Slashdot Mirror


Intel Launches New Pentium Extreme Edition 965

RL-20 II Rider writes "Although Intel is hard at work readying their next-gen Conroe core for a proposed 2H '06 release, it seems engineers at the company are still improving upon the existing 65nm Presler core. This review of the brand-new 3.73GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 965 dual-core processor shows that the CPU is based on a new stepping of the Presler core that runs cooler and overclocks higher than older chips, while consuming a bit less power as well."

139 comments

  1. Extreme edition? by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it only work if you're snowboarding down a hillside and parachuting off a cliff while slamming a Mountain Dew?

    1. Re:Extreme edition? by Knight+Thrasher · · Score: 1

      It's only XTREME if you run Windows and play solitaire on it.

    2. Re:Extreme edition? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      Does it only work if you're snowboarding down a hillside and parachuting off a cliff while slamming a Mountain Dew?

      Sorry, you must be thinking of AMD's Athlon 5000++ X4 DDR3 Quad Core Radical Edition.

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:Extreme edition? by Moby+Cock · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quad Core Radical Edition

      In 2010, will your razor have more blades than your CPU has cores, or the other way around? I wonder...

    4. Re:Extreme edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey!! It's also XTREME if I want to play freecell, isn't it? http://www.servicerules.com.ar/

    5. Re:Extreme edition? by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Funny

      In 2010, will your razor have more blades than your CPU has cores, or the other way around? I wonder...

      Neither, your CPU will be so powerful that it will shoot out a laser which can be used for hair removal, cosmetic surgery, and enemy annihilation (among other things.)

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Extreme edition? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes, it does require slammed Dew for cooling; yet, since it's compatible with the poser socket it doesn't require extensive snowboarding, skateboarding, or motocross knowledge to operate. However, Stussy, Etnies, Independent, Think, or Billabong stickers -must- be used to keep the CPU attached via the poser socket. Older models may require Body Glove or T&C Surf Designs stickers. Furthermore, the presence of Hypercolor may be necessary in some cases.

      Case windows are also required for operation. Neon lights, a Type R badge, and tuner stickers are required for street racing models.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    7. Re:Extreme edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it requires sub-zero ambient temperature so as not to overheat, so the snowboarding requirement is reasonably accurate

  2. Pentium Name by hsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought they were dropping the Pentium name?

    1. Re:Pentium Name by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is still the Pentium 4; they're not dropping the Pentium Name on a chip that's still a Pentium, which they're still selling and still are going to sell for about another year until the Core chips take over the market. It's called "Phasing Out" a product in marketing speak.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:Pentium Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least they didn't drop the name before introducing this PEE

    3. Re:Pentium Name by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      You're right, the article title was misleading. The chip is actually the "Extreme Edition 965." Just that. No Intel or Pentium.

    4. Re:Pentium Name by toadlife · · Score: 1

      "It's called "Phasing Out" a product in marketing speak."

      Actually the word "milking the dead cow" came to my mind...but "Phasing out" is a pretty good euphemism.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    5. Re:Pentium Name by mOOzilla · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is also a successful company. Sure it is full of Managers and butt kissers. Every time they RTM they hand out "Kiss-It" awards and I think they have just signed a deal with Amex for butt kissing miles for all they're managers, leads and various other managerial types.

    6. Re:Pentium Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's parse this shall we.

      Pentium Extreme Edition 965 =
      PEE 965 =
      PEENINE 65 =
      PEENINEES =
      PENISES

      Hmm...

    7. Re:Pentium Name by mnmn · · Score: 1

      Pentium still sounds advanced compared to the base architecture: i386

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    8. Re:Pentium Name by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Informative
      Except that it isn't exactly the "base architecture". I don't know for the P-IV, but I do know that both the P-II and P-III were both based on the Pentium Pro, which introduced the concept of a x86 front-end with a RISC backend.

      Today, if we talk about x86 compatibility, we rarely talk about 386 compatibility. The *least* would be 486DX, since the 386 didn't have FPU. Personally, I consider the PPro to be the current base architecture. Hey, I had a PPro200 and it served our family well as a desktop until late 2002 .

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    9. Re:Pentium Name by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1
      The 80386 didn't have an FPU built in but there was certainly an FPU for it, as well as the 80286 and 8086, They were called 80387, 80287 and 8087 respectively.

      We talk about i386 code all the time. The 286 had support for multitasking OSes, but was awkward to use-- it was something about having to reset the chip to switch tasks. The 386 was the first Intel chip that could run a multitasking system reasonably well, and today it's still the target for the ultimate in backward compatibility. I don't recall, but the distinction may be moot, as I think the instruction set remained exactly the same for the 486. Anything that runs on a 486 (486DX, the 486SX was Intel's last stab at splitting off the math coprocessor) will run on a 386/387 combo. The Linux kernel still has an option for math coprocessor emulation.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    10. Re:Pentium Name by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      I know about the existence of the FPU chips, I also know how they were named. The thing is: nobody had them. I just looked on ebay for one. Not much people offering one.

      We talk about i386 code all the time.

      We do, but we just don't mean 386 as in the chip 386. No modern software is compiled for that chip anymore. Sure, you can run Linux on it, but try finding me a mainstream disto that still does out of the box. Today one compiles for a Pentium, or a Pentium Pro, that is simple a matter of fact.
      Oh, and the 486 did have a whole new architecture, but from the point of the compiler/programmer not much changed to the 386. There were just a few more instructions if I recall correctly.

      today it's still the target for the ultimate in backward compatibility.

      I agree with this. If you want to write software today, that runs on anything built the last 15 years, you'd better do that. On the other hand: how much software has that requirement?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    11. Re:Pentium Name by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1
      Yeah, the prices for those math coprocessors were crazy. I recall an unusual week when at the start the 387 was $600, and by the end, $200. Still didn't sell. Possibly the dramatic price drop was because the 486DX was coming.

      I can think of one area today that does compile software for 486s, 386s, and older chips: embedded devices. Here are new 486 based PCs that can be a firewall or any similar device, or can just run Linux for general purposes. There are even new 6502 and 8086/8088 based chips available. But yeah, that's a specialized area. You're right, most general purpose distros make the Pentium the minimum target. Have to go for an ancient or minimalist distro to get 386 compatibility.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    12. Re:Pentium Name by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      :-) When I was writing my comment I tought someone would bring up embedded devices. Oddly enough, even those are migrating. Look at the soekris you linked to (which I know, I'm an OpenBSD fan... you get the picture) They are going for Pentium compatibility now too (model net4801 and 4826 are AMD Geode CPUs which are Pentium compatible, I think) A lot of embedded stuff is also based ARM, which is a completely different beast.

      Well, I wonder... NetBSD and OpenBSD i386 line might just still work on a pure 386 out of the box. I don't know... I know that a few years ago, I salvaged a 486 and it was hell to get anything non-MS to run on it. FreeDOS worked, but apart from that. (Not being able to boot from CD didn't help, so I didn't try out all possibilities)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  3. Singlethreaded performance by poeidon1 · · Score: 1

    It is all about singlethreaded performance, which is not really the same in the coming up Yonah/Merom based cores.

    --
    They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
    1. Re:Singlethreaded performance by KBAegis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny thing, I seem to have misread the cores names as 'Ownya/yermom.'

  4. Fuck the metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    65 nm = 43/16777216 inches

    1. Re:Fuck the metric system by 68cuda · · Score: 1

      65 nanometers = 2.55905512 × 10-6 inches

    2. Re:Fuck the metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drill sizes are labeled 3/64", not 4.6875 × 10-2 inches. Learn how the system works before posting about it.

    3. Re:Fuck the metric system by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you translate that to furlongs per fortnight or hogsheads per rod? ;)

    4. Re:Fuck the metric system by addaon · · Score: 1

      Fuck the imperial system, too. 3.8E-8 smoots!

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
  5. Extreme! Extreme! Extreme! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Get your hands on the new EXTREME version of our Pentium processor at ridiculously low prices! Now! Now! Now!

    What makes it EXTREME! ME YELLING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS!

    That's right! Me yelling EXTREME EXTREME EXTREME makes the new Pentium chip, EXTREME!

    Our EXTREME chip prices are INSANE!

    (My apologies to The Simpsons and Crazy Eddie for the blatant, pathetic ripoff of their respective bits and commercials)

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Extreme! Extreme! Extreme! by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're trying to sell the ultimate Dell game pc.

      --
      home
    2. Re:Extreme! Extreme! Extreme! by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      EXTREME! stuff is so 1999. They should have put an i at the beginning of the name, although I'm not sure how iPentium would sound, much less avoid an Apple lawsuit. Perhaps they could make it Java oriented and call it PentiumOne.

    3. Re:Extreme! Extreme! Extreme! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Bah. e and later i prefixes are so overused. I think we should start prefixing with some of the less popular vowels. a, o, u...

      sometimes even y.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Extreme! Extreme! Extreme! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the ultimate bloatware advertizing machine?
      Seriously, with the amount of bloat/adware that they stuff in dell XPS machines they should be FREE.

  6. Oblig. Spaceballs by lbmouse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Colonel Sandurz: Prepare to purchase an Intel Pentium Extreme Edition.
    Dark Helmet: No. No. No. No. Extreme is too slow.
    Colonel Sandurz: Extreme too slow?
    Dark Helmet: Yes. We're gonna have to go straight to an Intel Pentium Ludicrous Edition.

    1. Re:Oblig. Spaceballs by Andrzej+Sawicki · · Score: 1
      Intel Pentium Ludicrous Edition
      Itanium?
    2. Re:Oblig. Spaceballs by rubberbando · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that mean when Windows crashes on it, they'll get the PLAID screen of death?

      --
      DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    3. Re:Oblig. Spaceballs by flogic42 · · Score: 0

      A ludicrous speed general purpose CPU will still suck at massively parallel computations compared to special-purpose ICs like GPUs.

      The vast majority of CPU-intensive work in games like Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2 involves massively parallelisable operations to check geometric and physical constraints, compute bezier curves, and so forth. This is why Ageia is developing a masively parallel Physics Processor that might be more beneficial to gaming performance than tripling the core speed of your CPU.

      The idea is to optimize for the common case. If your CPU spends 80% of its time doing physics calculations when you play games like HL2, then making the physics calculations 10 times faster is better than making everything 3 times faster.

      --
      Check out my women's designer clothing store.
    4. Re:Oblig. Spaceballs by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Colonel Sandurz: Ludicrous Edition? Sir, we've never gone that fast before. I don't know if this ship has a big enough power supply.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  7. apache estimate by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 1

    My LAMP running Gallery in cached mode gets 11.5 reqs/sec tops running on a 1.7 celeron with 512 ram. If the only variable I changed was the chip to this new sucker, how many reqs/sec might I be able to crank out? They average 30K.

    1. Re:apache estimate by Enigma_Man · · Score: 2, Funny

      23.1

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    2. Re:apache estimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Holy acronyms, Batman.

    3. Re:apache estimate by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      With that your LAMP is CPU bound? What proc is CPU bound apache php or mysql? Considering the specs on yoru system it sounds like IO bound with writes from the database.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:apache estimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0. I can almost guarantee you that your motherboard won't be compatible.

  8. Core version? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    I wonder how and when they'll spin a core version.

  9. Wicked by smoor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oooh, next they'll the have the Pentium WICKED, followed by the Pentium WOOT!

    1. Re:Wicked by Mille+Mots · · Score: 1
      ITYM, 'w00t.' Or maybe, 'w(.)(.)t.' Or even, 'w0o7.'

      But, you're on the right track. The successor to the 'w00t' will probably be named the 'FP!!!1!one!!eleven!!'

      --
      rqHóoa8l2Z[goP T{$zd

    2. Re:Wicked by smoor · · Score: 1

      OK, OK, you got me... poser alert sounded... I forget to check my geektionary... ;)

    3. Re:Wicked by MikeSty · · Score: 2, Funny

      All of which will be succeeded by Pentium PWNED Edition

  10. Intel should be ashamed. by LibertineR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My AMD Athlon 64 X2 chugs along at 2.2Ghz, and STILL blows Intel out of the water due to its superior design, while managing a cool 29C. AMD has fought the good fight, and until Intel gets faster AND cooler, AMD has my computing dollar. To me, the only thing 'Extreme' about Intel processors right now, is the number of CPU cycles wasted.

    1. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Informative

      Good think Intel invented the Core chips. Because you know, using 40% of the power of a Pentium 4 and doing 40% more work while clocking nearly twice as slow isn't a radical change or anything.

      Preliminary reports even say the Core chips are up to 35% faster than the AMD64 chips, and they don't even have EM64T to fall back on. But, for the purposes of this discussion, since this is a Pentium 4, it is still quite the power hog, but they've made advances with this chip that do warrant some attention (take a look at the benchmarks), and with their new $50 water cooler and overclocking, the Pentium 4 once again takes the performance crown.

      I'm all for AMD, but Intel has cleaned up their act too, and refusing to notice that is a fatal mistake, no matter how much Slashdot/AMD coolaid you've consumed.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by Enigma_Man · · Score: 2, Funny
      and refusing to notice that is a fatal mistake

      Yes... you will infact DIE if you have not noticed that.

      -Jesse
      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    3. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      AMD fanboy-hunters may come to kill you ninja style if you don't.

    4. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pentium4 was a horrible horrible mistake on Intel's part---mostly 'cause of marketing/management---should've stuck with Pentium3 until they had something like AMD64 ready---it will take them a few years to get over it. AMD won the Pentium4 vs Competition battle... but I wouldn't be too sure about them winning -all- subsequent battles.

      Intel is still a pretty damn strong corp with lots of R&D behind them. (don't get me wrong, I'm an AMD fan with Opterons/Athlon64s in nearly all my boxes). I'm still very curious to see what Intel's next chip will be like... I'd imagine it will surpass (in a good way) anything we've seen so far in terms of speed/performance/power usage, etc. They have to do this; their whole corp is on the line on this one... if they miss another generation of chips (to AMD's next chip?) they'll be in serious trouble market wise (Dell will likely really dump them); in other words, I'd imagine Intel will do whatever-it-takes to be #1 during the next generation.

    5. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by LibertineR · · Score: 1

      Hey partner, just send me a link. I'm willing to learn. All I know is that I used Intel chips exclusively until last year, and I'll be dammed if I go back without a VERY good reason. Provide a link or somethin'?

    6. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by fitten · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was some of the biggest news in a while and it all happened about 1.5 weeks ago (where were you?:P)... Here are some from Anandtech.

      This one is the preliminary benchmark testing that a lot of folks questioned and this one is the follow up that answered a lot of the concerns about the first one. The conclusion was the same, though... at 2.66GHz Conroe beats an overclocked 2.8GHz FX-60 (overclocked to simulate the upcoming FX-62) quite handily (20%+ most of the time) while using 1/2 the power of the AMD part (and obviously at a lower clock speed). There were a few other sites that had similar previews but they all say the same thing.

    7. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good think Intel invented the Core chips. Because you know, using 40% of the power of a Pentium 4 and doing 40% more work while clocking nearly twice as slow isn't a radical change or anything.

      Cool! Where can I buy one?

    8. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by MyNameIsEarl · · Score: 1

      Actually the price is pretty Extreme as well.

    9. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by LibertineR · · Score: 1

      Well, for most of 1.5 weeks ago, I was flat on my back, sick as a dog. Seriously. Thanks for the links.

    10. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      until Intel gets faster AND cooler

      Intel Core Duo, anyone? It has more or less the same performance and it eats less power

      Sure, core duo isn't being used in the entire Intel product line, but being objective I'd say that the best Intel chips (core duo) are starting to look better than the AMD's ones.

    11. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Pay attention to the details on that testing in the article. This "The AMD system used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings, while the Intel system used 1GB of DDR2-667 running at 4-4-4" Make a HELL of a differnce in performance. Also note they used an Intel Motherboard for the Intel and an DIY (not bad but not the best) for the AMD. They too can make a difference. Seems the reviewers were not looking or didn't want to look either.."Honestly it doesn't make sense for Intel to rig anything here since we'll be able to test it ourselves in a handful of months. We won't say it's impossible as anything can happen, but we couldn't find anything suspicious about the setups." Intel didn't announce General Availabily dates (6 months maybe) being "king" for a few months can get CIOs to pre-order systems. Also another myth about lower power..the article clearly states "Also remember that Conroe should be lower power than the AMD offering we compared it to, although we weren't able to measure power consumption at the wall in our brief time with the systems." Beware pre-production chips used for testing. I'm not an AMD or Intel fan, I just want to see a fair test.

    12. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, 29C? Maybe while the CPU is idling. There is no way you're running that cold with a stock heatsink and fan while the CPU is fully loaded. My 4800+ X2 runs about 30C idling and 54C fully loaded. That's with a retail box fan and heatsink.

    13. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They released benchmarks a bit after where they managed to modify the timing IIRC.

    14. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by Intron · · Score: 0

      "twice as slow"

      It would be more accurate to say the chip is "half fast"

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    15. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by LibertineR · · Score: 1
      Duh!

      No, at full load, it gets up to a scortching 41C. I have a great case, and an Arctic Cooler on each of my 7800 GTX boards, which are shooting hot air out of the case, which has 8 other fans in it as well. I am partially deaf, so the noise wouldnt bother me from all those fans if I could hear it.

    16. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by LibertineR · · Score: 1

      A little shaky, but not enough to sway the results that much. It looks like the Intel chip is promising. How much will the price the sucker? Lets see what AMD has waiting in the wings.

    17. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by fitten · · Score: 1

      Almost everything you call into question was covered by the second link (the follow-on to the preview). With respect to the timings you mentioned... the DDR2-667 @ 444 should be slower than the DDR400 @ 222/1T in latency and bandwidth. Even then, it isn't a big deal. For example, if you've seen the latest AMD AM2 review from HKEPC (using DDR2-800 at "good" timings for AM2 compared to current S939 with DDR400 at good timings), the current S939 parts with DDR400 win 1/2 the time. The largest gain of AM2 over S939 was in the Science Mark 2 Streams benchmark when it got about 26% gain. Almost all other gains were less than 5% and some were even negative (meaning S939 was faster). Basically, DDR2-667 should be slower than DDR400 for the most part because of latency and it would have only marginal bandwidth increases (surely a bit less than 26%).

    18. Re:Intel should be ashamed. by default+luser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, I agree wholehartedly, and I've been an AMD fanboy since the release of the P4.

      Anyone who can look at this breakdown of the new Core design, understand it, and STILL proclaim AMD the performance leader is retarded. The extra simple decoder means potentially 33% more thoroughput out the gate, and the fused micro-ops can add another 5-10% performance improvement (assuming you have enough execution units to use all this). The 128-bit SSE unit, plus the ability for simple decoders to handle packed SSE instructions, also means double the speed at vector operations.

      That said, at least I had my just desserts. I always said superpipelined Netburst was a retarded design, and the fact that Intel went and developed Conroe only validates my claim.

      I am still curious to see the power usage of Core. It should be less than the P4, but whether it is competitive with AMD may be another story. Hopefully AMD will finally get off their ass and improve their own design, which hasn't changed much since the K7 (onboard memory controller aside). Who knows, I may end up buying Conroe, and becomean Intel fanboy again.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  11. extreme? by matt328 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I donno, brand new chip, catchy performance implying name, about the only thing extreme about this chip will be the price. All of you people who get off on bragging about their box's specs in your little forum sigs prepare to shell out your 2 grand to upgrade from that now outdated 3.4 ghz piece of crap you've somehow been putting up with.

    Not trying to troll, just pointing out the extremely narrow audience this chip would appeal to given that they are moving on to a different core soon. I'm just hoping this will drive down costs of the 'lower end' dual core chips soon.

    --
    Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
    1. Re:extreme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've already talked to my bank about refinancing my house loan so I can get one of these bad boys!

    2. Re:extreme? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean anything right now.

      In three years, this thing will cost $200, or maybe less. Then the specs will mean something to Joe average consumer, when he's cross shopping it against whichever AMD chip is in that price range.

      And the buyer can rest assured that when he's tackling those intense home computing tasks like tabbed browsing and turbo-tax, system responses will be nearly instantaneous.

  12. Re:lonely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You're not alone, I haven't got any friends either.

  13. Ironic by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ironic that a site reviewing a P4 Extreme Edition is called "Hot Hardware." Hot, indeed.

    1. Re:Ironic by jonesy16 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's not ironic is that an anti Intel post was made without reading the FA. The AMD processors actually put out more heat than this processor when idle (which is most of the time for most computer users). Intel has made progress with their 65 nm design in reducing heat and power consumption.

    2. Re:Ironic by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Not THAT much. You can eye the power consumtion results and know that Hot Hardware did not enable Cool 'n Quiet. Otherwise, there should have been a 50-60w difference between idle and load.

      The Intel chip, on the other hand, has Enhanced Speedstep enabled. You can tell this by the fact that they mention the prcessor's voltage is from 1.2v to 1.35v. With Speedstep, the processor at idle goes to 2.8 GHz at 1.2v. AMD's Cool 'n Quiet is even more drastic, dropping the processor speed to 1 GHz at 1.1v.

      The fact that AMD can ALMOST match the power consumption of Intel using Enhanced Speedstep, while not using Cool 'n Quiet, shows you just how much better the Athlon 64 is.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    3. Re:Ironic by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 1

      All processors are hot, especially ones with very high clock speeds. I didn't say in relation to what, and I honestly don't care one way between Intel and AMD. Twas a joke, and nothing more. Don't take things so seriously around here.

  14. Also reviewed at The Tech Report by EconolineCrush · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also reviewed at The Tech Report, with more extensive testing against a wider range of processors.

  15. "965?" by Guppy06 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is that the number of amps it pulls down or the number of watts in heat it puts out?

  16. "FX-60" by ciroknight · · Score: 1

    Is that the number of Special Effects used in their marketing campaign?

    Seriously, I know you're just trying to be funny, but both processor companies are known for giving their processors ridiculous arbitrary names.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  17. The Extreme Edition specs don't compare to... by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 0

    When I upgrade my Intel box, it's going to have an Obscene Edition 666 chip in it that will blow away the competition. There's really no faster processor for hosting porn or bad language.

    The "Breen Edition" is perfect for those who like super cooling of their computer.

  18. Questions by zymano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does chip wiring or transistors waste the most heat ?

    I don't understand why there aren't any attempts made to move away from silicon & copper/aluminum wiring ?

    We have quantum tunneling transistors that work right now !

    http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+tunneling+t ransistors&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefo x-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
    http://www.sandia.gov/media/quantran.htm

    1. Re:Questions by Vlad2.0 · · Score: 1

      Does chip wiring or transistors waste the most heat ?

      Good question. It depends on the technology you use, among other things. I'll hazard a guess and say transistors do.

      I don't understand why there aren't any attempts made to move away from silicon & copper/aluminum wiring ?

      There are. That's the point of R&D. But do you want to front the cash to retool a billion+ dollar mfg plant? Neither does Intel.

      We have quantum tunneling transistors that work right now !

      See previous answer.

    2. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the heat from a chip comes from the energy lost whenever a transistor switches. The energy use of a particular gate on a chip is frequency*capacitance*voltage^2. So more efficient architectures that require less switching and chips that use lower voltages and have smaller capacitances use less power.

    3. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Question: I know almost nothing about designing ICs. However, look at these two articles about pie-in-the-sky technologies that might someday be practical. Why aren't we using them? Are the designers at AMD and Intel stupid or something?

      Answer: No, you are.

    4. Re:Questions by Lothar@cmu · · Score: 1

      Quantum tunneling transistors? Are you kidding? How many of those are there in the world? Almost none, and they are sitting in a research lab somewhere at a univsersity.

      How many are in modern processors? Hundreds of millions (DualCore Opteron has 233 million).

      So what do you need to make a processor? Here's a partial list:
      1) The ability to make millions of transistors reliably.
      2) The ability to place these transistors reliably and close to each other.
      3) The ability to make a transistor with a low cost.
      4) The ability to have the transistor work outside of a non-controlled enviroment (such as in your computer, not a room specifically designed to shield from EM interference).

      Does the quantum transistor have any of these? Ummm, no.

      I have no clue what it costs to make one of those but I'm guessing its not cheap. Unless you want to pay billions of dollars for a chip I'd wait till this matures another decade or two.

    5. Re:Questions by zymano · · Score: 1

      Not pie in the sky.

      You anonymous faggot.

    6. Re:Questions by zymano · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number 1 consumer of dynamic power (proportional to clock frequency) in a CMOS CPU is charging and discharging of gate capacitors. There is some small static power consumption with CMOS but not much.

      There are transistor/gate architectures that significantly reduce dynamic power consumption such as adiabatic and quasi-adiabatic logic, but such logic architectures require significantly more transistors (increasing cost) and rather complex clocking schemes.

      Gallium Arsenide transistors would provide significant performance benefits and probably power benefits, but people have enough trouble making single large GaAs transistors reliably let alone millions per die. While attempts have been made at commercially viable GaAs logic manufacturing processes, those attempts have failed. As electrically inferior as silicon is for transistors compared to some other materias, it has other mechanical and electrical properties that make up for that reduction in electrical performance. (in short, it's easy to manufacture chips that perform OK with silicon, while it's damn near impossible to manufacture chips that perform incredibly well with GaAs.)

  19. Pentium Extreme Edition by NullProg · · Score: 5, Funny

    New acronym alert:

          PEE

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.
    1. Re:Pentium Extreme Edition by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Predicted new acronyms:

      "Super Hot Incredible Thoroughbred Edition" - The Pentium SHITE

      "Pentium Holy Toledo" - Pentium HOT

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    2. Re:Pentium Extreme Edition by MyNameIsEarl · · Score: 1

      Funny how Thoroughbred and Toledo are both AMD core names and yet you use them in your attempt to poke fun at Intel.

    3. Re:Pentium Extreme Edition by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Seriously? (o0) Um mine wasn't much of a post anyway. Wayy to tired after a day's work, and I don't really mind Intel's stuff- they'll come back at ATI eventually.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    4. Re:Pentium Extreme Edition by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      See? My brain is fried. Back at AMD not ATI.

      *goes to bed*

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    5. Re:Pentium Extreme Edition by Fragbert · · Score: 1

      PEE: For when your apps really gotta go!

    6. Re:Pentium Extreme Edition by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

      "PEE" Is this really the acronym, or is this how you solve the cooling problems?

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  20. Oh lord... by D3r1v3D · · Score: 1

    Intel launches new Pentium Super-Hyper-Mega-Extreme edition. Is it really difficult to think up new product names that don't remind me of Mountain Dew?

  21. Yeah, what the fuck? by babbling · · Score: 4, Funny

    Intel are so off on this one. Just from a preliminary glance, I can see that they named this chip wrong. "Pentium Extreme Edition 965"? Where should I start?

    First of all, this chip is at the very least an Extreme Turbo Edition 1078. However, I have a strong suspicion about it being closer to a Super Mega Extreme Turbo 8000.

    1. Re:Yeah, what the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? You make no sense.

    2. Re:Yeah, what the fuck? by grahamlee · · Score: 1

      You are a Streetfighter II programmer and I claim my five pounds.

    3. Re:Yeah, what the fuck? by babbling · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a hint. I might be poking fun at the name of this chip.

  22. Obligatory? by Cranky+Weasel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No, no, no. "A Beowolf Cluster of these" reference might be obligatory. Or perhaps the fact that all our base are belong to these new chips might also apply.

    A Spaceballs reference on slashdot, though? Naw... not obligatory.

    Actually, it's a reference to something outside of the usual targets on Slashdot, which makes it an oddity anyway. You should be proud. Prefixing something with "Obligatory" usually means you've put up a roadside sign saying, "There is no originality beyond this point! Nothing funny to see here"

  23. bottleneck order by porkThreeWays · · Score: 2, Informative

    bottleneck order for you: network bandwidth, hard drive, ram, then _maybe_ cpu.

    Basically, it isn't going to help you much. If you put a lot of ram into it that'd probably help (try to get as much into ram as possible). If you have a huge amount of pics (60 gigs) a 10,000 rpm Raptor sata would probably be a good investment.

    All that doesn't mean much if the network pipe is too small to dish out that many pics.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
  24. Re:lonely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you guys want to hang out?

  25. What's really obscene by __aabwba5127 · · Score: 0

    That with 1/10th of Intel's R&D budget AMD still makes them play catchup for more than 2 1/2, almost 3 years after the Athlon 64 was released.

    1. Re:What's really obscene by ShibaInu · · Score: 1

      You know what - who cares? I have both a Pentium 4 and an AMD 64 and they both do what they are supposed to do. Both seem pretty zippy. The fact that Intel is playing catch up is good for us, since we'll get better chips from both companies.

  26. "Maximum Extrene 3!" by Animats · · Score: 1
    This sounds like the movie mentioned in "Charley's Angels": "Maximum Extreme III".

    "Now, from the makers of the Itanic! The Pentium Maximum Extreme III!"

    Of course, the real question is the color of the cooling fins. It has to have exotic cooling fins, or it won't sell.

  27. Ricer? by Misch · · Score: 1

    Will it go faster if I put an "AMD" or a "Honda Type-R" sticker on it? We'll have to start a site called "ChipCops" to go along with RiceCops.com

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    1. Re:Ricer? by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      If you want it to go REALLY fast you gotta put yellow stripes on it.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  28. Re:Moore's law is dying by pianomahnn · · Score: 1

    Oh ye of little faith.

  29. Re:extreme? They Only Need to Sell One by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    pointing out the extremely narrow audience this chip would appeal to given that they are moving on to a different core soon.

    Corvettes also sell to an extremely narrow audience. However, having the Corvette in the lineup sells a lot more Chevy econo boxes in the process from people pretending that their Impala is a close cousin and next best thing to a Vette.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  30. Re:lonely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but first what are you wearing?

  31. But the price? by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

    This is probably a dumb question, but who buys these things? I assume that they're not in use in the enterprise or high-end workstation market. Do rich kids really spend $1K on a cpu and $500 on a graphics card? I would have thought they blew their monthly allowance on stickers for their "R" series rice rocket.

    I have to assume that EE's are extremely limited in quanity and released for marketing purposes. Ping me if that's untrue.

    BBH

    1. Re:But the price? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      Short answer: Young rich protogeeks

      Long answer: Young rich protogeeks that do not want to listen to old farts like me. The little brother of my wife (10 years apart... don't ask...) is one of these. He is essentially a single-kid from divorced parents. You can bet he has more money than me in his age. Three years ago, he got a P-IV 2.6GHz, with an Okay graphics card and DVD-Writer and whatever. Big bucks back then. I gave him an extra 512Meg DDR-400MHz RAM to add to his current 512Meg DDR-400MHz RAM. Sure we are in the +3GHz these days, but in my opinion that system is still an okay system for gaming. Sure the graphic card lacks, but run the games at 800x600 and you're okay.

      Well, he doesn't think so. I budgetted some new *components* (not a complete PC) and I already came at over 1400€.... and that was with me being on the lower side of the upper-range. I know what kind of money he has.... I hope that he will back off and keep his system for a while. However, when he found the missing 400€, he'll be knocking on my door again.

      So, yes, these n00bs exists that think they need the greatest and most expensive hardware. It takes experience to value what one has *and* use older machines where other people think they need expensive new machines.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:But the price? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      So, yes, these n00bs exists that think they need the greatest and most expensive hardware. It takes experience to value what one has *and* use older machines where other people think they need expensive new machines.

      Of course, some of us recognize that 'need' and 'computer' don't belong in the same sentence, so we don't have to justify things that way since we know it's all desire anyway. Frankly, I have the money, and I want the performance. That's my decision. It doesn't make you a wiser man.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:But the price? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      We're talking about a 14 year old, here... Not about you.
      Don't you think a 14 year old has better stuff to do than to spend so much money on a computer? Money that is not his own, by the way. I can assure you that his mommy is going to pony up the dough.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  32. Re:Moore's law is dying by KBAegis · · Score: 1

    Yeah, geeze. You never know what kind of quarky ideas they'll come up/down with next.

  33. Question by jmn2519 · · Score: 0

    Does the 965 product number refer to the number of watts drawn or the number of BTUs given off?

    1. Re:Question by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Does the 965 product number refer to the number of watts drawn or the number of BTUs given off?

      Neither, US Dollars flushed. ;-)

      FWIW the above is not a slam against Intel. I prefer my Intel or AMD CPUs in the mid to upper US$200s, my video cards in the mid to upper US$100s, ... I don't give a rat's a** about frames-per-second pissing contests. What do I think about folks who buy $1000 CPUs and $500 video cards? I love them, they are my customers, god bless and protect them, and keep them coming back for more.

  34. When will we see 4 GHz? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    Anyone who follows processor clock speeds will be aware that they suddenly stopped increasing a few years ago. While this is technically not a failure of Moore's law, at a minimum it does reflect some kind of failure to keep up with previous levels of progress. Certainly a few years ago the suggestion that we would still not have 4 GHz processors in 2006 would have been laughable, based on extrapolating previous trends.

    Does anyone have any guesses on when we will finally see commercial 4 GHz processors? Will it never happen? Will we still have 3.75 GHz in 2010? 2020? Has progress in this area simply stopped? Or if not, when will it start up again?

  35. It's misleading advertising by Bullfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think by now most of us on these kinds of discussion boards know that the price differential between the extreme and non-extreme versions of Intel chips is not worth the extra punch that the cache increase extreme denotes. Unfortunately, they will sell a lot of these to people who don't know any better. Some of them will be to people we know who will then wonder why our cheaper machines perform the same or better. Others will remain convinced that they bought the best and will lash themselves to believing they were not duped.

    To me, this is indicative of a lot of the market now. Really, you don't need a 700 dollar video card to play any game out on the market. True, with the more expensive card you will get better resolutions on very large or multiple monitors, but most people don't have them. I know people whole have 17 inch monitors who were almost suckered by the hype that you need a high priced card just to play FEAR at all. Ditto, BF2. This really has been driven by the hardware companies and hardware sites that like to torture test hardware. Not in and of itself a bad thing, but to the uninitiated, it can be misleading. Especially when coupled with hardware companies that implicitly promote this untruth.

    Unfortunately, the extreme edition etc, is symbolic of companies that feel a loss because their profit slipped from the previous year, in spite of the fact they are still making good money. No doubt some of these execs still sleep at night dreaming of another Y2K scam to rake in the dollars from sales of hardware most people don't need, or in the end, even want.

    That is what I believe is at the root of this kind of marketing. And I don't see it going away, I see it becoming more rife.

  36. Where to buy Intel Core Duo ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    "Good think Intel invented the Core chips. Because you know, using 40% of the power of a Pentium 4 and doing 40% more work while clocking nearly twice as slow isn't a radical change or anything."

    Cool! Where can I buy one?


    http://store.apple.com/

    Click on Mac mini, iMac, or MacBook Pro.

    Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

    1. Re:Where to buy Intel Core Duo ... by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Core Duo and Core Solo are NOT "Core" arch chips. (SURPRISE!!)
      They are basically Pentium M's.

    2. Re:Where to buy Intel Core Duo ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Core Duo and Core Solo are NOT "Core" arch chips. (SURPRISE!!) They are basically Pentium M's.

      No. There is merely an improved version of Core coming soon. A more accurate statement would have been the Pentium M was the first "Core" architecture chip. The architecture based performance improvements relative to the P4 appeared in the Pentium M. Now were are about to get refinements, not an entirely new design.

    3. Re:Where to buy Intel Core Duo ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom are near enough a whole new design. These processors will totally kickass :) I can't wait to get a PowerMac with a dual core Conroe processor in it!

  37. Yet another acronym by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

    Or...You could have the: Super-Hyper-Mega-Extreme-Gaming-Machine-Advantage system. Otherwise known to those in gaming circles as 'SHMEGMA'

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  38. who cares? by __aabwba5127 · · Score: 0

    Yeah and be oblivious to the fact that both do the same job as well, even though one of them cost was built on 1/10th of the budget of another. I'm writing this on a pentium m, a turion would be just as good.

  39. Hey, AMD started it with the meaningless numbers.. by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    ...Intel just got caught up in the trend...:=)

  40. 3.7 GHz is nice by PingXao · · Score: 1

    For the first time ever my home desktop PC turned a year old without being totally obsolete. No, 3.2 GHz is not the fastest, but it's not like a 6.4 GHz machine is available today eitehr. 10 or 15 years ago it was no uncommon to see your machine be trumped by one that ran at least twice as fast a year later. Thank, Intel!

  41. Clock rate an imperfect estimation of performance by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Anyone who follows processor clock speeds will be aware that they suddenly stopped increasing a few years ago. While this is technically not a failure of Moore's law, at a minimum it does reflect some kind of failure to keep up with previous levels of progress.

    Not really. Moore was commenting on the number of transistors and performance. Clock rate is a convenient but imperfect estimation of performance. If you use some metric that involves an actual measurement of work performed, say specmark, I'd wager that you would find no reason to be concerned.

    That said, both Intel and AMD have been telling developers for at least a year or more that future performance increases are going to come more from multiple cores than from clock rate improvements, go forth and multithread your code.

  42. Scientists get confirmation of the Big Bang theory by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Funny

    Pentium Extrem Edition packs all that matter into a such a small space, and makes sure that the whole thing runs so hot, that it is now capable of starting new Universes right on the tops of our desks. BANG.

  43. I Guess this is it then for the new Mac towers! by davvr6 · · Score: 1

    The new intel towers must be seen tobeat the current G5 Quads 67 Gigaflop speed by a mile or they will look silly for switching over the towers.

  44. Snoboard Cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you need to attach the CPU to the bottom of the snowboard to keep it cool.

  45. Re:Clock rate an imperfect estimation of performan by zenhkim · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. The usefulness of clock speed alone as a gauge of processor performance has long been outmoded, as the nature of processors has evolved: instead of being limitted to executing one (or a fraction of one) instruction of program code per clock cycle, processors for the past 10+ years are capable of carrying out multiple instructions at once! There's also the question of bus speed, which plays an important supporting role in the system (it's possible for the processor to have a respectable clock rate, yet be hampered by a low bus speed).

    It's exactly for these reasons and more that AMD gave up on using the clock rate as a descriptive label for their various CPU models, opting instead for an "equivalency" rating to give people an idea of how much processor performance they're getting -- e.g.: Athlon 3500+ (would be the same as a 3.5GHz processor *executing one instruction per cycle*).

    The software that benefits the most, of course, is the kind that allows for multiple threads of execution, so it only makes sense for AMD and Intel to aggressively promote this kind of program design among developers.

    --
    "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
  46. LibertineR should be ashamed. by shrubya · · Score: 1

    Provide a link or somethin'?

    Damn, you are one slow motherfucker. Slashdot (and every Apple fan site in the world, FWIW) has only been going apeshit about the Intel Core chips for what ... at least SEVEN MONTHS NOW.