Intel Nehalem Processor Details Leaked

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/Sun%20Leaks%206core%20Intel%20Xeon%20Nehalem%20Details/article10834.htm) provides screenshots from Intel slides detailing their upcoming Dunnington and Nehalem architectures.

First, the slides detail Dunnington, a 45nm six-core (three dual-cores) Xeon processor and successor to Tigerton. The Tigerton procesors were launched in September of 2007 and are aimed at very high end servers. Apple has not yet adopted these processors in either its Mac Pro or Xserve line.

More interesting are details of Intel's Nehalem processors which will be the successor to Penryn. While Nehalem is also a 45nm, SSE4, quad-core chip, it will introduce a number of other new technologies. In Nehalem, Intel will replace the front-side bus model with "QuickPath Interconnect" (similar to Hypertransport), add on-die memory controllers, and tri-channel DDR3. All these changes will reportedly increase the available bandwidth to the processor, allowing it to interact with the computer at faster speeds.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/02/25/152334-7355_large_nehalem-estimate-2_400.png
Longer is faster, X5482 is Harpertown processor found in Mac Pro

Based on early estimates, the Nehalem processor is expected to benchmark 144-203% faster than existing Harpertown Xeon processors (X5482). The Nehalem processor more than doubles the floating point performance of its current Penryn-family processors. Ou adds, "We’ll most likely know by the end of this year what the actual scores are, but I doubt they will be more than 5% to 10% off from these estimated projections."
The first Nehalem processors are not expected to be launched until Q4 2008.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/25/intel-nehalem-processor-details-leaked/)

[powermac_daddy]

I love this

[7even]

Wow. Maybe I'll actually upgrade my desktop when those come out. :D

[macintel4me]

Wow! That's first the first MAJOR performance gain and not just performance/watt gain have seen from Intel in awhile. Cheers!!

[MacsRgr8]

Wow.... gr8!

Interesting thing about Intel and its roadmap.... far more "educated guessing" about future Macs.

OTOH...
Boring thing about Intel and its roadmap.... far more "educated guessing" about future Macs than rumors and speculation.
;)

[killmoms]

Wow.... gr8!

Interesting thing about Intel and its roadmap.... far more "educated guessing" about future Macs.

OTOH...
Boring thing about Intel and its roadmap.... far more "educated guessing" about future Macs than rumors and speculation.
;)

To be fair, it means a lot less "Motorola/IBM processor divination" threads (will we ever get a faster chip?!) and a lot more "When the hell are we getting the new Intel chips in updated Macs OMGOMGOMG?!" threads.

You decide which is better. :p

[MacsRgr8]

The first Nehalem processors are not expected to be launched until Q4 2008.


WWDC '09....
Intro of these babies in the Mac Pro, if it also gets a facelift.

[zapp]

WWDC '09....
Intro of these babies in the Mac Pro, if it also gets a facelift.

And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo

[JonasLondon]

8-cores w 8 GB RAM and 512 MB Graphics card just got to be fast enough for a while dammit. :-)

[MacsRgr8]

To be fair, it means a lot less "Motorola/IBM processor divination" threads (will we ever get a faster chip?!) and a lot more "When the hell are we getting the new Intel chips in updated Macs OMGOMGOMG?!" threads.

You decide which is better. :p

Yep. Or will we ever get the G* {censored} in a PowerBook...? :D (sorry)

Less fun, but far better. It is much easier this way to plan ahead.

[Cromulent]

I'll be looking forward to these coming out that is for sure :).

[JonasLondon]

And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo

Congratulations, you'll have a lot of fun with it until this new beast becomes available and you can always switch just when the new one comes out.

I've got the same machine on order. It will be a blazing machine compared to my Dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac, that's a safe bet!

[MacsRgr8]

And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo

I just upgraded my Quad G5 to the Octo 2.8 with GeForce 8800 GT.
Don't worry, this Mac will stay the fastest Mac for at least 12 months (maybe even to summer '09), judging past upgrades... ;)

[TMay]

Not explicitly stated, but am I to assume that both Dunningham and Nethalem support multiprocessor configurations?

[Cromulent]

Not explicitly stated, but am I to assume that both Dunningham and Nethalem support multiprocessor configurations?

Yes. It was explicitly stated as they said they were the successor to already existing multiprocessor CPUs.

[twoodcc]

wow. now that's something to look forward to!

[zdobson]

And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo

I wouldn't worry too much. Seems like they won't be available until mid '09.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but won't it take some time for software to be available to make full use of the new architecture's capabilities? I mean, quad core chips have been around about a year (?) and not all pro software (i.e. Photoshop) makes use of all cores yet.

[MacsRgr8]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but won't it take some time for software to be available to make full use of the new architecture's capabilities? I mean, quad core chips have been around about a year (?) and not all pro software (i.e. Photoshop) makes use of all cores yet.

I depends how you use your computer.
Sometimes you use batches of multiple Photoshop actions which can use a couple of Cores at a time.

Simple (non-PS) example:
Take one QuickTime movie. Convert it to iPhone format: you will notice 2 Cores in use.
Now start a second QuickTime movie and do the same thing at the same time: Two Cores are used twice, i.e. 4 Cores used at once... and so on.

Or you can have one app use 4 Cores, while another app uses 2 Cores, and you still can iChat too. :cool:

EDIT:

Example of CPU time and CPU monitor when converting 2 QuickTime movies:

[ksz]

And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo
Me too, and I'm more than happy with it. Definitely not enlisting in the Wait for Eternity, er, oops, I mean Nehalem camp.

[sblasl]

Glad I sat out the most recent "speed bump" upgrade to the Mac Pro. This Nehalem upgrade will be worthy of the wait. It will also have a significant negative impact on the resale value on the current Mac Pros when the Nehalem Mac Pros are released.

[Macmaniac]

Que the I am waiting for the Nehalem processor threads..... oh wait... we already have one...:rolleyes:

[RHD]

Wow!
That's amazing!
I love technology!

[abijnk]

As a dorky tech student with a dorky tech student fiance, we are both giddy as school girls over Nehalem. :D

[cohibadad]

Based on early estimates, the Nehalem processor is expected to benchmark 144-203% faster than existing Harpertown Xeon processors (X5482).

I think this should read 44-103% faster or benchmark at 144-203% of X5482. The chart does not show 144-203% faster.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

This will make for a nice Mac Pro!

[swagi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

More interesting are details of Intel's Nehalem processors which will be the successor to Penryn.

Isn't Penryn the notebook platform. I mean, I thought we all waited for Penryn MBP, or wasn't that, what the whining was about?

So, this actually means: "When will we get the Nehalem MBP?"-posts are on the run, aren't they?

Actually, maybe a Nehalem iMac will be quite a fun toy :D

[masse]

The only question is... will I be able to wait until nehalem is in a mbp?

We'll have to see what kind of benefits montevina brings.

[diamond.g]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:



Isn't Penryn the notebook platform. I mean, I thought we all waited for Penryn MBP, or wasn't that, what the whining was about?

So, this actually means: "When will we get the Nehalem MBP?"-posts are on the run, aren't they?

Actually, maybe a Nehalem iMac will be quite a fun toy :D

Well Merom/Penryn are the CPU's used. It is the Core 2 line. Nehalem is the next iteration of Core CPU technology and I think it would most likely be called Core 3.

[voyagerd]

This is exactly why I've been saying that I'm waiting for Nehalem before I upgrade my Rev. A G5.

[iPoodOverZune]

why negative rating for this post?!:confused:
It thought it was, in any case, a good development.

[vendettabass]

I'm all over a nehalem iMac in Aug 09!

[MarkMe]

I wouldn't worry too much. Seems like they won't be available until mid '09.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but won't it take some time for software to be available to make full use of the new architecture's capabilities? I mean, quad core chips have been around about a year (?) and not all pro software (i.e. Photoshop) makes use of all cores yet.

I specifically checked Aperture at MacWorld and it used all 8 cores for many processes. Since I still have a 2gig G5, I don't think I will wait.:D
Mark

[EagerDragon]

12 Cores would make me happy until the 16 core systems come out.

POWER!!!!!!!!

Computers will never be fast enough, they can not yet answer my question before I ask.

[asdavis10]

This is some amazing news! I'm happy with my Mac Pro so I won't be waiting to upgrade, but its good to see Intel pushing the envelope. Dual core...necessary, quad core...sweet, six core...insane. As long as Intel and Apple keep innovating at the rate their going, we're going to see some amazing tech in the future.

[QCassidy352]

holy crap, now that's a big jump in power! :eek:

[ChrisA]

The Quick Path idea sounds like the real revolution here. Busses have always been bottlenecks.

Not quite a new idea. If you've been following CPU designs over the last 40 years you'd remember the CDC6400 (designed in 1964) It had a ten way path to main memory and the internal components where connected by what we'd call today a full NxN matrix switch, not a bus. However these machines sold for $12 million, back when that was a lot of money. I wonder how long it will take for all of the 1960's technology to find it's way to desktop PCs.

[BornAgainMac]

We will see thousands of "Next Tuesday" posts after this chip is available from Intel. If you want a Mac Pro, now is the time to buy one. It will be another 10 months for the next update.

[liberty4all]

*nm*

[ChrisA]

The only question is... will I be able to wait until nehalem is in a mbp?

Of course you can wait. But you know what will happen? three months before the nehalem comes out Intel will "leak" specs of the next generation and you be then have to wait another 18 months. You will become old and gray and you will still have that G3 notebook running System 9 on 128Mb of RAM.

I think the rule is "If you need a computer now, buy a computer now."

[swagi]

We will see thousands of "Next Tuesday" posts after this chip is available from Intel. If you want a Mac Pro, now is the time to buy one. It will be another 10 months for the next update.

Well, actually I guess no. Actually the best time for buying a MacPro was more than a year ago. After reading some documents, I'm inclined to think, that you rather buy in the Tock-phase of Intel's development stage. Nehalem will be the next Tock. Check Tick Tock Model (http://www.intel.com/technology/tick-tock/index.htm).

So well, I should've bought a Merom model a year ago. Then Nehalem and next Sandy Bridge :(

[G4DP]

You lot need to calm down, Intel promised mass improvement with the Harpertowns and it never happened. Get a grip, you won't see a 44% increase in performance, it'll end up being the usual 10% - 20% increase that we get with every next generation.

SSE4.1 was going to be the next best thing since sliced bread - yet 6 months down the line, I can't find a single piece of software that utilises it. Hell it's not even functioning on an OS level yet.

It seems Intel have taken a note from Steve Jobs book of publicity bollocks!

[mashny]

Just got a 2.8 octo Mac Pro and am thrilled with it. I was running an eight-year-old G4 400 since 2000, so I have no remorse about my purchase. For my needs, this machine should be all I need for at least five years.

[shawnce]

The Quick Path idea sounds like the real revolution here. Busses have always been bottlenecks.

Not quite a new idea. If you've been following CPU designs over the last 40 years you'd remember the CDC6400 (designed in 1964) It had a ten way path to main memory and the internal components where connected by what we'd call today a full NxN matrix switch, not a bus. However these machines sold for $12 million, back when that was a lot of money. I wonder how long it will take for all of the 1960's technology to find it's way to desktop PCs. The North bridge in most current generation chipsets have cross-bar like switches with multiple paths to memory, etc. So concepts from mainframes, etc. have made it into main stream / consumer computers in sensibly reduced forms.

Quick Path has been in the works at Intel for a while and is similar in many ways to Hyper Transport based systems that AMD currently make (for a while now). Also note HT was used in the PowerMac G5s back in the day (system component interconnect, not for CPU interconnect).

[Zwhaler]

Wirelessly posted (LGE-VX9900/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

Wow! That's first the first MAJOR performance gain and not just performance/watt gain have seen from Intel in awhile. Cheers!!

Agreed! I wasnt expecting much more than the typical 5-10% upgrade weve seen l
ately

[roland.g]

I'm quite happy with my 2.8 iMac. Well almost need to troubleshoot a couple things. But other than that. It will do me just fine till 2010.

[ChrisA]

This is some amazing news! I'm happy with my Mac Pro so I won't be waiting to upgrade, but its good to see Intel pushing the envelope. Dual core...necessary, quad core...sweet, six core...insane. As long as Intel and Apple keep innovating at the rate their going, we're going to see some amazing tech in the future.

"pushing the envelope"?
Sun has been selling their 8-core machine based on the SPARC T1 chip for, what, a year now? Longer I think. Each core can do 4-way "hyper threading" so it is really a 32 thread machine. Even with 8 cores the chip only uses 72 watts and runs cool. Prices are comparable to a Mac Pro.

[AidenShaw]

12 Cores would make me happy until the 16 core systems come out.

Re-read the article - these chips replace Tigerton, which goes into 4 socket systems. They'll be going into 24-core servers.

There's also no reason to expect 6 core chips in the Xeon dual socket series.

[sushi]

After reading some documents, I'm inclined to think, that you rather buy in the Tock-phase of Intel's development stage. Nehalem will be the next Tock. Check Tick Tock Model (http://www.intel.com/technology/tick-tock/index.htm).
Interesting. Good to know.

[shawnce]

You lot need to calm down, Intel promised mass improvement with the Harpertowns and it never happened. Get a grip, you won't see a 44% increase in performance, it'll end up being the usual 10% - 20% increase that we get with every next generation.

This is the first new micro-architecture generation since the Core 2 starting shipping in 2006. Everything so far since 2006 has been process related bumps, clock scaling, etc. (of course SSE4 is a new sub-set of instructions)

SSE4.1 was going to be the next best thing since sliced bread - yet 6 months down the line, I can't find a single piece of software that utilises it. Hell it's not even functioning on an OS level yet. Not really 6 months since processors have been shipping in any volumes to customers (more like 2 months). Expect software to start leveraging SSE4 in the coming months/year. You really can get 30-40% boost in performance with tasks that map well to SSE4 over what you could do on prior CPUs that only had SSE3/SSSE3.

[revisionA]

We will see thousands of "Next Tuesday" posts after this chip is available from Intel. If you want a Mac Pro, now is the time to buy one. It will be another 10 months for the next update.

Sweet. I got one last thursday, in lieu of freaking out about MBP updates - I caved and got the power I was craving...

now what to do with it... hmm

folding@home for mac?

$

[powerchord]

why negative rating for this post?!:confused:
It thought it was, in any case, a good development.

Probably from some of those who are eagerly awaiting Penryn and who don't want anyone or anything to burst their waiting bubble.. you know this kind of news takes a little luster and sheen off an impending update.

Regardless, this is very good news.


Onward Apple, ho!

[Jonny427]

now what to do with it... hmm

folding@home for mac?

$

Thats what I do while i'm at work :)

[Digital Skunk]

Sweet. I can own my Penryn MBP for about a year then upgrade to an even sweeter machine when it finally comes out after month of agonizing waiting.

[kcroy]

That graph would look so much better in Numbers!

Maybe if I get some time later.

[Mr.PS]

Glad I sat out the most recent "speed bump" upgrade to the Mac Pro. This Nehalem upgrade will be worthy of the wait. It will also have a significant negative impact on the resale value on the current Mac Pros when the Nehalem Mac Pros are released.

I don't see why you would be glad. I'm glad I bought my Penryn and I will be glad when I order a Nehalem Mac Pro when it's out. :)

[EagerDragon]

Re-read the article - these chips replace Tigerton, which goes into 4 socket systems. They'll be going into 24-core servers.

There's also no reason to expect 6 core chips in the Xeon dual socket series.

Ok I got the 24-core part, that is even better.

Please explain why you could not use 2 of them to make a 12-core Mac Pro. Yes it would require a new motherboard, but besides that?

[nxent]

where does intel get its processor naming convention?

[MacsRgr8]

where does intel get its processor naming convention?

Israel?

[Glideslope]

Que the I am waiting for the Nehalem processor threads..... oh wait... we already have one...:rolleyes:

ROFLOL. It never ends.

[sterlingindigo]

*nm*

Nephilim!

[SiliconAddict]

Power PC 4 evar!!! x86 sukz!!!1!1one|eleventy!!! :rolleyes:

[MacsRgr8]

Power PC 4 evar!!! x86 sukz!!!1!1one|eleventy!!! :rolleyes:

LOL!
Maybe you should adapt your 'tar to your statement. :D

[noodle654]

Holy crap that is insane. 203% increase in performance is unheard of for me.

[Erasmus]

Yay! I knew Nehalem was going to be great! Bring on the quad core MBP!

Yes, we've been sitting on 5-10% speed increases since the original Core Duo Macs, but you gotta remember Moore's Law, which says that CPU speed doubles every two years. With all the crappy speed bumps we've gotten recently (Merom, even soon-to-be-disappointing Penryn) a big improvement like this was bound to happen soon.

And as was said before, the next big increase in speed after Nehalem will almost certainly be Sandy Bridge. 8 core MBP seems very likely, but I'm hoping it will be 16 core! (As says my sig)

(Although we do need to clear up the 203% increase in speed. An increase of 203% is a tripling, not a doubling. It is "only" 44% to 103% increase in speed.)

EagerDragon, if you can hold your breath for 12 months, it's a safe bet.

[EagerDragon]

Bring on the quad core MBP!


Now that is one upgrade I would love to see in an MBP, however I wont hold my breath.

[SiliconAddict]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=130651&highlight=Intel

we should do a where are they now thread on the front page:

Macmadant: Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s i wish i was there i would have bood


MacinDoc: I am stunned! I wonder what Intel chips Apple will be using... Hopefully Pentium M or some of the dual core chips in the pipeline...

Expect Mac sales to tank in the next 1-2 years though...

Stella: Apple betraying us.. ********.

It shouldn't matter WHAT processor apple uses, as long as its fast enough and runs OSX.

I think this is actually a good thing - potentially cheaper machines and more potential user base. I'm ignoring the elitist who think apple shouldn't have a marketshare more than "5, 10%" etc.


Oh wait...that is a positive post...what is that doing here?



Dr.Gargoyle: Mac just died.

Intel and AMD is SLOWER today than G5.

Intel and AMD is more expensive than G5.

shompa: This is not a move for us consumers, but for Apple to make more money selling software.
Apple IS the new Microsoft. They dont care about their customers best, but the companys best. They should care about their customers since that its we who give apple all their Money.

Back to the architecure.
Intel Xeon: 37 stages, 266mhz bus quad pumped. Sucky in dual operation,
AMD: 2.6 ghz. = good
G5 17 stages, 1.25ghz bus. Excellent in dual operation since each processor have its own channel.

Jobs it trying to sell us the Intel Myth.

F' him.

iGary: I'm still throwing up in my mouth a little.

Jesus: look, i like the idea of fast, cheap intels in macs as long as os x stays exclusive, but i have 2 negative points about intels:

1. they can't multitask for sh**

2. the pipelines are too long, so pentiums for example are marketing chips (i.e. they are designed to have a high ghz so intel can go 'look at us with are warp-speed chips') and long piplines are a serious bottle-neck in a system.

3. arn't the 32 bit, not 64 bit like the G5

just my opinion

of course, intel could be fabbing some new x86 chips for apple that have shorter pipelines and 64 bit.

[aftk2]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=130651&highlight=Intel

we should do a where are they now thread on the front page:



Truly an amazing post... those quotes are priceless.

[MacBoobsPro]

The Quick Path idea sounds like the real revolution here. Busses have always been bottlenecks.

Not quite a new idea. If you've been following CPU designs over the last 40 years you'd remember the CDC6400 (designed in 1964) It had a ten way path to main memory and the internal components where connected by what we'd call today a full NxN matrix switch, not a bus. However these machines sold for $12 million, back when that was a lot of money. I wonder how long it will take for all of the 1960's technology to find it's way to desktop PCs.

This is something that has always puzzled me.... I wont pretend I understand it fully but why have a 2.8GHz core if the bus is only 1.6ghz? You may as well have a 1.6Ghz core and save power right?!

Its great having all these core but why then force them to 'technically' run slower by cramming them through a slower bus. I dont get it?

Wouldnt a 1.6Ghz CPU with 1.6Ghz bus run just as fast, significantly cooler and use less energy than a 2.8Ghz CPU being forced through a 1.6Ghz bus?
:confused:

[ckurowic]

And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo

Thats just the way technology is. You have got to stop and buy a computer sometime. Besides, remember the user defines obsolete, no one else. If your computer still does what it was originally implemented to do, it is not obsolete.

[aliquis-]

144-203% faster my ass, 144-203% as fast.

[mmendoza27]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=130651&highlight=Intel

we should do a where are they now thread on the front page:

That was hilarious! The day that Apple announced the move to Intel (August 6, 2005) I knew that it was a great move! I can't believe the skeptics and their comments. However, I also was planning on building my own PC at the time and had an idea of the CoreDuo planned later that year. (which brought the smaller pipeline and TDP improvements)

..... Actually, now that I think about it..... that's probably why I switched to Mac... well I bought a iMac G5 6 months before the transition to Intel... glad I missed CoreDuo and I'm happy I'm at a MBP Core2Duo. Nehalem here I come!!

[mixel]

maaan, I thought the current MP would be a big jump, now.. I think I'll wait. ;)

TBH I like news like this because anything which keeps me waiting is saving the family a big chunk of money and getting me higher performance.. Technically my olde dual G5 does everything I /need/ it to, but it'd be seriously nice to be able to do more things simultaneously, faster.. with windows games, so I can get rid of my PC too. :D

40% up from a system that's already over 4x faster than what I currently have, hmmm. Nice. :D

[mrcrapperson]

I think this should read 44-103% faster or benchmark at 144-203% of X5482. The chart does not show 144-203% faster.

Good catch. I was thinking the same thing and just browsing the thread to see if someone else had already pointed it out. Since you have I wonder why it hasn't been corrected yet? Don't want any outrageously over-exaggerated specs floating around the 'net... ;)

[wheezy]

Chip technology just baffles me more and more everyday. How they fit so many transistors and all that on a 45nm chip is basically unbelievable to me aside from the fact that they do it.

Technology is amazing. And I'm completely retarded next to it. Kind of...

[mrcrapperson]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=130651&highlight=Intel

MacinDoc: I am stunned! I wonder what Intel chips Apple will be using... Hopefully Pentium M or some of the dual core chips in the pipeline...

Expect Mac sales to tank in the next 1-2 years though...

lol

Apple's market share has more than doubled since then.

[chubad]

My criteria for upgrading is that the new machine must be a MINIMUM of 4 times faster. Do the Math. I have a G-5 Quad.:D

[marktesssing]

Glad I sat out the most recent "speed bump" upgrade to the Mac Pro. This Nehalem upgrade will be worthy of the wait. It will also have a significant negative impact on the resale value on the current Mac Pros when the Nehalem Mac Pros are released.

what happened to Multimedia, is he no longer a member?

[ChrisA]

This is something that has always puzzled me.... I wont pretend I understand it fully but why have a 2.8GHz core if the bus is only 1.6ghz? You may as well have a 1.6Ghz core and save power right?!

Its great having all these core but why then force them to 'technically' run slower by cramming them through a slower bus. I dont get it?

Wouldnt a 1.6Ghz CPU with 1.6Ghz bus run just as fast, significantly cooler and use less energy than a 2.8Ghz CPU being forced through a 1.6Ghz bus?
:confused:

Short answer: No. Because we have two levels of cache on the CPU side of the bus. The CPU never access RAM it only access the cache. The bus connects cache with RAM.

Longer answer:
Computer scientists use a term called "locality of reference", sometimes called "principle of locality" This means that a program references something at location A then there is a very good chance that the next thing it references will be located very close to A and not at some other random location. This principle i why a cache can work

We can take advantage of this if we design our computer to have a very small but fast local store to hold the data we are immediately using. We keep a litle more data very close at hand inside a very fast "L1" cache and more data is a slower L2 caches and finely we have RAM which holds most ifof the active data and this is finally backed by a disk drive that holds everything. The fastest store would be the registers inside the CPU. These work at fractions of a clock cycle. The disk is maybe a million times slower but also a billion times larger. the caches and RAm fill the space between

In practical terms here is an example. Lets say we have a simple bit of code that scans a string looking for the first slash character. If this code is ever executed it might run on average 20 times through the loop before it finds the slash. If the code is 30 bytes long then if it ran in RAM the CPU would have to pull 600 byes across the bus. But if it were loaded into L1 cache only 30 bytes are pulled from RAM but once they are there those 600 bytes can be read at "cpu speed"

One more angle: If we have a cache with access time A and a backing store with access time B what is the effective access time of the total system? It is the probability of the data being in cache times A plus probability of the data being in the backing store times B. If the "cache hit probability" is very high the system access time approaches A. In modern system the cache hit ratio is in the 90% range much of the time. Today we can't possibly afford to buy 4GB of L1 cache and I doubt it could be built at any cost. But we can have a memory system 90% as good be combining a cache with 4Gb of cheaper RAM.

[breath of apple]

I am saving up! :)

[triotary]

My criteria for upgrading is that the new machine must be a MINIMUM of 4 times faster. Do the Math. I have a G-5 Quad.:D

Agreed! I just upgraded to 08 2.8 octo from G4 733 :D

[ChrisA]

My criteria for upgrading is that the new machine must be a MINIMUM of 4 times faster. Do the Math. I have a G-5 Quad.:D

You have a good point. I've found that for a normal user setting at the keyboard doing real work, to notice the speed has to double. User can'tt notice a 1.5X increase, not unless they run tests and use a stopwatch. Human enses just work that way, sound has to almost doubt before we notic it's louder. (we notice 3dB but not 1) same with light camera f-stops are set to double or cut light by factor of 2 and skilled photographers can just light down to one f-stop. I guess this caries over to computers.

This is why it is so silly, these people holding out buying a computer waiting for 10% more CPU performance.

[PVguy]

Penryn is now demoted to aged guano; only Nehalem is worthy of purchase.

All machines not equipped with Nehalem processors are now off the shopping list. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, the Quicksilver (2002) keeps chugging happily along as it turns 6. Until it stops, or until I want to do something it just can't do, why replace it?

To any Apple people watching this page: the Mac Pro is too big. The iMac needs expansion (2 expresscard slots on the back would do fine). And the mini is too mini for outside the stereo cabinet. Although that hack to hotwire an external 3.5" SATA drive into the internal port looks pretty interesting. But still no 64-bit support, so it's hard to justify as a new machine.

Oh well;

[Mr.PS]

You have a good point. I've found that for a normal user setting at the keyboard doing real work, to notice the speed has to double. User can'tt notice a 1.5X increase, not unless they run tests and use a stopwatch. Human enses just work that way, sound has to almost doubt before we notic it's louder. (we notice 3dB but not 1) same with light camera f-stops are set to double or cut light by factor of 2 and skilled photographers can just light down to one f-stop. I guess this caries over to computers.

This is why it is so silly, these people holding out buying a computer waiting for 10% more CPU performance.

I went from a core 2 duo Dell E1405 Laptop with 2gb of ram. I notice the difference tremendously.


Penryn is now demoted to aged guano; only Nehalem is worthy of purchase.

All machines not equipped with Nehalem processors are now off the shopping list. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, the Quicksilver (2002) keeps chugging happily along as it turns 6. Until it stops, or until I want to do something it just can't do, why replace it?

To any Apple people watching this page: the Mac Pro is too big. The iMac needs expansion (2 expresscard slots on the back would do fine). And the mini is too mini for outside the stereo cabinet. Although that hack to hotwire an external 3.5" SATA drive into the internal port looks pretty interesting. But still no 64-bit support, so it's hard to justify as a new machine.

Oh well;

Too big, have you lost your mind? It's too small if anything. The Mac Pro is perfect sized. Has enough room for everything a power user would like to have or have in the future.

[Digitalclips]

8-cores w 8 GB RAM and 512 MB Graphics card just got to be fast enough for a while dammit. :-)

I hope so too, just gone the same route!

[Stridder44]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=130651&highlight=Intel

we should do a where are they now thread on the front page:


I still laugh my ass off over that. Although I can't seem to decide which was worse; that thread or the thread when Apple first unveiled the iPod.

How ironic is it that Apple can piss off its fan base so much and then in the end actually grow in market share, profits, and popularity.

[Evangelion]

Power PC 4 evar!!! x86 sukz!!!1!1one|eleventy!!! :rolleyes:

Thank you for your "contribution" to the discussion

[bigwig]

If floating point performance is really that good, when is Intel going to stick a fork in Itanium? Development of that processor has been far, far below Intel's rosy projections when it was first introduced, and it has already done its job of killing off PA-RISC and MIPS. What I wouldn't give to see a MIPS R10k core running on Intel's current 45nm process; that would be a Godzilla of a CPU.

[edesignuk]

It'll be very impressive no doubt :cool:

I'll just enjoy my time with my "new" mac pro until it gets it's arse whooped in Q4 :o

Ah well, I'm happy now.

[Smoogz]

Though I'd love to have a qhad core or oct core laptop I seriousley dont see this happening on a mac anytime soon. Im not haiting on the idea... the multi-tasking and speed boost would be insane.... I just dont think mac will divert from their slim design to conform to these humungo, power eating, hella-hot processors like Dell or Alienware or Voodoo laptops will. I mean look at the top "o" the line laptops today. They weigh like 10 or more pounds (Dell and other brands im refering to here).

Though in the end we WILL see this come to mac laptops I just dont think it'll be as soon as a year.. perhaps 2 or 3.

Now for the Mac Pro's and XServe I can see them implementing these newer processors with a new motherboard in a year or a year and a half but the price will be above 5,000.

hey i could be wrong but intel processors especially of this type will stasy high price ranged for awhile.

[bigwig]

Nehalem will be wonderful, but as a system I hope for upgrades, too. FireWire 3200 + USB 3.0, for starters. How about some new (or at least less expensive) displays? I've got to have a 30" ACD :D to go along with my new Nehalem Mac Pro :)

[thereubster]

I think if you have just bought an 8 core Mac Pro you will be fine for many years to come. Nehalem will bring some new innovations to the table but main improvement is the number of threads per CPU (Hyperthreading is back!) So a 2 socket, quad core processor will have 16 threads available to the OS. However, we all know that OSX and MOST apps are not capable of utilising this many CPU's, so there is nothing gained there. The other big improvement is in the memory subsystem, so apps which use high memory bandwidth (like audio and video) will see big performance improvements, esp. since the chipset will use DDR3.
However dont forget that in apps that move huge amounts of data around, the thing thats really holding you back is your hard drive. So no amount of extra CPU power or memory bandwidth will improve that. Faster drives (SSD, SAS, etc) will boost the speed that stuff gets done more than anything else (assuming you have enough memory)
Of course I am waiting for Nehalem because when I buy a Mac Pro I need it to last me a few years (and I cant afford one now anyway!) so I am a hypocrite but hey! ;)

[viltsu]

So what is coming after Nehalem?

[thereubster]

Geshner I think its called. New architechure not due till 2011. Basically there will be a new CPU arch every 2 - 2.5 years, with a die shrink to a new process in between them. The new cpu arch brings new features and the die shrink brings faster speeds and lower power consumption.

[diamond.g]

So what is coming after Nehalem?

Sandy Bridge is the next micro architecture (I think).

[calisurfboy]

OMG! Am I the only one that cannot tell the difference between all the intel chips? I use to be able to tell by numbers or certain letters added to the numbers to tell the difference in chips but now.... in the humble words of spaceballs everywhere, we have reached "ludicrous speed".

[TallManNY]

Great to know the timing. I'm considering a new desktop to augment my Macbook Santa Rosa and replace my iMac G4. Now I know that Nehlam is not going to be available before November 08 and maybe even later than that. I still think it will be in 08 because of Apple calling the current Pro the Early 08 Pro. Next we will have the late 08. So now I know that waiting doesn't mean waiting until the summer, but until much later than that.

Speed increase sounds nice, but if it comes with a big price increase (and it might), then maybe it won't be super compelling.

If I knew what was coming with the iMac (which is really enough computer for me), then I think I could really make an informed buying decision.

And frankly, in bang for the buck right now, a refresh of the displays is of pretty high concern to me. Maybe that happens today!

[AidenShaw]

So what is coming after Nehalem?

Swagi posted this pic back in reply 40 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5035415&postcount=40).

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=104926&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1203975844

The gold blocks are new architectures, the red blocks are shrinks.

Also, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmere_%28CPU%29#The_successor for more info...

[bigwig]

Will Nehalem on the desktop have a new system chipset (Montevina) like mobile Nehalem, or is Intel's system chipset a mobile-only thing?

[shawnce]

Will Nehalem on the desktop have a new system chipset (Montevina) like mobile Nehalem, or is Intel's system chipset a mobile-only thing?

Nehalem is a new micro architecture that will be used across the mobile, desktop, workstation, and low/mid-end server space.

[bigwig]

Nehalem is a new micro architecture that will be used across the mobile, desktop, workstation, and low/mid-end server space.
True, but that's not what I asked. I was asking about the new system chipset that's the companion to Nehalem.

[diamond.g]

True, but that's not what I asked. I was asking about the new system chipset that's the companion to Nehalem.

Yeah, Capella is the platform name, but I haven't been able to find what the chipset name will be. It will be different because Nehalem won't support the existing FSB arch.

[hugodrax]

That was hilarious! The day that Apple announced the move to Intel (August 6, 2005) I knew that it was a great move! I can't believe the skeptics and their comments. However, I also was planning on building my own PC at the time and had an idea of the CoreDuo planned later that year. (which brought the smaller pipeline and TDP improvements)

..... Actually, now that I think about it..... that's probably why I switched to Mac... well I bought a iMac G5 6 months before the transition to Intel... glad I missed CoreDuo and I'm happy I'm at a MBP Core2Duo. Nehalem here I come!!

I would have never switched myself. When the Mac Pro Intel system came out I switched the office machines and my home machine. So much for the doomsayers.

[warensn]

I see many comments here about whether waiting for Nehalem is a good thing or not. Look, an 8 core machine will be plenty fast for the foreseeable future. Besides, hard drives are the limiting factor. A year or two down the line, just plug in the latest solid state terabyte card and you are good to go.
Another thing to think about is how long it takes software to catch up with hardware. How long will it take for software to commonly use all 8 cores and utilize all the SSE4 instruction set.
The point is that your new Mac pro may get faster in the next year. Do you really want to wait 2 more years until the software catches up with the hardware upgrades for Nehalem?

[jjahshik32]

I see many comments here about whether waiting for Nehalem is a good thing or not. Look, an 8 core machine will be plenty fast for the foreseeable future. Besides, hard drives are the limiting factor. A year or two down the line, just plug in the latest solid state terabyte card and you are good to go.
Another thing to think about is how long it takes software to catch up with hardware. How long will it take for software to commonly use all 8 cores and utilize all the SSE4 instruction set.
The point is that your new Mac pro may get faster in the next year. Do you really want to wait 2 more years until the software catches up with the hardware upgrades for Nehalem?

Excellent point, honestly I'm not waiting for something like nehalem or anything else, I am too just waiting for the ssd in 3.5" and 2.5" to come down close in price in the $200-$300 range.

Honestly I used to own the 2.66ghz mac pro 4 core and I sold it a while back thinking I didnt need it but then the 2.4ghz mbp wasnt cutting it for me as for main usage. So just when the 8 core harpertowns were released I plunged and bought the 2.8 8 core model and the only thing I'm craving for is the ssd drives. Even the 2.66ghz mac pro 4 core running an ssd drive.. man that would be sweeet.