1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Discussion: Nehalem memory details

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 4 Sep 2008.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. biebiep

    biebiep New Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    101
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'll skip this one and wait for 32nm nehalem :)
    I've always preferred 'Tocks' over 'Ticks' as Intel likes to call them... And i'm not too confident about first-gen mobo's getting the most out of this one ;)

    But seriously... 14K mb/s for the budget version... The basic-budget version of thet next generation has more than the mainstream version of this generation xD. That's how we like to see it! Gratz to Intel! (omy, did that just sound fanboyish?)
     
  3. naokaji

    naokaji whatever

    Joined:
    8 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    10
    is the 1066 the actual max speed supported though or is it just intel being scared of going above jedec specs? I was planning to get another 2GB Cellshock 1866 to have 6GB with nehalem, I sure hope 1066 wont be some kind of hard limit.
     
  4. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    1,066 is the maximum memory clock for a stock Bloomfield, that's for sure.
     
  5. bowman

    bowman Member

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    363
    Likes Received:
    10
    biebiep, tock is Nehalem, tick is Westmere. :)

    Oh well, I'll wait and see. Either Nehalem will be worth the money, or I'll just go for subsequent downpriced Penryn quads.
     
  6. biebiep

    biebiep New Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    101
    Likes Received:
    3
    Woops my mistake.

    But yeah, Nehalem's first punches are going to have to be very hard ones. Since a Q9650(heck, even a good ol' OC'ed Q6600)+P45 board is a hard-to-beat combo when priced down to make room for Nehalem :p
     
  7. oasked

    oasked Stuck in the Mud

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    55
    From all accounts, I think they will be very hard punches. The trouble is, like most prize fighters, you won't be able to afford to hire one. :lol:
    (AFAIK The first Nehalem's will be the "Extreme Edition" parts Q4 2008, then the mainstream will come Q1 and Q2 2009).
     
  8. Faulk_Wulf

    Faulk_Wulf Internet Addict

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    402
    Likes Received:
    6
    Okay maybe I am retarded, but I thought that only 64-bit Vista could use the max 4GB of memory we have available now. So what's the point of 6GB of memory if nothing can be accelerated by it? Wouldn't 6GB in 64-Bit be as redundant as 4GB in 32-Bit? Or am I missing something obvious here?
     
  9. The Jambo

    The Jambo Last on the scene

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vista 64-bit can handle up to 128 GB of Memory, hence the much needed switchover to x64.

    Join the x64!
     
  10. seanap

    seanap New Member

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    The jambo beat me to it!
     
  11. seanap

    seanap New Member

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    The jambo beat me to it!
     
  12. Sublym3

    Sublym3 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Other websites reported that Intel is just sticking to Jedec standards, so there is no 'offical' support for faster memory.
     
  13. p3ri0d

    p3ri0d New Member

    Joined:
    9 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. woodshop

    woodshop UnSeenly

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    8
    i'm still waiting for the return of the 1:1 cpu memory relationship..
     
  15. biebiep

    biebiep New Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    101
    Likes Received:
    3
    Mostly in optimized multi-threaded apps, so that means games are less likely to improve...
    Also, the lower L2 cache on nehalem makes it a less optimal for gaming(comparing to Core's massive L2's), so i'm still not convinced that Nehalem will WTFBBQPWN the Penryns in gaming :p
     
  16. Kúsař

    Kúsař regular bit-tech reader

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    317
    Likes Received:
    4
    Athlons are using 800MHz DDR2 and they have pretty high mem bandwidth. Now that intel has integrated mem controller into CPU, it shouldn't be surprising :)
     
  17. yakyb

    yakyb i hate the person above me

    Joined:
    10 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,063
    Likes Received:
    30
    i wouldnt' be suprised if the uptake on nehalem is pretty slow tbh i would much rather buy a q6600 and some cheap 4GB kit of ddr2

    when nehalem is shrunk and ddr3 is cheaper then i might re-appraise
     
  18. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Easy - underclock your CPU to 1,333 MHz and see how fast it goes.
     
  19. naokaji

    naokaji whatever

    Joined:
    8 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    10
    64 bit vista (like all other 64bit os's) supports way more than 4 GB, only a 32 bit os will pose a limit.
    there is also the physical limitation of todays mainboards, you have 4 slots on the s775 boards, with 2 GB modules being the biggest ones avalaible (there are bigger ones, but they are a) insane expensive and b) slow).
    Current intel chipsets have a dual channel controller, so its either 2 or 4 modules.
    I went with 4 1GB modules because they oc better than 2 2GB modules.
    Nehalem will have a triple channel meory controller, so its a) downgrade to 3GB or b) upgrade to either 6 or 12.
     
  20. SuperNova

    SuperNova New Member

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    The price could play a big role in this too. 3GB isn't enough for this CPU, so 6GB will be the spot to aim for (bloomfield is an enthusiast CPU after all). The tripplechannel will deliver enough bandwidth for a while, even at 1066MHz so i can understand why they settle for 1066MHz especially when you consider the price on lets say 1600 or higher specced DDR3 modules. 3x2GB @ 1600MHz++ is expensive, you will basically put more money into the memory than you will for the 2.66GHz CPU (with todays memory prices).

    Then you have the problem with many modules at high speeds. 4x2GB DDR2 @ lets say PC8500 isn't exactly stable on the majority of the boards. NO manufacture (from what i have seen) have added this config in their "support-lists". Since you have three channels you have to have in mind that some people will put 6 modules on the board. 6 modules @ 1600+ speeds would probably create some stability issues.

    So the bottom line is that you market the cpu with 1066MHz support which is "safe" at the same time people will lock for 1066MHz memorys which is far cheaper than the once with higher clocks like 1600Mhz. The 1333Mhz seems to be a mystery though since the price difference isn't that big between them. 1333Mhz seems to the a spot where you could get it to work, but i bet intel goes for the "better safe then sorry" approach on a new architecture.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page