Sub 10w Nehalem processors coming

8-12th info will be given on them at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...sors_Based_on_Nehalem_Micro_Architecture.html

 

That's pretty amazing, but considering the link stated the product ranges 10-130W, who knows the performance of the 10W part vis' a vis the rest of the line-up.

It's even more amazing, tho, considering the 10W includes the IMC, thereby reducing some of the pwr dissipation that would normally be seen with a traditional NB.

And to think, I'm currently impressed with the thermal/performance envelope of my new P8600!

Maybe I'm just too easily impressed...

Jayayess1190 - You edited out your link, my friend.

 

Fixed, I reread the link and thought I had read it wrong.

 

10w is gonna be for the next gen of Atom cpus.

 

Maybe 32nm Atom? Atom roadmap?

Fall 2009: 45nm Pineview processors with graphics onboard
Sometime in 2010: 32nm Medfield with graphics onboard

 

There's nothing that impressive in that article, really. The current Core 2 Duo ULV processors already use 10W, so unless we're talking quad-core 10W, which it never specifies, then it merely means Nehalem is keeping pace with current processors power-wise, perhaps trimming half a watt to keep it "under 10". And if you want less, there's 5W Core Solo's (and I think one 5W Core 2 Solo) out there.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were substantial improvements, but there's no real good evidence from that article that there won't be just standard evolutionary progress.

I thought Atom was less than 5W though. 10W sounds way too high for Atoms.

 

Intel Processor Roadmap

 

Atom will not use Nehalem Architecture. So sub 10W processor would be ULV. It would be impressive bcos with IMC overall platform would consume less power. Also it should have built in gfx Plus Nehalem architecture has stood apart from core 2 architecture except for gaming benchmarks which are irrelevant for a ULV cpu.

 

Sorry for this rant but this "lack of gaming performance" has been said for Core i7's but that's not true at all. You guys have seen the SLI/Crossfire benchmarks?? If the i7's don't have an advantage why do they perform so well in those multi-GPU set-ups??

Core i7 peculiarity in gaming goes like this:
-800x600 Low to Medium: Core i7 wins 10-15%
-1600x1200 High to Very High: Core 2 is 0-5% faster
-SLI/Crossfire: Core i7 wins again

Why does that happen?? CPU power is there but the part related to graphics is lacking. What's been theorized is that Core i7's PCI-Express controller is on the Tylersburg and the memory controller is on the chip so there is an extra "hop" to access the main memory.

It's less obvious in ATI's platforms because ATI is now AMD and had the similar extra "hop" for a while.

In notebooks Core i7's advantage will be amplified by multiple reasons:
-Notebooks are very rarely overclocked, as they are harder to do. Turbo Memory will also clock +3 multiplier rather than +2 as on desktops. Meaning more frequency increase
-Mobile Nehalem family will have PCI-Express on the CPU. If the above theory is true, there will be an advantage of having it close to the memory controller again
-Memory speed differences between Core i7 on the laptop vs Core 2 mobiles is greater than desktop Core i7 vs. desktop Core 2

 

I am not saying I7 lacks gaming performance. But compared to other benchmarks it does not stand apart. There is no incentive to upgrade from core 2 platform to core I7 if you are a gamer. Plus platform costs for I7 is way higher than core 2. Hopefully I5 would be as good as I7 but costs similar to core 2.