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.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.
Of releasing a new node every two years but leaving everything else the same so we get at most some 5-7% improvement?!hopefully they will get back to the glory days
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.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...