• Our team is working to address issues posting quotes or media to the forums. Please bear with us as we get this sorted out.

News Nehalem Lead Architect Returns to Intel

GregoryDude

Honorable
May 16, 2015
79
17
10,565
12
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.
 
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

Polypheme
Ambassador
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...
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS