Talk:Nehalem (microarchitecture)

Processor and Chipset compatiblity
Can the 35XX series CPU, connect into a 5500 or 5520 chipset? We know that it has only one QPI, but the 5520 and 5500 can apparently work in daisy chain mode. Also the X58 chipset apparently has 2 QPI, so in theory could support 2 CPUs.

List of Intel Nehalem microprocessors
Does anyone agrees with me that we should list all Intel i-series processors into a page, title as stated above, just like how we did to List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors? Instead of making separate pages of these Core i3, i5 and i7 processors list, why not create one to allow viewers to see all full details of Intel Nehalem processors at one go?
 * what you don't get is that Nehalem is a code-name while Core 2 is a brand. However we could re-direct that to List of Intel microprocessors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Intel Xeon Processor 5600 Series Launched
Gulftown is just a codename for a certain/specific product "development". As it turns out, Intel chose to deliver the result of this project, a.k.a. the hex-core processors, under both brands, Xeon and Core i7 Extreme (for the Desktop). So, UPDATE YOUR TABLE! (Other than that, this is a really nice and useful compilation of data).

You can refer to http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=594 for the list of Xeon family, and to http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=39597 for the list of Core i7 Desktop Processor Extreme family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.152.82 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Westmere EX
PC Magazine has talked about Westmere EX as coming a year from now and having 12 physical cores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Intel Beckton variants
The table should list the various versions of Beckton. There are quad- and six- cores of Beckton as well as many different clocks and TDPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

--Agreed having more info here would be good. I got the following information from two different IBM model configurations. Hopefully it's a useful starting point for someone. HX5- Intel Xeon Processor E7520 4C 1.86GHz 18MB Cache 95w (4558), Intel Xeon Processor E6510 4C 1.73GHz 12MB Cache 105w (4569) [subtract $244.00], Intel Xeon Processor E7530 6C 1.86GHz 12MB Cache 105w (4564) [add $720.00], Intel Xeon Processor E7540 6C 2.00GHz 18MB Cache 105w (4566) [add $1,786.00], Intel Xeon Processor L7555 8C 1.86GHz 24MB Cache 95w (4562) [add $3,066.00] x3850 X5 - Intel Xeon Processor E7520 4C 1.86GHz 18MB Cache 95w (4524), Intel Xeon Processor E7530 6C 1.86GHz 12MB Cache 105w (4522) [add $934.00], Intel Xeon Processor E7540 6C 2.0GHz 18MB Cache 105w (4520) [add $1,964.00], Intel Xeon Processor L7545 6C 1.86GHz 18MB Cache 95w (4518) [add $1,494.00], Intel Xeon Processor L7555 8C 1.86GHz 24MB Cache 95w (4514) [add $3,584.00], Intel Xeon Processor X7542 6C 2.66GHz 18MB Cache 130w (4526) [add $2,034.00], Intel Xeon Processor X7550 8C 2.0GHz 18MB Cache 130w (4516) [add $3,274.00], Intel Xeon Processor X7560 8C 2.26GHz 24MB Cache 130w (4512) [add $4,960.00] --Dickece (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Core i5-480M missing
I couldn't edit the article myself because I don't know what to put in the "Price for 1k Unit" column, but the Core i5 480M is missing from the table in the "32 nm Arrandale" section. 144.32.170.32 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated Redirect
Should the "Core i" page redirect to the Sandy Bridge article rather than the Nehalem article? The Nehalem architecture is no longer the currently produced line of Core i processors, and therefore it might make more sense to have this redirect pointed to the current architecture. Walbyjon (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be more reasonable to redirect to Intel Core instead, which describes all Intel Core i3/i5/i7 processors and links to the descriptions of the individual CPU cores. Arndbergmann (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dual-core, quad-core and the naming of CPU with number of cores higher than four in this article.
For CPU with number of cores higher than 4, I think we should stick to the same type of prefix as with dual-core, quad-core, then hexa-core (6 cores), octa-core (8 cores rather than using six-core and eight-core. I can see "hexa-core" and "octa-core" being used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor Nemesiscavalry (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see the other article get changed. Using numbers seems to be the more common scheme overall beyond 4 cores, and the spelled-out names start getting really silly once you get to 12, 16 or beyond. Knight's Corner already has 48 of them, while Tilera makes chips with 64 or 100 cores. Arndbergmann (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see the validity in your reasoning but should that only applied to normal context? (e.g : talking to a non-technical person). I believe there is a reason dual-, and quad- being used in the first place but that I need to read up further more.Nemesiscavalry (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to list Jasper Forest processors on chart
Just wondering, where should the Jasper Forest processors go on the chart, and how should they be arranged? This also includes the Celeron branded P1053. --Azul120 (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nehalem (microarchitecture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304215925/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/976/1050976/intel-bunch-fun-cpus-moves-2010 to http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/976/1050976/intel-bunch-fun-cpus-moves-2010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308113714/http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/clarkdale-sneakpeek.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/clarkdale-sneakpeek.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018210416/http://www.itpro.co.uk/news/125370/idf-2007-intel-debuts-nehalem.html to http://www.itpro.co.uk/news/125370/idf-2007-intel-debuts-nehalem.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516232401/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/535 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/535
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106102523/http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/nehalem-microarchitecture.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/nehalem-microarchitecture.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What makes it a new microarchitecture?
What makes this a truly new architecture, like Netburst was, rather than just another revision and update of the P6/Core architecture like Coppermine, Dothan, Penryn etc. were? Features like hyper-threading, integrated memory controllers, and longer pipelines have been added to chips before without those chips being considered new architectures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)