New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

[Lord Kalthorn]

Well of course you're not going to do that You'd buy one or two, probably two; a few hundred more than an FX-57. The Point of the £790 ish for 1,000 is that's what Intel will sell it to people for; they can't estimate the Retail Price so they give us what each will cost to most suppliers. Of course, Dell can sit there and buy a quarter of a Million and they'd be cheaper but they don't sell them individually anyway.

 

[prosser13]

Anyway, who says AMD won't do that with the FX-57. You can imagine the new headlines at enthusiast pre-built computer websites : "Buy it now! The faster processor in the world!" Because it will be. And it will also be an amazing overclocker. There will be no dual-core FXs as well, so you can't call it a stop-gap No one really knows why AMD aren't releasing a dual-core FX, but most probably because the San Diego cores will be amazingly overclockable and dual-cores would lose overclock features.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I wasn't saying the Xeon was the fastest processor in the world; nor was I saying the FX-57 was. I was pointing out why I said $790 when brought in thousands. So what're you're saying it won't be like I do not know I'm pretty sure that as a Single Processor the Itanium or IBM PowerPC would take that but there are probably more specialised custom processors that are faster and so on... The FX-57 will in no way be the fastest Processor in the World If you're talking fast in speed, its not even only in Desktop Processors; if you're talking fast in computing as to times cut its not unless it gains 1,000 PCMark 04 Points over the FX-55 which is more than the difference between all AMD 64 Processors. If you're talking about frame rates then of course, but the FX-55 already has that its nothing special

Maybe its just because they can't make Dual San Diego Cores? Some Cores just plain aren't changeable into such a setup. Why would they not Dual-Core a San Diego merely because it loses overclocking features? If anything the most overclockable Processor Core would be the best to use in that case.

 

[prosser13]

Maybe the reason they don't make dual-cores for FXs is that they realise that not everyone wants to upgrade their motherboards, and that not everyone can afford to. Maybe Intel should look at that before they put everything into Dual-Cores. Maybe the I2 will be good, but there are the new Revision E Opterons coming out soon so AMD won't lose too much.

 

[SSE4]

The multi-core Intel solutions will run off the newer Socket T motherboards. This includes the current P4 models (And 6xx series) as well as the new Presler and Cedar Mill (And even Smithfield) processors. I'm not particularly afraid of the socket for the processor getting "old" but rather the features of the current motherboards. Intel is leaving the 478 behind just like AMD left behind the Socket A. It's as simple as that. (Therefore the whole AMD doesn't want everyone to upgrade their motherboards thing is wrong. They've already forced enthusiasts and people interested in "64 bit" to do it)

 

[prosser13]

I know what you mean. See, AMD will be keeping Socket 939 (K8) processors for a long time, which means it is a worth while investment buying a 3000+ now, and then say in two years time buying an FX-59, as they should be a lot cheaper with the Dual-Cores. With Intel, you'd buy a EE now, and in a years time you're going to have to upgrade your motherboard to a new socket in order to buy a new processor. See, AMD have it all sussed out

 

[SSE4]

Haha I'd never upgrade to an EE now. You can't compare making a huge initial purchase of an EE to buying a 3000+ now. In comparison, it's just not a worthwhile investment.

I think the goal Intel is going for is having the Socket T last a while. Although they have some pretty interesting chipsets layed out for the future, and what appears to be some kind of distant visage of SLI. When a new nForce or new motherboard hardware becomes available for a Socket 939 motherboard, you'll probably want to upgrade anyway due to the better features, much like you might want to do for an Intel Socket T counterpart.

 

[prosser13]

So why are you defending it? AMD and Intel have the same goal, I would say. Which is trying to make their best socket last for as long as possible. AMD have done this, by keeping the FXs on the Socket 939 which means there is always a better future upgrade path. What about Intel though? What new features could come out, would you say? PCI will most probably stay, PCI-E isn't going anywhere in the next few years, and it has SLI to back it up. BIOS can always be flashed. I would never buy an EE because it is a waste of money at this time.

 

[SSE4]

AMD had also followed the Socket 754, which is announced dead, and the Socket 940. Intel just has 478, which it's trying to replace with LGA775 motherboards with PCI-E.

Defend it? I never said I was defending it. It's not a bad processor, but it's not worth the money you'd have to pay for it, and I spend a lot more time saying that it's basically inferior to the FX than I do preaching its power. The "new features" are rather what I would call "superior motherboards". With SLI and a grouping of new features, anyone with an "older" Socket 939/775 motherboard, who actually cares about system performance, will probably change anyway. The only people who probably wont care are consumers, but even then they might just upgrade the motherboard as well.

The EE is a waste of money. It's not bad on its own but it's not worth the money, and at the same time it doesn't compete well against the cheaper FX series. This doesn't bother me because although I like Intel I don't care if a product of theirs sucks. People spend too much time comparing processors that don't compete well. The real comparisons will come when Intels Socket 775 processors (The real ones) clash with AMDs later 939 models.

 

[prosser13]

Socket 940 is for Opterons only, and the new Opterons, which are dual-core, have just been advanced to the second quarter of this year.

Good, you're not defending the waste of money "It's not a bad processor, but it's not worth the money you'd have to pay for it" See that LK, SEE THAT! The new nForce4 boards for Intel's have just been released, have a look at the short article on http://www.custompc.co.uk about them.

"The EE is a waste of money...and at the same time it doesn't compete well against the cheaper FX series" LK, you're going down The new Venice's are amazingly overclockable, with the 3800+ getting to 3.0GHz on air. THAT'S 3.0GHz PEOPLE - ARE YOU HEARING ME!!! How great is that The Venice's are really going to start challenging the Intel's, which is what they really need to do. And I expect a trend to start in pre-overclocked computer's using the Venice core. Say you bought an 3800+, people will start expecting them to be at least 0.2GHz faster, even more if you're paying over aroudn £1200. That is when the Venice's will come into their own.