Vista - New Intel processor generation, any comments?

Just something I picked up on the net. The new intel core i7, supposed to be faster and much more energy efficient due to 'power gates' (non-active cores shut down automatically). Any comments by the more experienced users?
Next-Generation Intel PC Chips to Carry Intel Core Name


Amplid

imo they're not bull****ting. Look at what Intel did going from Pentium D to Core 2. Much faster, cooler, efficient, etc.

the preliminary benchmarks I've seen have them at at least 20% more powerful at the same clockspeed.... sounds like AMD is falling further and further behind....

Two, four, or eight cores

• • 731 million transistors for the quad core variant
• 45 nm manufacturing process
• Integrated memory controller supporting DDR3 SDRAM and between one and six memory channels[citation needed]
• Integrated graphics processor (IGP) located off-die, but in the same CPU package[5]
• A new point-to-point processor interconnect, the Intel QuickPath Interconnect, replacing the legacy front side bus
• Simultaneous multithreading, which enables two threads per core. Simultaneous multithreading has not been present on a consumer Intel processor since 2006 with the Pentium 4 and Pentium EE.
• Native (monolithic, i.e. all processor cores on a single die) quad- and octo-core (8) processors[6]
• The following caches:
  • 32 KB L1 instruction and 32 KB L1 data cache per core
  • 256 KB L2 cache per core
  • 2-3 MB L3 cache per core shared by all cores
• 33% more in-flight micro-ops than Conroe[7]
• Second-level branch predictor and second-level Translation Lookaside Buffer[7]
• Modular blocks of components such as cores that can be added and subtracted for varying market segments[8]

Event demonstrations at the Shanghai Intel Developer Forum showed A1 silicon Bloomfield-based Nehalem processors at IDF running at 3.2 GHz. This processor had 32 KB L1 instruction and 32 KB L1 data cache, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.[9]

Pictured below is a real production wafer of Intel Nehalem
now called Intel Core i7.

lol...... how much is that worth!!



Attachment 6060

Nehalem, aka i7 is a beastly cpu, true enough, and whether or not you get one, especially now because of their cost, will depend entirely on what you do? If you run a bunch of cpu heavy apps, then it makes sense; however, if your machine's primary function is that of a gaming rig, then I would forget about i7 for a while. It's just not worth it... for a couple reasons.

The primary reason i7 isn't worth it for gamers is because today's games aren't cpu limited, they're gpu limited. Any cpu, Intel or AMD at or above 3GHz is more than enough cpu to run any game to date and for the forseeable future. Secondly, there aren't many games that can take advantage of multiple cores. Some may be coded for multi-core, but that's not the same as being able to efficiently use multi-cores. Developers still have a way to go in that respect... meaning, dual core cpu's are still more than adequate for any game running.

If you're going to spend coin seeking better game performance, get a new video card. If your boss want's you to crunch a ton of numbers, have him buy you an i7.

To be honest I have gripes about the whole idea that "more cores are better."

1.) Right now most people have two cores, and for 90% of the users out there, we use around 5% (20% at peak) of its power doing daily work, surfing and watching movies. For the gamers, having four cores is absolutely not better than two, because of one simple fact: games prefer higher clocks. simple fact two: future games will be GPU reliant, ie. Cry engine. Currently most games that are "optimized for two cores" have most of the work running on one core, and then the leftover work for the second core (ie. loading music). Is that really full utilization of your cpu AND money?

2.) Now we have eight cores. Just how many of those cores are going to be idle 90% of the time? Vista is said to spread the workload over all cores, and even in this case your asking your cores to work at under 5% its capacity. And ask yourself this question: was it worth the price tag to buy a machine that just idles itself and is never used like how it was intended to?

3.) Power consumption. I know its 45nm and even OCing those cores would likely come under 1.3v from what i hear, but still there are eight cores in here, and most people won't stop at that. They want 3 GPU's, 4 Hard Drives, 6 Fans, and God knows what else. In the future of computing shouldn't we be looking for more efficient computing solutions? I dont want my computer running like a small oven drinking 1000W of electricity every hour adding to my electricity bills!!! All to do what exactly? Play Crysis 2? Ridiculous!

So for these reasons I'm against the whole octo-core movement (unless you genuinely need it to run your business servers) because for the general public, we don't need them. Buy into them if you must, call me a hippy but I'm looking forward to a much cleaner more economically friendly CPU to power my computers.

Yeah, I'm not planning to buy one, I can't even buy a new GPU (look at mine...:s). Just wanted to see what you guys thought of Nehalem. Many different opinions

Amplid

I mostly use mine for gaming and (cough) ripping DVDs, and I rarely see mine go over 25%. So having more cores is not better unless ya just want to have the latest and greatest.
Just my 2 cents

Except Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX, which is a CPU limited game but you're right about pretty much everything else, though I presume that the new MS train sim will have the same charactoristics as FSX as it is using the same engine.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

The great thing about multiple cores, though, is that, while maybe not able to achieve epic overclocks, they have the backup power and wherewithal to do a lot of other stuff - such as running / supporting virtual machines / desktops.

A person who wants to do *nothing* but gaming should quite possibly not consider quad cores and beyond, but those of us who use the PC for things other than just gaming have every need to sacrifice some OC ability to run (and truly run) multiple apps OOB - and Multiple OSs, and other things like this.

For the most part, yeah, but I would not be surprised to see this becomes an issue more and more with the advances in CPU technology. I foresee other games making more and more use of the CPU as the games become more and more interactive.