News Nehalem Lead Architect Returns to Intel

[Admin]

Glenn Hinton, former Intel Senior Fellow and lead architect of the Nehalem processors, announces that he is returning to Intel.

Nehalem Lead Architect Returns to Intel : Read more

 

[GregoryDude]

This is the change intel needs - hopefully they will get back to the glory days they once had with these Intel veterans coming into the fold. This is great news for the consumers because AMD will have to respond in kind, and the results of two companies firing on all cylinders will be goodness for us! My Ryzen system has been serving me well for the last 3 years but I will happily switch back to Intel if there is a compelling reason.

 

[InvalidError]

This is the change intel needs - hopefully they will get back to the glory days they once had with these Intel veterans coming into the fold.

One major problem here is that Intel's biggest issues are due to process not keeping up with architecture. Bringing chip architects out of retirement won't solve manufacturing issues.

 

[spentshells]

I skipped Nehelem .... my core 3 q6600 hit 3.8Ghz easy, it made the upgrade pointless as nothing I did was using more than 4 threads. but it was innovative 3 channel memory and hyperthreading, switching to the clock modifier sure killed overclocking as it was though.

It really took all the fun out of it.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I don't know if bringing back this architect is going to change much to be honest.

Nehalem was decent but not fantastic. IPC was better than like Conroe, sure. But their first attempt at an IMC baked onto the CPU was a bit "half baked" since they were pretty weak. Also the core voltage was tied to the memory voltage, so overclocking your CPU could cause you to overvolt the already weaker imc.

Plus, as already said, the issue isn't design, its the node.

I would say a lot of the reason I don't think Nehalem was very good was what came after it. My PFP is an Bloomfield system with an i7 940 and X58 sabretooth. Compared to my i5 2500k system, the 940 is honestly worse, despite the hyperthreading support. The IPC is noticeably worse, and the i7 940 does not overclock anywhere close to as high as my 2500k. Now an i7 980X vs a 2500k, that would be an interesting comparison...

 

[TerryLaze]

hopefully they will get back to the glory days

Of releasing a new node every two years but leaving everything else the same so we get at most some 5-7% improvement?!
I thought that's what people hated about intel and if the leaks are true intel is already doing this with RL even without a new node.

 

[CerianK]

"... master's degrees in electrical engineering from Brighton Young University"
Brigham?

 

[caseym54]

"... master's degrees in electrical engineering from Brighton Young University"
Brigham?

Indeed. Brighton Young is a Harlem basketball player.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't know if bringing back this architect is going to change much to be honest.

Nehalem was decent but not fantastic. IPC was better than like Conroe, sure. But their first attempt at an IMC baked onto the CPU was a bit "half baked" since they were pretty weak. Also the core voltage was tied to the memory voltage, so overclocking your CPU could cause you to overvolt the already weaker imc.

Plus, as already said, the issue isn't design, its the node.

I would say a lot of the reason I don't think Nehalem was very good was what came after it. My PFP is an Bloomfield system with an i7 940 and X58 sabretooth. Compared to my i5 2500k system, the 940 is honestly worse, despite the hyperthreading support. The IPC is noticeably worse, and the i7 940 does not overclock anywhere close to as high as my 2500k. Now an i7 980X vs a 2500k, that would be an interesting comparison...

The 2500K was a new uArch and it was also 32nm vs 45nm. Of course it was going to clock and overclock better. The only benefit for Nehalem was the extra memory channels and bandwidth.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Yes, but as I said, in retrospect Nehalem doesn't seem impressive since we now know what would release after it.