Gulftown 6-core CPU Insights... may be an upgrade option for Nehalem quads!

[VirtualRain]

Interesting insights on the upcoming 32nm successor to Nehalem, the Westmere based Gulftown processor (due Q1 2010)...

Several partners and sources close to Intel have recently been known to address the upcoming 32nm Gulftown 6-core monster as Intel Core i9. This doesn’t come as much of a surprise, considering that the company is structuring its Core lineup to feature odd numbers, beginning with its dual-core lineup also known as Core i3.

As we’ve mentioned several times before, the 32nm Gulftown 6-core (or hexa-core) chip will launch in Q1 2010 as the first chip in the Westmere family, the successor to Nehalem. Intel Core i9 will appeal to a highly enthusiast market niche, as it is based solely on socket LGA 1366 and retains compatibility with the X58 chipset which isn’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

From a clearly analytical perspective, Core i9 Gulftown can be viewed as Core i7 + 2, with six physical cores, a total thread count of 12 and a 50 percent L3 cache increase over Core i7 Bloomfield. We should also remind enthusiasts that Gulftown will not include an IGP core alongside the 32nm CPU, so nothing changes on the graphics front.

This makes you wonder if it could be a drop-in replacement for the Nehalem quad. The big question is whether an EFI update would be required to support it.

[300D]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

This makes you wonder if it could be a drop-in replacement for the Nehalem quad.

Not a chance. The Mac Pros do not use Core processors.

[Transporteur]

Originally Posted by 300D

Not a chance. The Mac Pros do not use Core processors.

Yes they do!

The Nehalem Xeon is based on the same Core i7 technology as the normal Core2Quad processors.

[Tesselator]

Yep!

[300D]

Originally Posted by Transporteur

based on

Key words there. Keep up.

[Transporteur]

It's pretty much the same processor, so give me one reason the 6-core won't be an option for the Mac Pro.

[iGary]

I'd prefer more apps that can utilize all the cores first.

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by 300D

Key words there. Keep up.

Core i7 processors work in Mac Pros. The x58 chipset supports Core i9 and the upcomming Xeon 3600 and 5600 processors. The only issue is whether there needs to be a firmware update on Apple's hardware. The 2006 Mac Pros needed one to support the 5200 and 5400 series Xeons, but Apple never cared.

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

Core i7 processors work in Mac Pros. The x58 chipset supports Core i9 and the upcomming Xeon 3600 and 5600 processors. The only issue is whether there needs to be a firmware update on Apple's hardware. The 2006 Mac Pros needed one to support the 5200 and 5400 series Xeons, but Apple never cared.

Yep. Apple doesn't want to compete with Dell, Hp, Gateway and Asus i7 machines that have 8GB memory, 1TB HD and the latest video cards for $900. Apple won't build junk for less than $1K.

[gugucom]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

The only issue is whether there needs to be a firmware update on Apple's hardware. The 2006 Mac Pros needed one to support the 5200 and 5400 series Xeons, but Apple never cared.

Apple never did a good job with firmware in terms of providing customers with after market choices. I agree that it would be wonderfull to be able to use the 52xx and 54xx Xeons. They are more energy efficient and less expensive.

[Tallest Skil]

Originally Posted by 300D

Not a chance. The Mac Pros do not use Core processors.

Please do some reading before posting.

Originally Posted by Transporteur

give me one reason the 6-core won't be an option for the Mac Pro.

Different pinnage? I haven't read that they're different, but I haven't read that they're the same, either.

The difference between Gainestown (eight-core, not the quad-core, which isn't Gainestown) and Gulftown is palpably the same as the difference between Woodcrest and Harpertown. Those weren't compatible, so are these?

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Please do some reading before posting.



Different pinnage? I haven't read that they're different, but I haven't read that they're the same, either.

The difference between Gainestown (eight-core, not the quad-core, which isn't Gainestown) and Gulftown is palpably the same as the difference between Woodcrest and Harpertown. Those weren't compatible, so are these?

They are pin compatible. Thinking about it, the differences are more Woodcrest to Clovertown rather than to Harpertown.

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

They are pin compatible.

Beat me to it.

[nuckinfutz]

I don't know if there'll be an upgrade possibility but i'm certainly looking forward to 6 and 12 core Mac Pro

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

I don't know if there'll be an upgrade possibility but i'm certainly looking forward to 6 and 12 core Mac Pro

It might be possible though, as the architecture differences remind me of the 51xx parts capable of being replaced with 53xx parts on the '06 models.

Some extra cores and related cache changes, but still the same otherwise, and no firmware changes required. It seems the same in this case.

[gugucom]

I would not be so optimistic. 51xx and 53xx are not only on the same 771 socket but also on the same 65 nm manufacturing width. I understand that the Gulftown will be on the same 1366 socket as the current Nehalems but the manufacturing width will go from 45 to 32 nm. This typically means different voltages and thus different firmware.

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by gugucom

I would not be so optimistic. 51xx and 53xx are not only on the same 771 socket but also on the same 65 nm manufacturing width. I understand that the Gulftown will be on the same 1366 socket as the current Nehalems but the manufacturing width will go from 45 to 32 nm. This typically means different voltages and thus different firmware.

I understand your point, and normally would agree whole heartedly.

But Intel's 32nm process (Process Eval chip) was able to run at 3.80GHz @ 1.1V (VID). The VID on the Nehalem 45nm parts is 0.8 to 1.35V.

[gugucom]

Then I guess its wait and see. One other critical point is the max TDP of current Gainstown CPUs. They stop at 95 W. So it is unclear at the time being if the 2009 Mac Pro could handle the 130 W TDP of a Gulftown.

With the benefit of hindsight we know that the 80 W TDP 2006 Mac Pro was designed to accomodate the 2007 Clovertown 120 W TDP. It remains to be seen if simillar capabilities were designed into the 2009 Mac Pro.

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by gugucom

Then I guess its wait and see. One other critical point is the max TDP of current Gainstown CPUs. They stop at 95 W. So it is unclear at the time being if the 2009 Mac Pro could handle the 130 W TDP of a Gulftown.

With the benefit of hindsight we know that the 80 W TDP 2006 Mac Pro was designed to accomodate the 2007 Clovertown 120 W TDP. It remains to be seen if simillar capabilities were designed into the 2009 Mac Pro.

True, but perhaps there's a bit of hope in this regard as well, as Intel produced the boards for Apple. Now whether the 130W TDP will come into play, there's no way to know for sure, but if Intel stuck to their own specs (), it should, as the DP boards can run 2x W3570's (130W each).

As you say though, the only absolute answer will happen once Gulftown hits, and a guinea pig... err... willing test subject...is available.

[gugucom]

You will probably see Anand scramble to fit engineering samples if there is half a chance.

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by gugucom

You will probably see Anand scramble to fit engineering samples if there is half a chance.

We can hope, and maybe help the idea along with a few emails.

[gugucom]

I was wondering if anybody ever fit a pair of 3,2GHz W5580 Gainstowns to his 2009 Octad? That Xeon also has 130 W TDP.

Tesselator made a remark http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...0&postcount=67 about such a system. I'm not sure he really knew one.

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by gugucom

I was wondering if anybody ever fit a pair of 3,2GHz W5580 Gainstowns to his 2009 Octad? That Xeon also has 130 W TDP.

Tesselator made a remark http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...0&postcount=67 about such a system. I'm not sure he really knew one.

It's was done by Tutor, another crazy MR member. Anandtech also did an upgrade, but used 2.93GHz parts. Only 90W, but it at least shows it can be done, and might offer a bit of information as a "How-to".

I do recall the MP's parts were naked (no heatspreader), but some SilPad material (or similar) is all that's needed to mate between the heatsink and VR components due to the added height of the heatspreader on the retail/OEM parts. Other than that, rather straight forward.

[gugucom]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...3&postcount=10

With your help naming the guy I found him.


Cool system. So a 130 W TDP isn't a problem. Good thread!

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by gugucom

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...3&postcount=10

With your help naming the guy I found him.


Cool system. So a 130 W TDP isn't a problem. Good thread!

Glad you found it. I'd relocated the thread, but didn't spend enough time on it to find that specific post, but knew I'd seen it. (I made the mistake of starting at the end, and going backwards...eventually gave up looking for the best post from Tutor about it). DOH!

But we do know the boards can handle 2x 130W parts. That, combined with the 1.1VID operation of the 32nm Process Eval chip, it looks promising for the ability to upgrade without the need for a firmware update.

Not absolute, but good omens at any rate.