How much longer until Nehalem? and how good?

[rubberduck]

they got into the market first with a TRUE quad core, and not 2 dual core proccessors shoved onto one chip.

i believe that the will get a TRUE octo core CPU out first, but i highly doubt it will be better than anything Intel will release

Sound like marketing BS to me.... I upgraded to a quad system recently and had the choice of going AMD or Intel, I chose Intel because they had the faster chips. Not having a TRUE quad core system as you put it did not factor in to my decision. I'm sure many others would agree.

 

[Sylver123]

I need a high end system in about 4 months time, but I need to decide whether just to wait all those long months for Nehalem, or buy my system, and see how Nehalem pans out until late 2009, or early 2010?

 

[NathanE]

Sound like marketing BS to me.... I upgraded to a quad system recently and had the choice of going AMD or Intel, I chose Intel because they had the faster chips. Not having a TRUE quad core system as you put it did not factor in to my decision. I'm sure many others would agree.

To be honest the whole "true" quad core thing is getting old now. Intel has found ways to still extract 90% of the performance by closely wiring the two dies together. Yes the original multi-chip packages like the Pentium D weren't all that great but now they have very much ironed out the kinks with the C2D architecture.

Nehalem will make things even better because of its CSI interconnect.

 

[wingnuttzz]

just to clear this up, i ain't no AMD fan-boy, i'm a intel guy pretty much through and through, and am loving my E2180.

Intel make better proccessor's than AMD atm, its proven, and as already said, you don't need quad cores atm and that 2 dual's on one chip is great.

i completly agree with what you are saying pre1twa, all i was oringially trying to say was that i recon AMD will have a 8 core out first, and that intel hasn't even got a true quad out where-as AMD does

 

[bee]

i thought nehalem was quad core but with 8 threads?

 

[Lightnix]

i thought nehalem was quad core but with 8 threads?

You'd be right. Return of Hyperthreading.

Edit, oh yeah, Nehalem in all its forms (dual, quad, octo, whatever) are all supposed to be on one die - i.e. 'native', rather than designing for two cores.

And I agree, the whole 'real' quad thing is stupid. Who cares to be honest? If one company spends more developing one chip and gets worse results, and the other takes the quicker route and still makes a superior product, then who is the winner?

 

[Vertigo]

Only just noticed how their codenaming system works, with the "dale" suffix for desktop duals (Wolfdale), "field" for desktop quads (Kentsfield, Yorkfield) and "town" for the high-end server parts.

 

[psychas]

nahelm last upgrade for me

 

[rubberduck]

just to clear this up, i ain't no AMD fan-boy, i'm a intel guy pretty much through and through, and am loving my E2180.

Intel make better proccessor's than AMD atm, its proven, and as already said, you don't need quad cores atm and that 2 dual's on one chip is great.

i completly agree with what you are saying pre1twa, all i was oringially trying to say was that i recon AMD will have a 8 core out first, and that intel hasn't even got a true quad out where-as AMD does

No worries, it makes for an interesting discussion. My point is as follows, if someone were to ask me the difference between AMD and Intel's quad core CPUs I would reply "Intel is faster". I wouln't say "AMD represents a true quad core architecture, while Intel does not". What I am trying to say that to the user it doesn't matter if the architecture is considered 'true' or not, it matters how fast it it.

As for who will get an 8 core cpu (true or otherwise) to market first, I'm not sure. I suppose somone who is familar with the AMD/Intel roadmaps will be able to tell you although to be honest I think it will be Intel. I don't agree with your rationale for thinking AMD will get an 8 core processor out before Intel.... You seem to be under the impression that Intel needs to improve their quad core architecture to the 'true' status before moving on to octo core. Why would they when their solution is currently faster than AMD (clock for clock) and they have the upper hand in having gone to 45nm fabrication already?

FYI I'm an AMD loyalist who has just moved to Intel.... It's such a shame that AMD were unable to capitalize on being a good way ahead of Intel with the dual-cores... I don't know what they've spent the past 2+ years doing!

 

[helmutcheese]

How did Phenom get AMD in to the market first?

AMD have a Native Quad, Intel have 2 Dual Cores stuck together if you want to be specific.

 

[tbz_ck]

Anyone else notice the 130W TDP of Bloomfield?

Toasty !