Monday, July 7th 2008

2.93 GHz Nehalem Derivative Presented

One of the newest toys at Tom's Hardware is a Nehalem derivative Intel Bloomfield processor clocked at 2.93 GHz. This processor brings with it, a host of changes. To begin with, say goodbye to FSB. The processor communicates with the system using a technology called QuickPath interconnect. This is a high-speed, low-latency point to point link. It's comparable to the HyperTransport technology, which AMD has been using for close to five years now. Initially, Bloomfield will use a 20-bit wide 25.6 GB/sec. QuickPath link. The CPU incorporates the memory controller, which implies that your choice of memory will depend on the processor. As already noted in regard to the AMD processors, this approach of integrating a memory controller greatly reduces system-level latency. The CPU supports 3-channel DDR3 1333 MHz memory. That's 32 GB/s of bandwidth, with support for up to 24 GB of system memory. Of the six DDR3 slots, the first slot is required to be populated.

Unfortunately, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) don't allow them to disclose performance evaluations at this point though - ironically - their Taiwanese team ran preliminary tests on a Radeon HD4850 and a Foxconn X58 motherboard we covered here.

Read the whole article here.Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

34 Comments on 2.93 GHz Nehalem Derivative Presented

#1
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
It seems that the processor is going to blow all the older ones out of the water because of the new QuickPath link. On the bad side, the NDA not disclosing performance evals... well that means it is not all that fast yet...
Posted on Reply
#2
chron
good, better, best, ultimate really means bad, decent, good, best, but intel would never call any one of their processors anything other than good
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: chron
good, better, best, ultimate really means bad, decent, good, best, but intel would never call any one of their processors anything other than good
'Good' because it's better than similarly priced processors from AMD.
Posted on Reply
#4
Mussels
Moderprator
triple channel is going to be great as well. i wonder if dual channel still exists on the platform, or its single/triple only?
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Single, dual, triple, anything as long as the first DIMM in the motherboard is populated.
Posted on Reply
#6
Mussels
Moderprator
by: btarunr
Single, dual, triple, anything as long as the first DIMM in the motherboard is populated.
sexy. The thing is, triple channel alone is going to be a real winner in a lot of benchmarks and apps, even if the CPU's arent that great.
Posted on Reply
#7
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Add to that, the latency reduction that the IMC brings about.
Posted on Reply
#8
chron
by: btarunr
'Good' because it's better than similarly priced processors from AMD.
pentiums always got ate up by amd chips at same prices... At least, thats what everyone's always said?
Posted on Reply
#9
InnocentCriminal
Resident Grammar Amender
by: chron
pentiums always got ate up by amd chips at same prices... At least, thats what everyone's always said?
That doesn't apply anymore since the introduction of the Core/Core 2 line of processors. You were right in saying Pentium(s) as that was Intel's best until they continued the P3/Mobile m-architecture which became Conroe.

I'm looking forward to seeing the inital results of Nehalem/Bloomfield based set ups once they're ready to hit the market. As for now, these little 'insights' are interesting, but leave me wanting more.
Posted on Reply
#10
bowman
There's a thread at xtremesystems where an NDA breaker posts requested benchmarks. So far, the Bloomfield early revision silicon on an early board and a single stick of 1066 DDR3 is beating out every would-be competitor..

I don't think this will disappoint at all!
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: chron
pentiums always got ate up by amd chips at same prices... At least, thats what everyone's always said?
That's unrelarted to the chart. In it is a Pentium Dual Core (not to be confused with Pentium D). That is better than Athlon64 X2 at price-to-price.
Posted on Reply
#12
InnocentCriminal
Resident Grammar Amender
by: bowman
There's a thread at xtremesystems where an NDA breaker posts requested benchmarks. So far, the Bloomfield early revision silicon on an early board and a single stick of 1066 DDR3 is beating out every would-be competitor..

I don't think this will disappoint at all!
You mean this one?

I'm not sure it's real tbh.
Posted on Reply
#13
DaMulta
My stars went supernova
I wonder how much a QX is going to cost, and if they will overclock like a dream like the last chips.
Posted on Reply
#14
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Tha Good at the bottom isnt from their conroe line up. So I highly doubt its better than similar AMD chips at that price.

On another note, the few things that made AMD somewhat superior with their chips, is now gone. Intel now has HTT (nixed the FSB) and Integrated Memory Controller. 2 Key things AMD had going for it. Factor in the fact that intel blew AMDs stuff out of the water with the FSB and non integrated memory controller and you start to see how this sucks for us AMD fellas. I hope AMD has something new and exciting up its sleeve.
Posted on Reply
#15
Atnevon
Ok. So they say bye bye to the FSB. So now what is the main determinate of the speed and regulation? From what was stated in the article, the CPU can really deliver better depending on the RAM that is onboard. This could be my lack of experience from compys, but it seems they took a key factor in speed regulation.
Posted on Reply
#16
farlex85
The fact that they put this in the ultimate section is scary to me. Nothing that could be called a good buy resides there, and if they are gonna put this up at $1000+ I might have to buy some amd, or a yorkie I guess. Hopefully it will move down to the best category (at least pricing-wise).......
Posted on Reply
#17
tigger
I'm the only one
Overclocking these is going to be a whole new ballgame.
Posted on Reply
#18
thoughtdisorder
by: WarEagleAU
Tha Good at the bottom isnt from their conroe line up. So I highly doubt its better than similar AMD chips at that price.

On another note, the few things that made AMD somewhat superior with their chips, is now gone. Intel now has HTT (nixed the FSB) and Integrated Memory Controller. 2 Key things AMD had going for it. Factor in the fact that intel blew AMDs stuff out of the water with the FSB and non integrated memory controller and you start to see how this sucks for us AMD fellas. I hope AMD has something new and exciting up its sleeve.
Nicely stated! I used to swear by AMD and was hesitant to ever even build an Intel rig up until just about two years ago. Now until AMD comes up with something better (and it will), I am an Intel consumer for a myriad of reasons. I am fairly confident AMD will be back in the game soon which will be good news for all consumers (Intel and AMD) cost wise . :)
Posted on Reply
#19
Darkrealms
by: Atnevon
Ok. So they say bye bye to the FSB. So now what is the main determinate of the speed and regulation? From what was stated in the article, the CPU can really deliver better depending on the RAM that is onboard. This could be my lack of experience from compys, but it seems they took a key factor in speed regulation.
Similar interest. So Intel is saying bye to FSB for their CPUs. What impact will this have on future of FSBs? It is not for CPU use alone is it. /scratchs head


Very nice looking chip, I cringe at the thought of the price as well.
Posted on Reply
#20
farlex85
by: Darkrealms
Similar interest. So Intel is saying bye to FSB for their CPUs. What impact will this have on future of FSBs? It is not for CPU use alone is it. /scratchs head
The fsb was previously the point on the motherboard that the ram and the cpu "conversed" through. The information had to go from the proc through the fsb to get to the rest of the system. This bottlenecks the system somewhat b/c the proc's themselves move instructions quicker than the fsb can carry them out. Now, w/ the qpi, the cpu will be able to send instructions to the ram directly, w/o having to bother w/ the fsb, speeding up the whole process considerably. The cpu's clock is still derived in a similar fashion as it is now, w/ an external clock from the motherboard being multiplied by the chip's multi. The way the info gets from point A to point B is what changes. It has direct connections rather than having to travel through another chokepoint. Basically, there will be no such thing as a front side bus, although the quick path interconnect performs a similar function, just much more efficiently. Hopefully that clears it up a little, and hopefully I got everything right there.
Posted on Reply
#21
InnocentCriminal
Resident Grammar Amender
Look at the voltage in the CPU-Z pictures.

:D
Posted on Reply
#22
tigger
I'm the only one
Aye,i noticed.5ghz@1.3v ftw.

How are these gonna oc tho' with no fsb? will it be similar to the way amd chips are overclocked?
Posted on Reply
#23
farlex85
by: tigger69
Aye,i noticed.5ghz@1.3v ftw.

How are these gonna oc tho' with no fsb? will it be similar to the way amd chips are overclocked?
They are clocked in the same way they are now I believe. An external clock x chip's multi. The external clock is just no longer an fsb.
Posted on Reply
#24
Darkrealms
by: farlex85
The fsb was previously the point on the motherboard that the ram and the cpu "conversed" through. The information had to go from the proc through the fsb to get to the rest of the system. This bottlenecks the system somewhat b/c the proc's themselves move instructions quicker than the fsb can carry them out. Now, w/ the qpi, the cpu will be able to send instructions to the ram directly, w/o having to bother w/ the fsb, speeding up the whole process considerably. The cpu's clock is still derived in a similar fashion as it is now, w/ an external clock from the motherboard being multiplied by the chip's multi. The way the info gets from point A to point B is what changes. It has direct connections rather than having to travel through another chokepoint. Basically, there will be no such thing as a front side bus, although the quick path interconnect performs a similar function, just much more efficiently. Hopefully that clears it up a little, and hopefully I got everything right there.
Thanks!
Other than the RAM which this "new" chipset removes the bottle neck of, isn't the N/S Bridges and Video run through the FSB? So it still could be considered a bottle neck it just has one less thing running through it. I understand that for pure computation this is a massive improvement but on the other hand many of us are looking at graphics/game performance impacts.
Posted on Reply
#25
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Exactly, so now it should really crush AMDs chips. It took this route by AMD to emerge as the better chip. Then Intel pulled a switch and brought out and old Architecture in a new suit and viola, trumped AMDs chips. I know AMD will bring out better chips, but they are seriously lagging on it. I dont need them to be the performance crown. I love their price to performance ration...but when Intel is kicking ass with a cheap proc that ocs like mad, kind of makes me wonder why Im still with them. Im one of the biggest AMD fanbois too, which makes it hard for me to type this up :D.

The only good thing AMD has left is its socket life. Sure the DDR3 will have a new board and chipset, but at least new procs coming out can use older sockets (like AM2/AM2+). This new chip will need a new chipset and highly doubtful its backwards compatible.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment