Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955

Posted by Zonk on from the end-of-the-year-chip dept.

BSG Man writes "Intel's 3.46 GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 955 dual-core processor launches today, and HotHardware has a full review with benchmarks on Intel's new i975X Express based D975XBX motherboard. This processor is based on Intel's 65nm (or .065 micron) Presler core with 2MB of full speed, on-die L2 cache dedicated to each core, for a whopping 4MB of total L2 cache. As expected, the new Pentium Extreme Edition 955 scores well in encoding, desktop business and a few professional rendering tests but overall it's given a run for its money by AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual-core processor, especially in gaming scenarios."

35 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. +1 grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    but overall it's given a run for its money by AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual-core processor

    Wow, you managed to use "it's" and "its" in the same sentence, and both correctly. A /. first!

  2. is this a *real* launch? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this a launch launch, or a paper launch?

    I kinda got tired of reading about product launches that you couldn't go to a store and buy.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  3. Run for its money.. by wfberg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pentium Processor Extreme 955

    Price: $1,112.37 - $1,393.49

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz, Toledo, Dual-Core, 2x1MB L2 Cache, Socket 939, 64-bit Processor

    Price: $780.74 - $1,185.00

    More run, less money, it would appear.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:Run for its money.. by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The AMD 4800+ was faster in a LOT of the benchmarks, it's cheaper, it uses less power, and it's available today while the Intel part will be available in limited quantities sometime in January.

      I think this is one of those times that Intel would prefer to have the benchmarkers say nothing and silently release their white elephant. 8-)

    2. Re:Run for its money.. by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you don't seem to appreciate is that most high-end CPUs, with a few exceptions(such as the EE with its large l2 cache) are cut from the same wafers as lower-priced CPUs. They're often binned based on how well the cores come out, with the best cores being put in the most expensive CPUs.

      Of course they could make more money selling "these chips" for "half as much"(or even less). Just look at the low-end range of products from any of these processor lines.

      Example: The AMD X2 4400+ vs 4800+, and AMD x2 3800+ vs 4200+. The 4400+ and 4800+ are the same core(Toledo), and the 3800+ and 4200+ are the same core(Manchester). They come from the same wafers. What makes a 4800+ a 4800+? It was just a better core that went through testing better. Same cost of manufacture vs a 4400+, but a higher price tag.

      In some cases, the 3800+ and 4200+ are Toledo cores with half their l2 cache disabled, meaning that some 3800+ CPUs out there(which retail for about $320-$350) cost the same to manufacture as the $780+ 4800+.

      Intel does about the same thing with their CPUs, though EEs usually have more in common with existing Xeon processors than anything else. Usually.

      Furthermore, I would submit to you that two Mac Minis can get a lot less raw data-crunching done than just about any dual-core CPU on the market can do on its own.

  4. Dear Lord! by Caspian · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...but overall it's given a run for its money...
    Both homophones are used correctly! Who are you and what have you done with the Slashdot editors!?
    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    1. Re:Dear Lord! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

      The editors are on vacation during the holidays, they hired a bunch of monkeys, armed them with Open Office and gave them strict instructions to run the spell/grammar check before posting any articles.

      The monkey's don't mind the extra work.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Dear Lord! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The monkey's don't mind the extra work.

      On the bright side, no one will confuse you with a monkey.

      At least, not today :)

  5. Times have changed by trifish · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I read about that 4 MB of L2 cache, I recalled that my Atari ST had 0.5 MB of regular RAM back in 1990. I'm probably too sentimental...

    1. Re:Times have changed by nizo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah but you couldn't play games for the PC like Duke Nukem Forever on your old Atari ST. Oh wait....

      --
      I Am My Own Worst Enemy
  6. But do games support them? by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What games actually take advantage of those dual cores?

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
    1. Re:But do games support them? by freidog · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Nvidia version 80.0 and above drivers are multithreaded, so they take decent advantage of dual core / SMT chips.
      A couple of games, I know Quake4 for one, have been benchmarked with the dual core offerings edging out the fastest single core products. How much of that is related to the multithreaded Nvidia drivers and how much is from threading in the games themsleves I don't know. (The effect is not on all games when running the det 80s, so I'd assume Q4 has at least some usefull (beyond file I/O and netcode) threading).

    2. Re:But do games support them? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2?

    3. Re:But do games support them? by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 2, Informative

      ATI Catalyst 5.12 also added support for multiple cores to improve performance as well. I think it's the same thing as the nVidia driver situation.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
  7. Hope Dell Reads This Article by gasmonso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With AMD, continuously beating Intel in both price and performance, it just pisses me off to see them exclusively sell Intel processors. Even in their highend gaming rigs, they use the Extreme Edition with no option of getting an AMD processor. That's just pathetic. Think of how cheap their boxes could be if they didn't force you top buy Intel and Windows.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
    1. Re:Hope Dell Reads This Article by floodo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just because on the retail end amd processor is cheaper, doesnt mean that DELL pays more for intel.
      im sure they get incredible price breaks from intel.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    2. Re:Hope Dell Reads This Article by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and are they forcing you to buy Dell???

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  8. Re:I can't wait by Elvis+Parsley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any use of the word "extreme" with regards to a silicon chip is wrong.

    That said, I will withdraw my statement if this processor parachutes off of cliffs.

  9. Finally by Kickboy12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About time Intel made a processor that gives the AMD 64 a run for it's money. But even though the new processor is using a smaller process, more L2 cache, and faster clock speeds, the AMD still comes out on top. Makes you realize how far ahead Intel is in technology, and yet how far behind they are in quality. I garuntee the next AMD X2 chips will feature the same 65nm process, and once again it will take Intel 1-2 years to make something that even comes close to it's rival.

    (Thanks to PG&E I had to type this twice. Incompetant mother fuckers)

    --
    google.slashdot
    1. Re:Finally by Kickboy12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, but it is "better technology". Mostly what I meant by "ahead in technology" was to reference the 65nm process. Which, inherintly, is a big step in chip development, and has alot of potential. However, what I was trying to get across, was I don't think Intel developed and pushed this technology as far as they could have, thus lack of quality. I believe AMD will do so, as they have done so in the past.

      --
      google.slashdot
  10. Faster? by tsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I find interesting is: a few years ago the fastest processor you could buy ran at about 3.1 GHz or so. Now it's around 3.5 GHz. Ten years ago, the processing speed was doubled every few years. What is keeping the speed around 3.5 GHz? Is it the processor itself, or the electronics around it that can't be made faster? Or is there no demand for faster processors? (I can hardly imagine that!)

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Faster? by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just a short lesson in processor speed:
      The throughput of a processor is related to the number of pipeline stages (think of a laundry room; you have three "stages"- washer, dryer, folding table. You can have three "loads" ("instructions") in the laundry room ("pipeline") at one time). When you shorten the clock time (i.e., increase the 'speed' to a higher number of Hz), you usually do this by adding more stages to the pipeline. This results in a longer pipeline (a given instruction takes more cycles to complete, AKA longer latency), but also gives you greater throughput (some instruction finishes every N seconds).
      Recently, additions such as dual core changed all of this. Instead of fscking with the pipeline (in general), you just add a second pipeline. You double your throughput without affecting latency or timing. Other changes, such as reducing the number of pipeline stages while maintaining the same clock cycle, also result in an increase in speed. As well as greater on-die L1/L2 cache, since it significantly speeds up memory accesses.
      This is why Intel is trying to get away from the association of GHz == performance, and why AMD a long time ago started using numbers (e.g., 4800) instead of clock speed.

      So, the bottom line is that a 3.5GHz processor is not faster than a 3.1GHz processor or a 100Hz processor (well, probably the last one) because it has a higher clock speed; the clock speed is one symptom of some of the techniques used to increase performance. It's a lot like looking at a car and determining it's max speed by its MPG; sure, all other things equal (aerodynamics, etc.), a lower fuel efficiency means a higher powered engine means top speed- but this doesn't work if you're comparing a Motorcycle to a Hummer.

    2. Re:Faster? by The+Mayor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Moore's Law relates to the number of transistors per unit area, not processing power or clock speed. The corrolary to Moore's Law indicates that the price per transistor halves every 18 months. Nothing is ever said about clock speed or processing power. Check this link for the actual wording. By the way, Moore's Law still seems to be holding, and with the proliferation of multi-core computing and whatnot, I expect Moore's Law will hold for a while to come. The difference now is that we will start to make better use of multiple layers on a single piece of silicon, instead of working towards smaller transistors. We are, indeed, starting to bump up against the laws of physics with the size of transistors, but we're only starting to explore the benefits of creative packaging.

      --
      --Be human.
  11. Urine? by dannyelfman · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm not so sure the market droids gave it much though when they came up with this critter's name. Ah, can't wait to see the zine articles: ``Intel's PEE will flush the competition''

    What's next? Will AMD come out with Fast Asynchronous Redundant Technology?

  12. Re:Wow! Look at it run benchmarks!! by scgops · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love that the Quake4 mainstream settings showed that each of the test systems ended up being GPU bound. That kinda makes it hard to take any of the graphics-based benchmark numbers seriously.

    I wish the article reported numbers for the Intel chips that compare results with hyperthreading enabled vs. disabled. On servers, we routinely need to disable hyperthreading because it slows things down.

    Personally, though, I don't think it matters much. I can't picture me plunking down my own cash for an Intel-powered system any time this decade.

  13. Use words more precisely by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When you say "given a run for its money" it suggests that the AMD chip's performance is about even with the EE Pentium. But this is wrong. The article itself concludes

    "The Athon 64 X2 4800+ was the faster CPU in a majority of our real-world tests, and it consumed less power to boot."

    But even that's a big understatement if you looked at the actual benchmark results. Neck and neck? Come on! Please, editors, accept submissions that aren't misleading.

  14. Re:3.5 GHz limit by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Informative

    They already have, just not on dual-core parts. Expect major reduction in clock speeds on Intel CPUs once they migrate away from Netburst-based chips towards more efficient designs such as Yonah, Merom, and Conroe.

    Conroe is the chip to watch.

  15. Article has questionable conclusion by SnakeJG · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article's conclusion:
    Benchmark Summary: The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor performed well overall throughout our entire battery of benchmarks. Due to the processor's relatively high-clock speed, dual execution cores, HT technology and 1066MHz bus, the synthetic benchmarks, 3D rendering tests , and audio encoding tests ran best on the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 / D975XBX platform. However, most of the gaming tests, content creation and desktop applications, and the video encoding tests ran best on the AMD Athlon 64 X2 / NF4 SLIX16 combo.
    However, if you look at the actual 3d rendering tests they do (Kribibench v1.1), the AMD processor wins one test by ~20% and loses one by ~5%. Although the second test was a more 'difficult' test, it seems quite a jump to say that the Intel chip performs better at 3D rendering.
  16. Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955... by HoboMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955; meanwhile, AMD points and laughs.

    More at 11.

    --
    Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
  17. Re:Demand, yes. by ghjm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep.

    These days, when I can't avoid being dragged into someone's office to "just have a look," their performance problems are *always* spyware or installer-cruft. Invariably, the computer they have is more than fast enough to suit their needs.

    So they are presented with a choice: Have someone spend two or three hours at $100+/hr reinstalling Windows and/or cleaing crap off their machine, or wander down to the local megastore and buy the cheapest machine they have, which is usually $250 and ten times faster then they need (as opposed to the "junk" machine, which is only three times faster).

    This seems bubble-like to me. But what do I know, I'm only halfway through my MBA. They haven't got to the part about selling people crap they don't need yet.

    -Graham

  18. two words by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    heat dissipation.

    Well that and the ALU is really crap still. Sure it does well at bulk data movement tasks but compiling/crypto it's a useless core.

    That and for the love of god ... "diminishing returns" does that mean anything to them? Why not a 32MB cache!!! 128MB!!! a gig!!!

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  19. Well... by jd · · Score: 2, Informative
    Other posters have given excellent comments on the inner workings aspect. I'll throw in a few more, though, just for luck.


    First, the fastest overclocked Intel processor was something like 7 GHz, so it is evident that the electronics are capable of substantially better performance.


    Second, the new Intel chips are hyperthreaded and multicore... ...but don't obviously allow the different cores to access the full set of processing elements, only the ones in that core. It would seem easy enough to have the actual processing element pool split from the main part of the core, so that all processing elements are available to all cores.


    The biggest limitation is moving data around, not the CPU itself. Adding HyperTransport, DMA, etc, to the CPU itself would be a Good Thing, as would doubling the width of the data bus.


    Executing all possible paths is not efficient when combined with hyperthreading, as you're wasting processing elements. Probabalistic branching (where you only follow one branch, but it's the most likely) would seem more efficient and would free up more elements for better threading.


    I don't believe registers are ping-pong buffered, but it would save having to wait on writes if you still need to do reads because of the difference in timing from multithread execution.


    Nobody uploads microcode to CPUs, but everybody runs code that would be efficient if run internally on the CPU. It would be good if the OS could upload atomic architecture-specific hardware operations into the CPU as pseudo instructions. Save having to hunt through physical memory for common tasks that will likely fall out of cache if you rely on that.


    Processor overheating is a big problem and keeps the speed down. Processor casing simply isn't optimal for keeping the internals cool. It wouldn't be hard to improve the heat transfer from the chip surface to the casing surface.


    Processors aren't made from optimal materials. If you're using silicon, for example, you want something that is single isotope, stressed and allowed to crystalize slowly. It's substantially cheaper to produce flawed silicon wafers, but they will never perform as well.


    Along with this, I've learned that the reason aluminium is the most popular for CPU interconnects and copper is second, with silver unused, is problems with silver being too reactive and copper being only just managable. If they could find a way to prevent the silver from reacting with the rest of the CPU - should be possible - then you'd improve speeds there, too.


    Electron leakage is a problem, as it also imposes a speed limit. Not sure how you'd prevent it, but there might be ways to limit the problem. Electrons have spin. It is certainly possible to polarize something by spin, and it is certainly possible to filter by polarization. There MAY, therefore, be ways to limit the impact of leakage and therefore ways to bypass the speed limit such problems would otherwise cause.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  20. PR Ratings by Agarax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the Intel PR ratings mean? or are they just arbritary numbers?

    955 doesn't really mean anything to me.

    At least AMD tries to base theirs off something tangible.

    --
    Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
  21. HotHardware indeed by Halvard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lot's of Intel gear has kept my coffee warm over the years.

  22. Not on par for gamers ? by Vulcann · · Score: 3, Funny

    scores well in encoding, desktop business and a few professional rendering tests but overall it's given a run for its money by AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual-core processor, especially in gaming scenarios

    Let me get this straight - we have double the cache, 3.something GHz of speed and two cores, just so that I can start Outlook faster ?!?!?

    The real market for any typical high end machine is in gaming and rendering. Sure there will be a market for people who use these machines for "encoding" but if it cant compete in a billion plus gaming market that pretty much drives a lot of hardware innovation, I'd say this thing is a waste of time for Intel.