Nehalem on prototype HW is still the fastest Pentium

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3326



Amazing results folks. Just read the article and then pick your jaw up off the keyboard.

Please Apple..if you ship 10.6 early next year....optimise optimise optimise for Nehalem. I'll love you long time!
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I guess it depends on how that llvm backend comes along, huh?



  • Reply 2 of 34
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Been reading that article. Pretty awesome indeed.



    I think its possible that iMacs and perhaps even MBPs next year will be as powerful as todays Mac Pros.



    I think I'll wait till next year for my new iMac.
  • Reply 3 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3326



    Amazing results folks. Just read the article and then pick your jaw up off the keyboard.

    Please Apple..if you ship 10.6 early next year....optimise optimise optimise for Nehalem. I'll love you long time!



    and pay $2900 - $3500 for that Nehalem mac pro with 6 ddr 3 dimms 3 pre cpu.



    Intel may jack up there prices if this is a lot better then amd. Apple may want to use cheaper and not as fast amd chips in some of there systems with much better on board video.



    also you will have to wait for Q2 2009 / H2 2009 for the laptop chips that apple will put the there mini and imacs.
  • Reply 4 of 34
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    I guess it depends on how that llvm backend comes along, huh?







    But of course



    Methinks LLVM will become an integral part of delivering excellent support for Intel technology.



    Let's see we have the GPGPU Intel Larrabee coming with X86 like instruction for their shaders and more (audio and video processing) . Then in 2010 we have 256 Bit Advanced Vector Extensions with Sandy Bridge procs.



    Intel almost seems unstoppable right now.
  • Reply 5 of 34
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    and pay $2900 - $3500 for that Nehalem mac pro with 6 ddr 3 dimms 3 pre cpu.



    Intel may jack up there prices if this is a lot better then amd. Apple may want to use cheaper and not as fast amd chips in some of there systems with much better on board video.



    also you will have to wait for Q2 2009 / H2 2009 for the laptop chips that apple will put the there mini and imacs.



    The fear that AMD will not muster up much competition is palpable. At the high end (read Mac Pro) Intel will even have options here with Larrabee so Apple doesn't have to look at other X86 vendors like AMD just yet. Apple's bargaining chip will be Atom. Intel needs Atom to succeed and Apple is a high profile win. Apple just may be able to get concessions on Desktop procs by supporting Atom.
  • Reply 6 of 34
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    and pay $2900 - $3500 for that Nehalem mac pro with 6 ddr 3 dimms 3 pre cpu.



    Intel may jack up there prices if this is a lot better then amd. Apple may want to use cheaper and not as fast amd chips in some of there systems with much better on board video.



    also you will have to wait for Q2 2009 / H2 2009 for the laptop chips that apple will put the there mini and imacs.



    You don't get it Joe.



    Next year Intel's Nehalem dual core chips will likely be stiff competition performance wise for AMDs quad core chips. In other words, Shanghai will be compared to entry level Nehalem chips. They may be lucky to fetch $200 fro their top of the line Shanghai chips. That's pretty scary for AMD.



    No, Intel will crush AMD on price for performance IF Anandtech's analysis of Nehalem's performance is correct. AMD have no answer for Nehalem.
  • Reply 7 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You don't get it Joe.



    Next year Intel's Nehalem dual core chips will likely be stiff competition performance wise for AMDs quad core chips. In other words, Shanghai will be compared to entry level Nehalem chips. They may be lucky to fetch $200 fro their top of the line Shanghai chips. That's pretty scary for AMD.



    No, Intel will crush AMD on price for performance IF Anandtech's analysis of Nehalem's performance is correct. AMD have no answer for Nehalem.



    Amd cpu may not beat intel but there on board video does intel Larrabee video system may flop next to amd built in video. I mean intel still can't have side port ram for there build in video while amd can.



    also if intel where to kill off amd then intel will be able to jack there prices up.



    also you can get amd MB for less then intel ones or you can get high end amd MB for the prices that low to mid-range intel MB go for.



    also intel is planing to have 3 differnt sockets for 1 cpu systems. 1 for laptops, 1 for low to mid end desktops, 1 for high mid - to high end ones. Why not put all 1 cpu desktops on the same socket?



    Intel has no good low, mid, or high end video so a gameing intel system will likey use nvidia or ati video cards and SLI dose not work on intel chipsets.
  • Reply 8 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You don't get it Joe.



    Next year Intel's Nehalem dual core chips will likely be stiff competition performance wise for AMDs quad core chips. In other words, Shanghai will be compared to entry level Nehalem chips. They may be lucky to fetch $200 fro their top of the line Shanghai chips. That's pretty scary for AMD.



    No, Intel will crush AMD on price for performance IF Anandtech's analysis of Nehalem's performance is correct. AMD have no answer for Nehalem.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    The fear that AMD will not muster up much competition is palpable. At the high end (read Mac Pro) Intel will even have options here with Larrabee so Apple doesn't have to look at other X86 vendors like AMD just yet. Apple's bargaining chip will be Atom. Intel needs Atom to succeed and Apple is a high profile win. Apple just may be able to get concessions on Desktop procs by supporting Atom.



    atom will not be good low end desktop chip as it is tied to the same real old and out of date chipset used in the mini. In things like phones maybe but ARM is big in that area also nvidia is also getting in the same area as well.
  • Reply 9 of 34
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    Amd cpu may not beat intel but there on board video does intel Larrabee video system may flop next to amd built in video. I mean intel still can't have side port ram for there build in video while amd can.



    also if intel where to kill off amd then intel will be able to jack there prices up.



    also you can get amd MB for less then intel ones or you can get high end amd MB for the prices that low to mid-range intel MB go for.



    also intel is planing to have 3 differnt sockets for 1 cpu systems. 1 for laptops, 1 for low to mid end desktops, 1 for high mid - to high end ones. Why not put all 1 cpu desktops on the same socket?



    Intel has no good low, mid, or high end video so a gameing intel system will likey use nvidia or ati video cards and SLI dose not work on intel chipsets.



    Dude, the fact that AMD's on board video is better is a trivial advantage.. If graphics performance is important, get a video card in your system.



    Intel's cpu advantage is not trivial and its what most users will appreciate.



    I hope AMD does survive but hey, right now Intel makes the better chips. Its just that simple.
  • Reply 10 of 34
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    atom will not be good low end desktop chip as it is tied to the same real old and out of date chipset used in the mini.



    Atom is really going to do well in small form factor MID like the Asus EEE machine. There really isn't anything that competes with it except maybe Via Nano.



    I don't understand putting Atom into desktop machines although Intel is pushing this and Asus appears to be bringing such a product to market. I will reserve judgement on it until I see one in action but it really doesn't make much sense to me.



    I hope and pray the Apple don't put Atom in the mini. A 2.4 ghz dual core Nehalem in the mini is looking like it would be an awesome machine. It might be pretty darn close in performance to a 1st gen Mac Pro at 2.6 ghz in many tasks if Anandtech is right in their performance analysis of Nehalem.



    Time will tell.
  • Reply 11 of 34
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    Amd cpu may not beat intel but there on board video does intel Larrabee video system may flop next to amd built in video.



  • Reply 12 of 34
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    Amd cpu may not beat intel but there on board video does intel Larrabee video system may flop next to amd built in video. I mean intel still can't have side port ram for there build in video while amd can.



    also if intel where to kill off amd then intel will be able to jack there prices up.



    also you can get amd MB for less then intel ones or you can get high end amd MB for the prices that low to mid-range intel MB go for.



    also intel is planing to have 3 differnt sockets for 1 cpu systems. 1 for laptops, 1 for low to mid end desktops, 1 for high mid - to high end ones. Why not put all 1 cpu desktops on the same socket?



    Intel has no good low, mid, or high end video so a gameing intel system will likey use nvidia or ati video cards and SLI dose not work on intel chipsets.



    Joe



    SidePort RAM doesn't appear to make much of a difference for gaming.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Anandtech


    While we assumed that SidePort was included to hide some of the latencies of using the Athlon 64's memory controller, that ended up not being true as performance in UMA mode (using the Athlon 64's memory controller) was quite respectable. It turns out that most games don't benefit too much from lower latency memory accesses (through SidePort). So, why would ATI include support for a local frame buffer with the Radeon Xpress 200? Although performance is improved with SidePort enabled, the biggest reason for supporting the feature is to reduce power consumption in mobile environments. Without SidePort enabled, the CPU needs to be awake to fetch data for refreshing the display, but with SidePort enabled, all memory accesses can occur via the Radeon Xpress 200 and the CPU can remain asleep in power saving modes.



  • Reply 13 of 34
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    20-30% faster at the same clock speed. Kick ass.
  • Reply 14 of 34
    Stick one (or 2, I can dream) in a 24"/30" iMac and I'm more or less SOLD!



    chuck in iLife09 and Snow Leopard
  • Reply 15 of 34
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I hope and pray the Apple don't put Atom in the mini.



    Duh, that would make the mini slower.
  • Reply 16 of 34
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wmf View Post


    Duh, that would make the mini slower.



    A lot slower. An Atom would be only about 20% as fast as the current mini's CPU. Apple isn't going to do that.
  • Reply 17 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Joe



    SidePort RAM doesn't appear to make much of a difference for gaming.



    but it is nice to for things like areo and other basic work and it's 32 - 128 megs of ram that is not coming from system ram.
  • Reply 18 of 34
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wmf View Post


    Duh, that would make the mini slower.



    Yeah I agree. But it seems like OEMs are rushing to stick these Atoms in low cost desktop like computers. I doubt Apple will follow the others but the fact that the mini hasn't gotten updated to the latest SR merom or penryn chips makes one wonder what Apple has planned for the mini.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Wow. AMD-ATI is in trouble. Intel and nVidia look set to wipe the floor with them over the next few years. CPU, GPU, parallel CUDA, physics too...
  • Reply 20 of 34
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Yeah I agree. But it seems like OEMs are rushing to stick these Atoms in low cost desktop like computers. I doubt Apple will follow the others but the fact that the mini hasn't gotten updated to the latest SR merom or penryn chips makes one wonder what Apple has planned for the mini.



    I doubt Apple has much of anything other than the drop-dead routine planned for the mini or even spends much time thinking about it. For the past year or more anything done to the mini has almost been on an afterthought level. Whatever technology developed and employed for another line (typically MacBook it appears) eventually gets shoved into the mini if at all. Almost since its inception, nothing was specifically developed for the mini and so I can't imagine Apple is making any effort to use Atom in it, either.
Sign In or Register to comment.