I7's supposedly coming out next month!

[Roman Clone]

Here we have it folks: Next generation of Processors. Too bad they... uhh... aren't worth it for gaming.

Source:

Article:

The wait is almost over for anyone who has been anticipating Intel's upcoming processor lineup based on the Nehalem architecture. Citing un-named "industry sources," TGDaily says the new processors will launch on November 17, a little over one month from now. That won't be a paper launch either, as Intel CEO Paul Otellini said during the company's Q3 quarter conference call that Core i7 processors have already begun shipping.
While nothing is yet official, rumors regarding the three desktop processors expected to make the initial Core i7 debut remain unchanged from earlier speculation. These include the Core i7-965XE clocked at 3.2GHz, Core i7-940 clocked at 2.93GHz, and Core i7-920 clocked at 2.66GHz. According to those same sources, pricing in thousand tray quantities will be set at $999, $562, and $284 for the 965XE, 940, and 920 respectively.
Also coinciding with the desktop parts, Intel is expected to release high-performance server chips codenamed Nehalem-EP.

Anyone plan on upgrading anyway?

[Freddie]

Nope, and I won't be getting Core i7 Nehalem replacement Westmere (the 32nm shrink of Nehalem) either when that comes out in 2010. I plan on holding out for Sandy Bridge with it's 128 threads of goodness.

[Wheelchair]

Sandy Bridge? AMD or Intel? Never heard of it?

o.O!

[SPARTAN VI]

Probably not upgrading either. Barely had my Q6600 for 7 months!

[Wheelchair]

Probably not upgrading either. Barely had my Q6600 for 7 months!

7 months is a lifetime in the PC industry... Hell I'm starting to feel like my 8400 is outdated.

[SPARTAN VI]

7 months is a lifetime in the PC industry... Hell I'm starting to feel like my 8400 is outdated.

Yeah it is. I try not to upgrade my CPU, mobo, and RAM very often though; like to hold out at least a year.

But upgrade my videocard probably every 6 months, or less.

[Roman Clone]

Nope, and I won't be getting Core i7 Nehalem replacement Westmere (the 32nm shrink of Nehalem) either when that comes out in 2010. I plan on holding out for Sandy Bridge with it's 128 threads of goodness.

128 threads = 128 cores?

[Wheelchair]

128 threads = 128 cores?

doubtful, maybe 45nm will be more like 128nm?

128 Cores seems very unlikely seeing as many programs aren't even 4 core threaded...

[tco]

I believe it is 4 threads per core so 32 cores. Sandy Bridge

[Freddie]

128 threads = 128 cores?

Not quiet, 128 cores would be a bit extreme even for technology in 2011 (saying that Intel has developed an 80 core CPU already but that was a one off) . The maths is worked out like this

8 'nodes' (don't ask me what a node is) each of which 4 cores (8x4=32), then each core will have hyperthreading (32 cores x 4 threads each = 128). Hyperthreading brings about a 1/3 increase in performance, and I suspect the cores will use similar technology to that of the Intel Larrabee, but even still that's a huge amount of horsepower.

Thread= A way for a computer programme to split itself into different tasks, or run the same task in parallel to execute multiple tasks.

A Core= Is a just another CPU core on the same die. Two cores typically means two threads, 4 cores 4 threads. Hyperthreading works by providing work for execution units which would otherwise remain idle, but this isn't as effective as having a separate CPU core. A CPU with hyperthreading with be seen as two separate CPU's in Windows.

[Roman Clone]

Lulz, Crysis would have been slaughtered if we really had such cores. :

(Well, providing it can support it...)

[B. Ward]

Yea, I'm holding off on the new generation, but will reap the benefits of upcoming price drops. Most of the current hardware is more than sufficient for my needs. 2009 is my year to build a new system from the ground up, so I have about 2 - 3 grand to burn. And if the price drops are as good as I hope, I'm going to make the best of it.