Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Nehalem Processor Details Leaked

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

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!
 
That graph would look so much better in Numbers!

Maybe if I get some time later.
 
sblasl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
AidenShaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/130651/

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.
 
ChrisA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
zapp said:
And I just bought my first desktop a mac pro 2.8 octo
Click to expand...

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.
 
SiliconAddict said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/130651/

we should do a where are they now thread on the front page:
Click to expand...

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!!
 
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
 
cohibadad said:
I think this should read 44-103% faster or benchmark at 144-203% of X5482. The chart does not show 144-203% faster.
Click to expand...

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... ;)
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back