Slashdot Mirror
Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955
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."
Wow, you managed to use "it's" and "its" in the same sentence, and both correctly. A /. first!
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!
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
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
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...
What games actually take advantage of those dual cores?
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
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/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.
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
What's next? Will AMD come out with Fast Asynchronous Redundant Technology?
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.
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.
heat dissipation.
... "diminishing returns" does that mean anything to them? Why not a 32MB cache!!! 128MB!!! a gig!!!
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
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.