It's funny when I see guys that roll their eyes at chips coming out with more cores like we don't have a need for them. Are they freakin nuts? Many people completely have the needs for these cores and don't just use their computers for looking up lasagna recipes for grandma on the internet and checking the weather..
Plus this just motivates software makers more and more to get their butts movin on increasing their parallel threading capabilities.
Plus this just motivates software makers more and more to get their butts movin on increasing their parallel threading capabilities.
Theres a limit to parallelism on the desktop though. Word doesn't need 6 cores. On the other hand, the process shrink should increase overclocking headroom, which helps everything (4.5Ghz, here we come!).
Its funny, I don't do anything to really require the quad, except for one thing.
I play (or at least, care about [mod]) 3 games. Sins, which is just fine with current hardware. Crysis, which is fine on current CPUs and crushes current GPUs. And SupCom, which is fine on current GPUs but wants 4 cores as fast as they can get. So between SupCom and Crysis, I need a fast GPU AND a fast CPU. Its frustrating.
Plus I have to plan for SupCom 2, hopefully it'll be even more fully threaded and take even more resources. Damnit, I want a game I still play occasionally in a decade. TA was that way, but SupCom isn't (because it only uses 4 cores, and pretty poorly at that).
And to add something else, I don't know of anything on sandy bridge that would require a new socket. s1366 should last until DDR4 pops up or QPI gets too slow (stupid PCI-E v3 )
Its funny, I don't do anything to really require the quad, except for one thing.
I play (or at least, care about [mod]) 3 games. Sins, which is just fine with current hardware. Crysis, which is fine on current CPUs and crushes current GPUs. And SupCom, which is fine on current GPUs but wants 4 cores as fast as they can get. So between SupCom and Crysis, I need a fast GPU AND a fast CPU. Its frustrating.
Plus I have to plan for SupCom 2, hopefully it'll be even more fully threaded and take even more resources. Damnit, I want a game I still play occasionally in a decade. TA was that way, but SupCom isn't (because it only uses 4 cores, and pretty poorly at that).
And to add something else, I don't know of anything on sandy bridge that would require a new socket. s1366 should last until DDR4 pops up or QPI gets too slow (stupid PCI-E v3
)If it is now, tomorrow or early next year, whenever does not matter at all, the outcome is the same for the customers that plan to buy them and miss the deadline. they only find an i5 in that pricerange where i7-920 was(witch is what i said) when the stock is empty and roadmaps confirm that 920 is dead latest early next year if not sooner so i might be to early but it does not matter as outcome is the same anyway.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/05/confirmed-core-i7-920-940-950-to-go-soon/1
I dont understand the use for 6 cores. I do understand technology progresses and such, but what possibly benefit will 6 cores give from 4 cores? My i7 cores barely take advantage of most things i do.
I dont regret going to i7, i went from an AMD 6000+ system so it was a justifiable purchase and i still sold the old parts for some $. I generally keep my mobo/cpu for 3 years or so, this should work for me for a long time.
I will also bet when the 6-core is out, many of the same people with q6600 and 9550-9650s will say the same thing they are saying in this thread, i am glad i didnt upgrade...Upgrade is always justifiable if you have the use for it
I dont regret going to i7, i went from an AMD 6000+ system so it was a justifiable purchase and i still sold the old parts for some $. I generally keep my mobo/cpu for 3 years or so, this should work for me for a long time.
I will also bet when the 6-core is out, many of the same people with q6600 and 9550-9650s will say the same thing they are saying in this thread, i am glad i didnt upgrade...Upgrade is always justifiable if you have the use for it
Just wait you guys. You have to look at the bigger picture. Remember 20 years ago when we were typing on 286's with those huge 5 inch floppy disks and that's pretty much all it was good for. Hell there wasn't even the world wide web yet. Who would have thought we would turn into a world of immense communications and digital music, video, graphics, and burning things through lasers on optical medias, etc. And this is just the beginning. Our computers that we call low end today were worth millions back in the day.
I picture 20 years from now the desktop as we know it will be completely changed and it will be much more interactive. There will be no mouse and keyboard, etc. Everything will be digital and 3D. Like large glass panels containing images you control with your hands and huge virtual screens all around you putting you in the center of everything, etc. Whatever the timeframe is for stuff like this to come about, it's all continuously evolving in baby steps, although it's more like jumbo steps. And all of these things will require WAY more than the 6 cores we look at today with aww. You'll need a dedicated core for every single action to create this world of virtual computing. Just use your imagination.
Last edited:
Shadowthor
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 80
Just because most ppl don't have any use for 6 core processors, doesn't mean all don't. Some ppl do, video editing, 3d studio, etc will see a benefit from 6 cores.
Wow, again with the "no programs use 6 cores argument."
Yeah, that argument works really well if you're in a single-tasking OS, but guess what? Windows, Linux, and OSX CAN ALL RUN MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION AT A TIME!
Holy f*ck!
This means you can run 3 dual core optimized programs AT THE SAME TIME WITHOUT SLOWDOWN.
What the hell is wrong with you people? You're always whining about more and more cores. Honestly, how many people single task nowadays?
I've said this before on this forum. Here's a protip: windows and linux run more than one thread at a time. Even if 500 cores aren't going to speed up a single application, you're not going to have 1000 threads fighting for 1 core, you're going to have them fighting for 500 instead. Gee, guess which one is going to have the quickest turn around time in the OS scheduler?
Gee, that's a tough one!
But hey, lets keep whining about how nothing is going to use 6 cores, because clearly ITS THE COOL THING TO DO!
Yeah, that argument works really well if you're in a single-tasking OS, but guess what? Windows, Linux, and OSX CAN ALL RUN MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION AT A TIME!
Holy f*ck!
This means you can run 3 dual core optimized programs AT THE SAME TIME WITHOUT SLOWDOWN.
What the hell is wrong with you people? You're always whining about more and more cores. Honestly, how many people single task nowadays?
I've said this before on this forum. Here's a protip: windows and linux run more than one thread at a time. Even if 500 cores aren't going to speed up a single application, you're not going to have 1000 threads fighting for 1 core, you're going to have them fighting for 500 instead. Gee, guess which one is going to have the quickest turn around time in the OS scheduler?
Gee, that's a tough one!
But hey, lets keep whining about how nothing is going to use 6 cores, because clearly ITS THE COOL THING TO DO!
I only see you whining and crying...relax and go outside
I guess you didn't bother reading my earlier post or posts made by other people. Some of us can easily make use of a 6 core CPU. I already said earlier that I can easily make use of a 16 core processor with some of the software I use. Currently, one of the programs I use is limited to making use of 16 cores at one time. However, I'm sure that program can be changed to make use of more than that.
Just because you don't see a personal need doesn't mean others don't have a need for more cores. I have three Q6600s running 3.4Ghz, 3.6Ghz and 3.6Ghz right now and they are running 100% on all cores 24/7.
You are rehashing the exact same argument I heard when AMD released the x2 line and again when Intel released the Core2Quad line. These companies aren't releasing CPUs with more cores hoping someone can make use of them; they are releasing CPUs with more cores because there is a demand for them.
I always see threads like this get brought back to life. A little searching around even on the internet will fetch you the desired results. Dual core came out and the same thing got brought up, what's the use of quad core's? Now what's the use with 6 core's. Granted some indiviudals might not even have the need for 6 cores but that doesn' mean there's not a demand for it.
keshavcharya
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
- Messages
- 309
i really can't wait for Gulftown. i really hope it OCs to 4.0Ghz+! it will be a monster at video transcoding!
duely noted
SonDa5
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 7,437
If It can do 5ghz on air with moderate oc skills and Is low power efficient with a nice price I might upgrade from q9550 e0.
And when the bloomfields leave the $266/$550 price brackets, they'll be replaced by gulftowns.
Whats your point? s1366 is never* going to be an exclusively >$1k market.
*within the known timeframe, aka through sandy bridge and barring a global collapse or natural disaster
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
Amen
p3sty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,558
You people make me laugh. Just because they make something better doesnt mean you have to have it. As long as the rig you have now does the job why sweat load
Oh but it does.
I apologize for offending people here with my previous comments.
I'm sure 6 cores will be wonderful but here's the problem. When overclocking on air, the thermal limit of a Core i7-920 is about 4.0 to 4.2 GHz. If you increase the number of cores by 50% then you are going to have to significantly reduce your overclock to stay within the thermal limits.
The best heatsink and fan can only take so much heat out of a CPU. A 6 core CPU might max out at 3.2 GHz on air. You have extra cores and extra threads now but there's no way you'll be able to run them as fast as you can run a Core i7-920 CPU. When running a multi threaded app, I don't think there is going to be any difference in performance between a well clocked 4 core CPU or a well clocked 6 core CPU due to heat constraints. 6 cores is great for the marketing department but for enthusiasts that are overclocking, there won't be any benefit going to 6 cores.
I'm sure 6 cores will be wonderful but here's the problem. When overclocking on air, the thermal limit of a Core i7-920 is about 4.0 to 4.2 GHz. If you increase the number of cores by 50% then you are going to have to significantly reduce your overclock to stay within the thermal limits.
The best heatsink and fan can only take so much heat out of a CPU. A 6 core CPU might max out at 3.2 GHz on air. You have extra cores and extra threads now but there's no way you'll be able to run them as fast as you can run a Core i7-920 CPU. When running a multi threaded app, I don't think there is going to be any difference in performance between a well clocked 4 core CPU or a well clocked 6 core CPU due to heat constraints. 6 cores is great for the marketing department but for enthusiasts that are overclocking, there won't be any benefit going to 6 cores.