While basic features of Intel’s next-generation desktop platform based on code-named Bloomfield processors are commonly known, more precise, but still rather general, specifications were kept under wraps. Apparently, the chipset that will enable Intel’s forth-coming high-end platform is called Intel X58 and will support one physical central processing unit (CPUs) as well as up to four graphics processing units (GPUs).
According to slides, which resemble those that come from Intel Corp., published by Expreview web-site, Intel’s next-gen high-end desktop Intel X58 chipset will consist of X58 PCI Express bridge as well as ICH10 input/output controller hub. The X58 is projected to feature four PCI Express 2.0 memory controllers to support two graphics cards with two PCIe 2.0 x16 slots or four graphics cards with four PCIe 2.0 x8 slots.
Support for up to four graphics cards emphasizes that graphics processing units continue to play a huge role in today’s gaming machines and that this would hardly change in the coming quarters.
Basic features of Intel X58 Platform. Slide published by Expreview web-site
The quad-core code-named Bloomfield chip based on Intel Nehalem micro-architecture will feature simultaneous multi-threading technology, 8MB of L3 cache, triple-channel integrated DDR3 memory controller that supports up to1333MHz clock-speeds as well as Intel QuickPath interconnect (QPI). The chip will be able to execute eight threads at once, the same number as today’s ultra expensive “Skulltrail” systems that carry two quad-core processors.
The first public demonstration of Intel’s quad-core Nehalem/Bloomfield processors at Intel Developer Forum in April ‘08 revealed that the chip can work stably at 3.20GHz
Comments currently: 14
Discussion started: 05/12/08 09:42:28 AM
Latest comment: 07/25/08 01:58:09 PM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-5]
1.
Borrowing from AMD's architecture,bringing back hyperthreading-is Intel running out of new ideas or something?Well one thing is for sure nehalem sounds like its going to be one savage chip.
[Posted by: xaq | Date: 05/12/08 09:42:28 AM]
+ expand thread (5 answers)
- collapse thread
what the hell with the "borrowing AMD's architecture" ??
such a noob statement.. go study your ass more..
[Posted by: V-tanium | Date: 05/12/08 04:32:26 PM]
Intel stole Hyperthreadinf from AMD?
I think ur foolish ass is thinking off "Hypertransport" which is AMD's FSB.
an 8 core with hyperthreading is teh fucking pwnage...and its already been tested.
Hyperthreading AINT AMD.
[Posted by: Joz | Date: 05/12/08 05:25:32 PM]
HyperThreading is from Intel.
HyperTransport is from AMD.
Both are totally different technologies.
HyperThreading are found in cpus (Pentium 4s) that allows a cpu to create a virtual core of itself. It improves performance in Multi-threaded applications. This was a stepping stone for dual core and multi-core cpus.
HyperTransport is a interconnect path between the cpu and ram.
It's AMD's equvalent of Intel's FSB, but for AMD it's integrated into the CPU.
The HT is bidirectional meaning it's able to transfer upstream and downstream at the same speed.
The idiot who says "borrowing AMD technology" should study his ass more, cause even without the IMC on Intel's current cpus, it still kicks the asses out of those AMDs.
[Posted by: kls | Date: 05/12/08 06:34:50 PM]
as far as i remember AMD was the first one to introduce dual core chips in da market while intel kept on saying dat dual core wont work..... so basically intel did steal da idea from AMD... and this chipset also supports AMD's Quad CrossFire. hmmm... now i wonder why intel 4got 2 mention dat in the pic??
[Posted by: nick | Date: 07/25/08 01:58:09 PM]
i think he meant that intel stole the idea of integrated on die memory controller, not the hyperthreading, but this isn't intel's first try to integrate memory controller on the processor itself, it tried it once before and failed, AMD just succeeded earlier, that's all.
Anyway, in any case, who the f#
[Posted by: Me, expressing myself | Date: 05/12/08 07:40:05 PM]
2.
i'm i the only one dissapointed by the 1333mhz FSB (stock) limit on the memory controllers ?...for god sakes at least give us 1600mhz...in both my P35 based PC's (one DDR2 and one DDR3)...my 1066mhz 3-3-4-7 ballistix ram beats my super talent 1333mhz 7-7-7-18 in real-world benchmarks.
either way nehalem is going to be a pure bred monster...btw i've heard rumors about intel locking the ability to overclock certain nehalem processors by means of implementing PLL's clock generators to check for signal frequency "irregularities" that differences between it's programmed OEM frequency..is this true ? (i really hope not)...other wise i might go K11...this would killl enthusiasm
[Posted by: Some Random Guy | Date: 05/13/08 11:03:23 AM]
+ expand thread (3 answers)
- collapse thread
only extreme chips will be overclockable-then all all the intel fanboy homos will be crawling back to AMD!
[Posted by: allan | Date: 05/13/08 05:17:24 PM]
that surley depends on wich stock performance we get. Today even without any OC intel looks better right now. Not everyone wants to risk an unstable system by overclocking, I would even go as far and say that only 1-2% really care much for overclocking features.
[Posted by: Silver | Date: 05/13/08 11:15:39 PM]
[1] a good overclock means a stable system, if you cant get your system stable while overclocking then you gained nothing.
-----------------------------
[2] if it is really 1-2% as you think out of the computer users population then why will intel "if we are to believe that the rumors are true" limit the overclocking potential of budget processors?! IMO, in any forums right now there are:
- detailed overclocking guides everywhere
- recommendation of hardware that enables overclocking
- many posts everywhere go with the idea of SPENDING less and GETTING more through overclocking
- new nano meter technology and efficient processors architecture enabled most users to get over 50% performance advantage over stock speeds with dirt cheap processors, my e2140 "1.6Ghz stock" reached 3.0Ghz on a P31 budget motherboard, couldn't be happier.
[Posted by: Me, expressing myself | Date: 05/14/08 10:23:35 AM]
3.
How many people give a sh*t about running 4 VGA cards especially when you can buy cards with two chips per card. People moan about quad core CPUs but quad VGA is just dumb.
[Posted by: Cuervo | Date: 05/13/08 04:51:54 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
why is it dumb, its just some extra of the long pci-e slots, the shorter cards fit into those slots too. sure utilizing it for 4 video cards may seem gimmicky and not many people will do this. perhaps a few CAD or 3D artists will do this if GPGPU rendering becomes useful with SLI. perhaps it could be used for arcade machines, people expect those to have very good video performance.
[Posted by: Silver | Date: 05/13/08 11:21:39 PM]
4.
you guy's make me laugh
[Posted by: eddi | Date: 05/14/08 05:38:01 AM]
5.
ZZzzZZZzzzZZzZZzZz.................
[Posted by: unclesharkey | Date: 05/14/08 09:05:56 AM]
[1-5]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Print article
Send link to friend
Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to Slashdot
