Slashdot Mirror
Core 2 Extreme 40% faster than Pentium EE 965?
Marc writes "As far as I know, this is the first time that Intel has talked about what we can expect from its new gaming CPU, Core 2 Extreme. For once, there is no word on power consumption on this new chip, but Intel talks about raw speed and a 40% gain over the current 3.73 GHz Extreme Edition 965 - which would be rather impressive and could indicate a problem for AMD. In this interview with TG Daily, Intel also claims that a Core 2 Extreme-based enthusiast PC will leave the pixel power of a Playstation 3 in the dust. Gamers, this appears to become the most exciting year for you in a long time!"
The demo system Intel is showing at E3 features a Core 2 Extreme processor, which, judging from past pricing strategy, will cost slightly over $1000, as well as a Quad-SLI graphics card (i.e. probably two dual Nvidia graphics cards at around $1000 each).
Now, when you build such a high-end system you probably wouldn't skimp on the case ($200), motherboard ($200 & up), memory ($300 & up), power supply ($100 & up) and peripherals, either, so let's allow another grand for these things and you wind up with a $4000 PC.
Put in a Blue-Ray drive (expected to cost around $1000 initially) and you just hit 5 grand.
I'm not a Sony fanboy, not by a long shot, but comparing a 5 grand PC to a 1/2 grand PS/3 does seem a tad unfair, now doesn't it?
And yes, a quad-SLI system with a Core 2 Extreme *is* expected to blow the doors off a PS/3. No surprise here.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
Although one must wonder why AMD would be scared of a 5.2 gHz rather than a 3.7 when CPUs that fast are never, ever the system's bottleneck. Seems like a lot of posturing.
I'm sick of hearing about power consumption and yadda yadda yadda. I buy processors based on performance, not on how many watts it eats up. Sure, it's nice to have a cpu that draws less power but why should that have to be one of the main marketing points unless the cpu is for a laptop? I'd rather have all cpus rated by megaherts again.
I've read over the article albeit briefly and I find myself thinking that the quote in the summary is total hype for a chip, sure a PS3 will cost about 600, but I seem to recall those EE chips being as much if not more and given that this chip is newer then the P4ee's no doubt it will cost even more. And that's not counting the cost of video cards etc.
It doesn't matter what Sony or intel come out with, neither company is likely to convert PC gamers to console gamers or console gamers to PC gamers.
Then again, what do I know? I fall into the "has too much money/buys them all" camp.
..that using the word extreme should be illegal?
Bull... I believe the wii controller and the ps3 controller look quite promising for fps games. It's not quite mouse keyboard, but it might have some real potential.
I'll be a convert soon. Sick of throwing money at my PC.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
When I bought my 386 it was way more than 2x the speed of my 286.
:(
Depends on your software and your hardware.
Did you have a 386DX40 or a 386SX16? I had a 386SX and my friend had a 286, Wolf3D.EXE was the same speed on both computers
There's a bit more design elements going into a PS3 than just the raw pixel pushing. I still don't see many FPS games on a PC that can do let 4 players play on the same computer screen.
today is spelling optional day.
given the investment that anyone makes in a computer system designed for gaming, how it is a "most exciting year" to be faced with the possibility of yet another set of continuing reasons to spend more money on yet more gear? wouldn't a really exciting year in gaming have nothing to do with new hardware and everything to do with cool, inspired and inspiring new games?
I'm glad the names for processors are getting a little more exciting.
'Core 2 Extreme' is a techy name, and will date rather quickly, but better than the mundane 486, pentium III, pentium M etc. I always liked 'Athlon', there is something inoffensively sporting about it.
Now all I need is a few more nouns.
Words like 'pulsar','shard','gyroscope','peregrine'....
Car companies take care to have an imaginative and memorable name for their new product, I'd like to see more tech companies doing the same thing.
The demo system Intel is showing at E3 features a Core 2 Extreme processor, which, judging from past pricing strategy, will cost slightly over $1000, as well as a Quad-SLI graphics card (i.e. probably two dual Nvidia graphics cards at around $1000 each). Now, when you build such a high-end system you probably wouldn't skimp on the case ($200), motherboard ($200 & up), memory ($300 & up), power supply ($100 & up) and peripherals, either, so let's allow another grand for these things and you wind up with a $4000 PC. Put in a Blue-Ray drive (expected to cost around $1000 initially) and you just hit 5 grand.
Let's not, I don't want Blue-Ray. I don't want $1000 video cards, you can compete against PS3 with far less. You are effectively creating a gold plated PC that no one really goes shopping for, a tactic once commonly employed by Mac advocates. It was a bogus tactic then, it still is now. Peripherals, are well peripheral. You components are inflated. You can do the job with a $2500 PC and that is with name brand components, Antec case/PS, Intel mobo, Plextor, etc, and of course that $1000 CPU. And of course using today's prices. If you wait for when PS3 ships you could probably do just about as well with a $300-$500 Intel dual core, so we're really talking about a $2000 contempolrary PC.
The PS3 still costs a lot less, but now it is a reasonable comparison. Now folks can argue about practical issues, like will they get $1500's worth of value out of the computer with respect to non-gaming activities.
No one buys a console because of the power of the hardware, they buy it for the games that are on it. Therefore the PS3 will be sold to those who play games that will be exclusive to the PS3.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I may be wrong, but it appears that benchmark was deliberately chosen out of a bias. The UT04 benchmark seems to run better on AMDs. When making comparisons of dissimilar architectures, no single test, nor any single type of test is suitable. While the AMD is faster at most of the other tests, most of them don't have nearly so much of a disparity.
I may be wrong, but it appears that benchmark was deliberately chosen out of a bias. The UT04 benchmark seems to run better on AMDs. When making comparisons of dissimilar architectures, no single test, nor any single type of test is suitable. While the AMD is faster at most of the other tests, most of them don't have nearly so much of a disparity.
I totally agree, testing just one game isn't right.
Here are some benchmarks for Half Life 2, just to be fair.
Results: Higher frame rate with AMD chips.
Lets try Quake 4:
AMD FX vs Intel EE chips
AMD dual cores vs Intel dual cores
Mainstream Athlon64 vs Pentium4
Results: Higher frame rate with AMD chips.
Lets try F.E.A.R:
AMD FX vs Intel EE chips
AMD dual core vs Intel dual core
Mainstream Athlon64 vs Pentium4
Results: Higher frame rate with AMD chips.
"Gamers, this appears to become the most exciting year for you in a long time!" Games on the PC are for 99% of the time restricted by the video card, only in rare cases the CPU will actually be the bottleneck, if you run a game at higher details (AA/AF) and resolutions you will put more strain on the VGA card, and an increase in CPU power will not translate into a boost in performance worth mentioning.
the 20'000 aren't necessary in the same room to make a difference.
:it'll lowers their global bill).
If the 20'000 hardcore gamer that are living in the same city as you use 50W CPUs instead of 150W one, maybe they'll get 3FPS less on the screen, but on the other hand will consume 2 MW less.
Which will put less strain on the power plant, will be more ecologically friendly and will contribute less to the global warming.
(That's why enterprise are also interested in more eco-friendly CPUs
Same reasonning also goes for the SUVs. Appart from having a bigger toy than you neighbours, what's the point in using a vehicle that consumes more gaz and is less secure in case of crash than everyone else ? You're ruining the environnement with your bullshit. Not you as a signle person, but you as a member of the greater group of dummies who feel obligated to drive the car that looks the biggest and most impressive.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]