Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GHarrall

Nehalem Preview - Intel Does It Again

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

If their assumptions regarding the final CPU release are correct, that will be a shockingly powerful system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Great preview at AnandTech regarding the Intel Nehalem>architecture.>>FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...aspx?i=3326&p=1>>The release of the Nehalem CPU, Q4 hopefully, seems to be the time when I will build me a new pc :-) Looks very, very promising.I wonder if AMD will be able to match Intel on this one?Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Great preview at AnandTech regarding the Intel Nehalem>>architecture.>>>>FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.>>>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...aspx?i=3326&p=1>>>>>>The release of the Nehalem CPU, Q4 hopefully, seems to be the>time when I will build me a new pc :-) Looks very, very>promising.>>I wonder if AMD will be able to match Intel on this one?>>Ulf B>>Core2Duo X6800 3.3GHz>4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5>BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-Fi>FSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32They haven't managed to catch Penryn yet! Unless AMD have truly got something amazing (and very secret) up their sleeve then it looks like they are going to be relegated to the bargain basement of CPU's again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil 'aint no dummy... He was hardware with ATi and knows where the performance comes from... they are planning CORE tech based on this platform.One last thought, Nehalem performance on unaligned memory accesses. FSX has these in spades. One of our performance work items for what we are calling "Wave 2009" in Core is to do work to memory align as many object types as we can. This and the IMC spell goodness for FSX, in case it wasn't already obvious.http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...it-deliver.aspxYea, we got the right man at the helm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Phil 'aint no dummy... He was hardware with ATi and knows>where the performance comes from... they are planning CORE>tech based on this platform.>>>One last thought, Nehalem performance on unaligned memory>accesses. FSX has these in spades. One of our performance work>items for what we are calling "Wave 2009" in Core is to do>work to memory align as many object types as we can. This and>the IMC spell goodness for FSX, in case it wasn't already>obvious.>>>http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...it-deliver.aspx>>>>Yea, we got the right man at the helm>Nick,I agree, but let's be realistic and avoid pushing the expectations on the next FS too high this early. IMHO:I hope your'e right and that AMD doesn't come up with some revolutionary architecture that overthrow what we expect of the future. Remember that when the FSX architecture was drawn, we didn't expect the dual core to be part of the future.But the probability of AMD setting the pace for high end CPUs is very low at the moment.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you are saying... but if you understood the lingo and the tech you would know this is a -key- area with the current and future system to take advantage of and I am sure AMD is working on that area of their up and coming platform as well. they are behind Intel in that respect.For them to be looking at all this and planning it in the right direction tells me they are on the right path this time around.I did not say FS11 would be anything... I said the direction they are going and reporting on is the right research path for development and that does not happen without the right person pointing the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I know what you are saying... but if you understood the lingo>and the tech you would know this is a -key- area with the>current and future system to take advantage of and I am sure>AMD is working on that area of their up and coming platform as>well. they are behind Intel in that respect.Yes, I admit that I don't have your knowledge on the lingo and the tech. I'll remember to humbly admit to that fact before answering any of your posts. I'm sorry.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not trying to be facetious ... You made a comment about my outlook for the future and all I was doing was qualifying what I said and why I said it. If you took that any other way, I apologize as it was not meant to be anything other than what I described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.>I think FSX 'flies' with a Penryn but anyway...Lookin' good Intel.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your a riot .. LOLI really did not mean to come off that way....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I know what you are saying... but if you understood the lingo>and the tech you would know this is a -key- area with the>current and future system to take advantage of and I am sure>AMD is working on that area of their up and coming platform as>well. they are behind Intel in that respect.>>For them to be looking at all this and planning it in the>right direction tells me they are on the right path this time>around.>>I did not say FS11 would be anything... I said the direction>they are going and reporting on is the right research path for>development and that does not happen without the right person>pointing the way.>>>>>>>I just hope this time around Aces puts all the future Hardware performance options in the config file and not the GUI. These options are necessary but by putting them in the GUI, people automatically think they can run the sim full bore, and when it doesn't on the newest available hardware, it gets poo pooed as a bad performer. If FSX is properly tuned to the capabilities of your system, it performs very well. For the average system today that still means greater scenery density than in FS9. with 1m textures. Higher level can get even more, depending on what you deem acceptable performance. The problem with FSX wasn't FSX, it was the settings interface, that made options available that no hardware at the time of release, could possibly handle without a slide show. Like high density road, and ship traffic, or the thousands of autogen objects when at max settings. If the number of trees and buildings per cell defaulted to 800 and 600 instead of 4500 3500, and Road traffic was limited to 20%. I venture to say, I don't think FSX would have gotten the reputation it got. You could always up the value in the config file as your Hardware capabilities increased. But the GUI settings is what the average user will see first, and you know what they say? First impressions are the lasting impressions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone enlighten me about what this article shows?Obviously matters are still at a very embryonic stage. But it looks as if Nehalem is essentially Penryn plus better memory management. Now, that may be an important development in itself; I am certainly not qualified to say; but it does not look like the earth-shattering leap forward in raw CPU performance that some were hoping for. The idea that a 1st iteration ("tock") Nehalem might do a 1M Superpi in 8.32 seconds (which was, apparently, only a rumour started as a practical joke, but widely circulated anyway) looks well and truly far-fetched.At the moment my impression, as I expected, is that we will see another rather modest incremental performance improvement with the usual hype and inflated price premium - not that that will deter people from upgrading, obviously, including me. But I am still hoping to be proved wrong: so if anyone knows otherwise, can they please say so?Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Could someone enlighten me about what this article shows?>"at 2.66GHz Nehalem is faster than the fastest Penryn available today the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 running at 3.2GHz. At 3.2GHz, Nehalem will be fast" Sounds darn good to me. This didnt take any overclocking to do that either. Also as Nick said earlier the Nehalem will use the way FSX wants to work far better than now. I am in the process of saving/building a new FSX system and now I will wait for sure for the Nehalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,Nick, please forgive me for posting this stupid question. Your'e the top gun hardware guru!Question 1: I guess that this new Nehalem cpu family will require a new slot? New mobo needed to run this sun of a gun?Question 2: Will future high end mobos have the intelligence to support newbies, like me, to overclock without bothering about cpu voltage, dram voltage, fsb frequency and memory timings? I want a BIOS that doesn't make the overclocking so time consuming.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can answer number 1. Yes you will need a new MOBO and the slot config is different as well. The new slot is a 1366 pin. As far as for overclocking I think there a some good boards out there now that sorta help you out but you still will have to have some good knowledge as how to do it. I would be interested to know if there are any good books that teach you how to OC and word the terminology in laymans terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jwenham,Yes, a good book that translates the tech terminlogy in laymen terms would be a nice thing. Also a translation to the labels used by different BIOSes. The different abbreviations are confusing.Obviously there is a market for explaining OC:ing in plain english and with use cases specific to mobos and cpu:s.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, seems like a good article on OC:ing :-)Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exciting stuff. It bodes well for experiencing a outstanding boost in thruput performance and efficiency over my Penryn at 4Ghz. By the time I do my next upgrade there will be a signficant reason to do so.Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You could always up the value in the config file as your Hardware capabilities increased ..."Or, you could simply hide the higher settings behind an Advanced System Configuration within the GUI, or with a command line switch such as "/screamingfastsystem" that changes the slider values before loading the GUI.Either way, the GUI can say: "Caution: Advanced System Configuration items require multiple processors, faster video card ..." etc.There's nothing really wrong with putting the settings in the GUI, it's all in the presentation and the proper setting of expectations.If you set expectations high, and then fail to meet them, then you create disaster.If you set expectations low, and then exceed them, you create positive buzz and massive sales increases.Marketing 101.The very last software group that needs to "tout" anything is Microsoft ACES. They should always keep a low product profile, and let everyone else do the ooohing and aahhhhing.The product is THAT good.My 2c.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was interesting to observe that Quickpath buss <> Ram buss latency (our old FSB <> Ram buss) was only impressive relative to a standard Penryn setup. The Quickpath <> rambuss latency was exalted to be an uber-quick 46.9ns. That's pretty good, but we're doing that now with Penryn uber-rigs. Heck, even my plebeian DDR2-800 @ 44412/tRD6 gets 57ns. (Note: all this latency stuff was recorded with an Intel "good board")Also notice Quickpath runs at 133Mhz (and goes unstable at 140). O/Cs (so far) will be based on increasing multipliers and Not based on increasing QP buss speeds. That lends credence to the premise that our current FSB speed is a non-player in the big picture. QP proves that 133Mhz provides plenty of connectivity for ram running at up to(DDR) 2000Mhz. The latency (delay time) of the transfer event between the Quickpath buss and the Ram buss will Still be a final determiner. For instance at 133Mhz, each cycle is 7.5ns in duration. Woah. That's huge (It's only 2.5ns @ 400Mhz). That means each tRD notch has the capability of reducing latency 7.5ns. With our 400Mhz FSB, Intel only uses every 8 to 12th cycle (tRD 8 - 12). That means at 2.5ns per cycle, a tRD of 12 builds-in 12 x 2.5ns = 30ns of latency. That ~ 30ns is NeeDeD for tRD to do its loading job. Quickpath needs it too, but provides that data loading-delay time in a slightly different way. At 133Mhz, each cycle is 7.5 long. So Intel (I expect) has set tRD at ~ 4x. That would be 7.5ns x 4 = 30ns. Same deal, just using a slower Front side (oops, I mean Quickpath) buss. The real promise is to optimize the tRD function. For instance, I can run a tRD down to 6x on my P35's 400Mhz FSB. That tRD creates a latency of 2.5ns x 6 = 15ns. That's right on the edge for me. If I try to push the tRD loading process any "tighter," my dockmaster (tRD) has a heart attack and just keels over (the system just freezes). My poor ol' P35 just cannot handle a 2.5ns x 5 = 12.5ns FSB <> Rambuss loading increment . . . but the later and greater Quickpath really should . . . we hope. Again, if Quickpath's buss speed is 133Mhz, then its cycle legnth is 7.5ns. Quickpath really should be able to deal with a tRD of 2: Because 2 (tRD) x 7.5(ns) = 15ns. I can do that now with an old clunky P35. That 46.9ns at DDR1066 really suggests a tRD of 1 (at 7.5ns drop from a more normal 15ns tRD related latency). That be good. If they can maintain this tRD as DDR speed ramps up, that will be very, Very good. However if so, tRD related optimizations will no longer be available. Intel has already used it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, what's your best guess on how better optimization for multi-core platforms will play out, in FS11 that would be . . . ?I'm guessing ACES will max out what can be accomplished in the multicore environment, as there will be sooo many users with at least dual core platforms. I'm hoping my Penny QX will have some life extension thru this mechanism. I know one thing, I am quite happy even with my crippled refurbed P5E. I hope the P5E3-Prem & memory don't have issues. I need to re-RMA this thing as it has weird sound problems the other guy didn't have, and it's only in FSX so far. I am going to start fresh again, I hope this week if the memory comes in. What is the best commercial aircraft in terms of performance in FSX? I use the PMDG 737 & 747 in FS9 and love them, but if another line is perhaps more effecient then I'd consider a switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By FS11 8 or more cores (on a single slug) will most likely be the norm and this time Aces is not going to make the same mistake which happened many years ago when FSX was on the drawing board... they will be looking at how current and future technology can be exploited correctly and that is what Phil was saying with the term 'WAVE 2009' and I am sure what he meant was to stay tuned for more info as they get into that part of development.There is one downfall to developing such a complicated system and that is because once a dev path is selected, to go backwards just because something a year+ out changed, can not be done.. therefore they must be careful and look at things from a hardware engineering perspective perhaps with help from Intel/Nv/AMD/ATi for what is to come over what is available. Then there is the reluctance of those camps to deliver that type of information so there is a defined 'cut off' to what they can develop for and must commit at a certain point regardless of a change that could take place by the time the product goes to market.That is where, IMHO, they need to start looking at the result of their work well in advance of its release to make sure they are not designing based on "the hardware will catch up to us eventually" I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites