Going Nehalem worth it??

[farlex85]

Well, the OP is not really hurting for a new system, just likes to get new hardware, so that advice won't work. I'm sure you'll get some nice numbers w/ nehalem energy, and I'll be watching your and other's scores to see what's up. You shouldn't have anything to worry about w/ apps, none of this tech is really brand new, just hasn't been implemented in quite this way. Plus intel has amd by the balls, it would be pretty foolish of them to release something on the market that doesn't work properly. The oc'ing of these things should be fun too, at least novel, what with the ability to clock individual cores and all.

I myself probably won't be getting nehalem until I can get 4gb of ddr3 for about $150 or less, and a good mb that has all I need for about the same. I may be waiting a while, perhaps until the die shrink. There's too many other additions I wanna make to my pc before a new proc becomes needed (new case and fans, tv tuner, sound card, more hdds). I have decided my first quad will most certainly be a nehalem or amd's answer if they have one. These things are looking like they make current quads look silly (in multi-threading that is of course).

 

[Wile E]

Well, the OP is not really hurting for a new system, just likes to get new hardware, so that advice won't work. I'm sure you'll get some nice numbers w/ nehalem energy, and I'll be watching your and other's scores to see what's up. You shouldn't have anything to worry about w/ apps, none of this tech is really brand new, just hasn't been implemented in quite this way. Plus intel has amd by the balls, it would be pretty foolish of them to release something on the market that doesn't work properly. The oc'ing of these things should be fun too, at least novel, what with the ability to clock individual cores and all.

I myself probably won't be getting nehalem until I can get 4gb of ddr3 for about $150 or less, and a good mb that has all I need for about the same. I may be waiting a while, perhaps until the die shrink. There's too many other additions I wanna make to my pc before a new proc becomes needed (new case and fans, tv tuner, sound card, more hdds). I have decided my first quad will most certainly be a nehalem or amd's answer if they have one. These things are looking like they make current quads look silly (in multi-threading that is of course).

Not disagreeing or anything, but just wanted to point out it's probably best to consider the price of 3GB(3x1GB) or 6GB(3x2GB) on Nehalem, due to the tri channel mem controller.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

I HIGHLY recommend waiting for Nehalem, and then making the choice. Your rig is faster than mine... just wait it out.

 

[Melvis]

I find this very interesting indeed, i heard that intel will be doin the same as AMD in there architecture and putting a onboard memory controller on there chips, and that AMD was saying ok bring it to intel we like to see how you go with that. And my first thought was umm o no, if intel gets it right then AMD is in alot of trouble. But by the looks of things they haven't really got it as good as they hoped (thank god) The 133HHz is terrible =/ AMD had those speeds like 7yrs ago, so thats a bit odd, and not up to scratch at all. Also a bit surprised at the cache structure as well, since AMD's have WAY less L2 cache then intels at the moment and thats whats hurting the AMD chips, but the new 45nm will have a huge increase in that department witch is a god send for them, and also using L3 cache very fast But it looks like the new intel chips arnt going to have a increase or even a decrease in cache levels? does anyone know what there levels are goin to be?

So for intel guys its goin to be a bit of a wait if u want to update, because of cost, the CPU is not backwards compatible at all because of the on board memory controller (first time for intels) so every mobo will have to be redone and changed, but in the end should bring the price down of such mobo's, and DDR3 ? i dont see the point in it, only a fast FSB or high clock speeds will makes use of the fast DDR3 so i think it will be a waste of money goin DDR3 with a lot slower FSB for the new intels, u wont see a big difference at all in performance..

But hey i could be totaly wrong, but time will only tell with the release of this new CPU and put it against the new 45nm AMD's, those to will be as close as you goin to get for awile, since at the moment its way out, cant compare. Even tho the intels have a slight advantage by having it on a 32nm.

Its going to be a interesting race this next yr for sure

 

[farlex85]

Not disagreeing or anything, but just wanted to point out it's probably best to consider the price of 3GB(3x1GB) or 6GB(3x2GB) on Nehalem, due to the tri channel mem controller.

Good call, yes indeed, I suppose then 6gb around $200 would be good. I just hope the mid-range boards do indeed offer triple-channel, and they don't just put that on the $200+ boards, cause then I may be w/o it.

 

[Wile E]

I find this very interesting indeed, i heard that intel will be doin the same as AMD in there architecture and putting a onboard memory controller on there chips, and that AMD was saying ok bring it to intel we like to see how you go with that. And my first thought was umm o no, if intel gets it right then AMD is in alot of trouble. But by the looks of things they haven't really got it as good as they hoped (thank god) The 133HHz is terrible =/ AMD had those speeds like 7yrs ago, so thats a bit odd, and not up to scratch at all. Also a bit surprised at the cache structure as well, since AMD's have WAY less L2 cache then intels at the moment and thats whats hurting the AMD chips, but the new 45nm will have a huge increase in that department witch is a god send for them, and also using L3 cache very fast But it looks like the new intel chips arnt going to have a increase or even a decrease in cache levels? does anyone know what there levels are goin to be?

So for intel guys its goin to be a bit of a wait if u want to update, because of cost, the CPU is not backwards compatible at all because of the on board memory controller (first time for intels) so every mobo will have to be redone and changed, but in the end should bring the price down of such mobo's, and DDR3 ? i dont see the point in it, only a fast FSB or high clock speeds will makes use of the fast DDR3 so i think it will be a waste of money goin DDR3 with a lot slower FSB for the new intels, u wont see a big difference at all in performance..

But hey i could be totaly wrong, but time will only tell with the release of this new CPU and put it against the new 45nm AMD's, those to will be as close as you goin to get for awile, since at the moment its way out, cant compare. Even tho the intels have a slight advantage by having it on a 32nm.

Its going to be a interesting race this next yr for sure

The fsb speed make no difference on the ram in Nehalem. The ram doesn't interface with it at all. Just like an AMD chip, the ram is directly connected to the cpu. 133Mhz will have no effect at all.

 

[Melvis]

The fsb speed make no difference on the ram in Nehalem. The ram doesn't interface with it at all. Just like an AMD chip, the ram is directly connected to the cpu. 133Mhz will have no effect at all.

Thats what i mean, its not goin to make any difference, so there for DDR3 is not going to benefit for this new chips, ive seen bench tests of DDR vs DDR2 in AMD machines and the performance was terrible, the only time DDR2 got infront of old DDR was when the CPU was clocked higher then 2.6/2.8 GHz, latency is not as good, but in time i guess it will be of use, just dont see the point in it at all at this stage.

 

[farlex85]

Thats what i mean, its not goin to make any difference, so there for DDR3 is not going to benefit for this new chips, ive seen bench tests of DDR vs DDR2 in AMD machines and the performance was terrible, the only time DDR2 got infront of old DDR was when the CPU was clocked higher then 2.6/2.8 GHz, latency is not as good, but in time i guess it will be of use, just dont see the point in it at all at this stage.

The external clock doesn't make a difference, but nehalem's architecture will be noticeably better w/ ddr3 than core 2s w/ ddr2 (or 3). DDR3 is pretty useless atm b/c fsb is a huge chokepoint. The imc of nehalem pulls off 192-bit (if in triple channel) instead of the 128 of the fsb. The bandwidth difference b/t a ddr2 core 2 system and a ddr3 nehalem system has been so far been found to be about double in favor of nehalem. Still early also.......

 

[Wile E]

Thats what i mean, its not goin to make any difference, so there for DDR3 is not going to benefit for this new chips, ive seen bench tests of DDR vs DDR2 in AMD machines and the performance was terrible, the only time DDR2 got infront of old DDR was when the CPU was clocked higher then 2.6/2.8 GHz, latency is not as good, but in time i guess it will be of use, just dont see the point in it at all at this stage.

Well then, you haven't looked at recent DDR2 benchmarks. DDR2 walks all over DDR1 nowadays in real world performance.

While not as significant of a difference, high speed DDR3 pulls ahead of DDR2 as well, even in current machines.

 

[Melvis]

The external clock doesn't make a difference, but nehalem's architecture will be noticeably better w/ ddr3 than core 2s w/ ddr2 (or 3). DDR3 is pretty useless atm b/c fsb is a huge chokepoint. The imc of nehalem pulls off 192-bit (if in triple channel) instead of the 128 of the fsb. The bandwidth difference b/t a ddr2 core 2 system and a ddr3 nehalem system has been so far been found to be about double in favor of nehalem. Still early also.......[/QUOTE

Thats right, the FSB is a huge chokepoint for this new intel chip, this new chips is goin to be very similar to a AMD CPU and ive seen in tests that the faster ram did nothing realy to benefit the performance from like DDR ram unless it was clocked higher, (and in a AMD machine means faster FSB) then you started to get better performance, and seeing what the ram is meant to be able to do. I can understand that maybe the bandwidth of this new CPU will be double C2D because intel's have always been lacking in bandwidth, but with this new on board memory controller should bring them up alot, so no surprise there.

I honestly think unless you have a higher clocked, or faster FSB on the new CPU's that you wont see much of a performance gain from DDR3, if any. AMD never really did, and this nehalem is going to be very similar in architecture. We will have to wait for benchies

 

[Melvis]

Well then, you haven't looked at recent DDR2 benchmarks. DDR2 walks all over DDR1 nowadays in real world performance.

While not as significant of a difference, high speed DDR3 pulls ahead of DDR2 as well, even in current machines.

i must admit i haven't looked at up to date tests on DDR2 vs DDR1, the last test i saw was when DDR800 was the fastest ram out there, and it wasn't doing so well unless a AMD machine was clocked about 2.8GHz or above then you saw it beat any DDR1 ram tests. And the biggest thing was latency, but in the long run would catch up.

Id like to see current tests on all ranges of RAM if you have any quick links would be great?

Im just saying what i have read in the past, and thats all i have seen so far.

 

[EnergyFX]

Wow, this topic took off! Lots of good discussion here.

I got outbid on the Striker II so now I'm even more on the fence than I was before. I think I'm just going to hold out for now and see how much the new i7 stuff will cost when it comes out.

As so many of you have pointed out... it isn't like my current rig sux right now.

Of course... usually I say that and then end up running out and buying stuff for the new system I just decided to hold off on So I guess I'll be looking for some DDR3 pretty soon