Increasing the number of memory channels from 2 to 3 is already an increase by +50%. By integrating the memory controller into the CPU you should get even more out of it. So you have to expect gains of at least 50% in some applications. That is nothing to be screaming about. You will probably be moaning when you see your favourite applications not being able to exploit this increased memory bandwidth.

@SPOOFE .No it is not dogmatic and you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.... In fact I will put myself on the line and say that overall Core i7 will clock for clock at 3.2GHz only be 15% faster than a QX9650 @ 3.2GHz in 3D gaming. I am not talking about any other benchmarks. I KNOW that Tech Report and Anandtech will confirm my assertions.

For your information I will quote Anand Lal Shimpi (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3382&p=14) see section Launch Speeds and Performance

"I’ve already done a bit of work on expected Nehalem performance. Nehalem’s largest impact will be on servers, without a doubt, but there are many threaded desktop applications where you’ll see significant improvements thanks to Nehalem. Video encoding, 3D rendering, etc... were the biggest areas where we saw a performance boost with Nehalem in our earlier article.

If your apps aren’t well threaded, the Nehalem benefit will be limited to the 0 - 15% range compared to Penryn depending on the app."

Lets face it... apart from Lost Planet.. there isn't a game that uses more than 2 cores properly, or three cores at best. But going back to clock for clock there isn't much difference...

Yeah, they did. Except I didn't bother to save anything at first. Only later when I was trying to find a page to back up one of my arguments I noticed that it disappeared from hexus.net.

I don't know why my past post with link to nehalem gaming numbers was deleted but anyways here some pulled real world gaming tests done by hexus.net. Look at the real world gaming res (1680x1050) and notice how i7 gets raped by every similarly clocked 45 and 65nm both from intel and amd.

http://s465.photobucket.com/albums/rr18/LiquidReactor/?action=view&...

This is what I'm waiting for...it will be the heart of new builds for home and office.

Let's see. New CPU + new mobo + 3Gb DDR3 = what? $700 minimum?

As a prev poster said, it's going to be high time for Penryn-based gaming + suitable overclocks. Core2 is closer to Nehalem than Netburst was to Core2.

Long live DDR2 + socket 775.

BTW, I was checking Intel's site. Spousal unit has the old 965 chipset board...with the proper revision of a C2Q + latest BIOS, that board will officially accept C2Q. The 'puter is plenty fast for her already with a C2D...but that is excellent future-proofing.

All y'all well-heeled types tell me how Nehalem goes...it's inevitable, but only after prices come down.

Here is the most recent anti-OC article on core i7:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2008/10/06/high-memory...

Will anything trickle down to us poor S775 users?

In other breaking news, it looks like Custer isn't doing so well at Little Bighorn. More information as the wires provide it...

/getting tired of opinion and inanity as sources for front page news.

Where is Krogoth when you need yawning?

I don't play games. I wonder how much faster this thing will blast through code compilation compared to the Core 2 (though at the moment I'm just on an X2).

Maybe TR could do a linux kernel compilation test to see how it takes a big compile job with gcc.

I personally doubt that Core i7 will make much difference over Core 2 Quads as far as gaming is concerned. I have a QX9650 @3.33GHz and I seriously doubt that a similarly clocked Core i7 would give more than 5-10fps boost at best in games like Crysis Warhead, TF2 or Stalker Clear Sky. Heck the only game that uses multi core properly is the MT Framework powered Lost Planet.

I believe that Nehalem is only going to excel in the Server environment.

Also many of you are not even considering AMD Shanghai 45nm. That has the potential to really challenge Intel's mid range line upJust my take on it...

I can't wait for the first micro ATX boards to come out for LGA1366.

I thought I read where the architecture of the i& would not make it a good cpu for 3d games. Now I'm reading of a 52% advantage clock for clock over a coer2 extreme. I'm confused.

Hold your horses people.This "gain" is yet to be tested and proven. 52% gain in performance seems very illogical.I mean What does the processor handle in a game?
physx and artificial intelligent. The cpu has a very limited rule in rendering games compared to the gpu. Both geometry and texturiing are being handled by the gpu.
There's actually ZERO gain in performance by using a 3.6Ghz QX9650 with 2 9800gtx's over a stock clocked QX9650 at 3.0GHz. in crysis,the game that features the best on cpu physx. "a cid on youtube"

Lets be reasonable people.Not everything is to be believed.Especially,when it's such a "irrational" news.

A new CPU giving that much of an advantage in games? What resolution were they running at, 640x480?

I'm sure they'll be spiffy, but I'd spend my money on a new GPU first.

So intel will have their Core i7, and Microsoft will eventually get out Windows 7. Anyone else find this coincidence amusing?

2.66GHz clock speed with a $284 price tag sounds so sweet, i'll just OC the hell out of that thing, and call it a screamer myself... LOL

Yep, Nehalem is going to be a very soild CPU build for the future.

Nehalem is going to rock the server and workstation world. It is more of a "meh" upgrade for gamers who have Core 2 stuff though since the majority of games are GPU-bounded.

Hold you horses !
1 The CPU is going to cost "more" on the client because a will be high demand so prices are extected to cost more (+$200 in Europe at least)
2 The motherboad will cost more than the CPU !!
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9...
3 The RAM will cost at least equal the price of the CPU !! (4GB)
Plus is o possibility that the 920 will only paper lunch.
AMD has still a very good possibility to be competitive with Deneb at 3GHz vs i7 920 (2.66) .

Well firstly these are Intel figures, and unlike Core 2, Intel hasn't been sending pre-review CPUs to hardware sites, AFAIK.

However if they are correct (and Intel hasn't got a reason to lie excessively here, and things like on-board memory controller should really let the platform scream, and it's a shame that it wasn't done a lot sooner), then this is great news for consumers, and not so good news for AMD...

I don't know if i like or dislike the thought of my PC screaming while i'm pressing her buttons...

core i7 is the dumbest name ever.

Core i7 920 is coming to my rig soon :p