Intel had a number of Nehalem systems up and running at IDF. Clock speeds are unknown but there are tons of threads being spawned.
The desktop platforms feature X58 motherboards with 6 DDR3 DIMM slots for Nehalem's 3 channels. Also on display was a Nehalem server with 144GB of DDR3 memory thanks to MetaRAM's 8GB DDR3 memory modules.
Gallery: Intel Nehalem Demo Systems
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
24 Comments
View All Comments
supremelaw - Thursday, August 21, 2008 - link
We have a patent pending on a method to installany OS into a user-defined region of RAM.
Coupled with native OS features and/or
third-party software like RamDisk Plus,
keeping the most recently used working set
in high-speed RAM will not only eliminate
slow disk I/O for OS tasks, but
the speed increase is already known
to be rather dramatic.
We observed 2,700 MB/second doing a "raw read"
with PerformanceTest version 4.0 from a RAMDISK
using Corsair DDR2-800 / PC2-6400 XMS2 SDRAM:
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/RAMDISK...">http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/RAMDISK...
Start with 18 DIMM slots @ 8GB = 144GB total.
Then, format C: as a ~30GB memory-resident file system,
install Windows XP, Vista etc. into that partition,
and the system still has 144 - 30 = 114GB of hi-speed
RAM available for system and application software tasks.
It's a simple concept with very far-reaching potential.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
ShroudedNight - Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - link
I have a (theoretical) system to install any OS into a user-defined region of RAM too. It's called a kernel hack allowing user-specified virtual memory mappings + a virtual machine. Done.Please God, I hope this patent gets thrown out for "obvious" if not "prior art"
aeternitas - Saturday, August 23, 2008 - link
I like how your 4bit graph is in jpeg. Next time, 'invent' a clue too.melgross - Thursday, August 21, 2008 - link
I'm actually a little disappointed at the number of memory slots.My older Mac Pro has 8. Buying 8GB RAM modules, even assuming they will be available will cost far too much now. Even 4GB modules are up on price, but are easier. I have all 8 filled with 2GB sticks, and was hoping to at least be able to do the same when the new one comes out. I'd love to see 9 slots.
SocrPlyr - Thursday, August 21, 2008 - link
Your older Mac Pro is a Xeon based system, which means it is meant for workstations/servers. Look at the server system, it has 18 slots (18x8GB=144GB). If Apple kept with those types of parts they would have no problem with doing 9 slots. Also this would be a decent step up for enthusiasts to have 6 slots as current boards only have 4. I am hoping down the road low end boards come with 3 as it will allow for definite performance increases when adding more RAM (each time you add a stick it gives you another channel). This will make lower end systems easy to get not only the boost from more RAM but also the extra channels (I am betting that OEMs only fill 2 DIMMs).anonymous x - Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - link
wow, they sure like antec cases, terrible cabling though.bibblelabs - Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - link
That 16 way utilization graph isn't exactly inspiring.It should look something like the one in this video:
http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/b5-16wi...">http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/b5-16wi...
Eric
kilkennycat - Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - link
......of their first-gen 45nm (Shanghai etc) systems ????Naw, just marketing bluster about how great IBM's 22nm node will be 4 years in the future. Zero publicly visible 45nm AMD CPUs.
Do I detect really desperate grasping at straws? First-gen 45nm AMD vs true 2nd gen Intel shipping at the same time. No recovery of AMD huge development costs on their 45nm efforts --- Intel can well afford to deliberately sink AMD by polishing up all the price/performance arrows in their quiver.
AggressorPrime - Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - link
That 144GB system was using 111GB to do something, what needs 111GB of RAM?9nails - Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - link
Windows XP x64 infected with MalWare can use up to 111 GB RAM!