New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

[SSE4]

Although it doesn't change PCMark 04 scores and the fact that LK himself may simply like the EE more than an FX processor, but I stand firmly by my opinion. Intel is going to turn the later EE processors into HT enabled super-beasts, or at least that's what it looks like. We don't know enough (Real details) about their upcoming cores to make a solid judgement.

The Venice core is amazing, although I wonder what will become of their weaker models. If you can overclock a Venice to 3GHz easily, I wonder how the FX will do in sales, since it will be inferior to the newer models. Nevertheless I can't wait for them to come out, although I wont be buying one, I can guarantee I'll get to at least build one and check it out.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Yeah; without the FXs in the Dual Core race there is no core for the EE to compete with except the Dual Core Xeons

It will be interesting to see how AMDs profits stand; and sales because of the lack of manufacturing power the lack of profit entails if they do continue down their 'W00t t0 da 0c massif' theories.

 

[Giancarlo]

Again LK's lack in economic theory is glaring...

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Well it does make sense - if they do a range of high end Venice Cards, say from 3200 to 4000 which are amazingly Overclockable so that by merely sneazing you push it up a few megahertz nobody will buy the 4000, or indeed the 3400, they'll get a 3200 and a feather and get on with sneazing as soon as possible. Especially with AMD's client-base of practically only Overclockers or people who can't afford Intel, both of whom if going for a Venice at all with get the lowest one. If they don't get money, they won't have the manufacturing power that put Dell off even thinking about introducing a few AMD Builds.

 

[prosser13]

He He LK, your wrong. When the Toledo (Dual-Core) processors come out for AMD, in the last quarter of this year and next year, they will be released at 2.4GHz, 2.6GHz, and 2.8GHz. There will also in the 4th quarter of this year be two new processors released into the Venice line, both called 4x00+. These will run at 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz.

And when the first two Dual-Core Intels are released in the second quarter of this year, the 820 and 830, guess what speeds they will be at. 2.8 and 3.0GHz respectively. So, know AMD have caught up with speeds The Smithfield EE will also be released in the second quarter, and that will run at 3.2GHz. I think the thing we are seeing at the moment is Intel will no longer have the hold on the market like they do now, as AMD's chips will be faster. There will also start to be longer pipelines in the AMD chips, making them better at video encoding

 

[SSE4]

Well Intel was set at going a certain way, and that was core frequency, but they've dropped that idea. What we see now is AMD tugging along as usual and Intel completely (And quickly) changing the way they're doing things. They don't seem half as interested in clock speed anymore. The Smithfield isn't something I expect wonders from. Also, the Intel dual core Extreme Edition 840 is to be introduced in the second quarter of this year, which is clocked at 3.2GHz. Which means we could see Intel lagging behind for a bit but it's not like Intel intends to let it stay that way. As big as Intel is and as big as their development capabilities are, it can only move so fast.

I look forward to seeing future AMD and Intel processors.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I wasn't trying to point out technical details about Clock Speed Whatever speeds the two come out at I think we've realised, specific realisation pushed through by fans of AMD that clockspeeds do not count for much. Itanium Cores are at 1, 1.2, 1.4, Opterons are something like that and Pentium Ms come through around there too. Smithfield is based on Pentium M as far as I have heard, and we cannot therefore be sure of the eventual representation of speed over clockspeed. I was trying to point out more specific details about people and how they would buy them; using representative numbers for the processors; whether the bottom line is 3200, 3600 or 4000 its still the bottom line and will be the cheapest and with overclocking being so easy apparently that is the one the swine who do it will buy.

 

[prosser13]

I would say more people would buy a 3000+ than any of the ones you have listed, LK. But not everyone wants to overclock, do they? So, you can overclock a 3500+ to a 4x00+, but why not just buy a 4x00+ and save yourself a lot of time and bother. SSE4, I think Intel will keep the lead for a while, but very soon AMD are going to overtake. It's just the way things are - Intel have had their turn at the top, and I think now is the perfect time for AMD to start shining through and have their go. Intel may be in the lead with sales and contracts at the moment, but nothing stays the same forever, and AMD have got the right idea. So what that AMDs are overclockable LK? That's another thing they have going for them

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

That's not a good thing - that more than anything will keep them from getting larger contracts like those from Dell. No computer company is going to want to sell a processor that they know aims at the Overclocking Market; Supporting such a Processor would become expensive and complicated. Not only that but as you yourself said they will buy a 3000+; if AMD lose that much constantly they're not going to have the manufacturing power for large contracts to come in. If people don't want to overclock they'll get a real processor

 

[prosser13]

If people don't want to overclock and have money they will gte a 4x00+, if they don't have money they will get a 3200+ AMD will always have people buying FXs, because people always want the current best processor on the market. The problem with the EEs is that they cost an arm and a leg. The FXs can save you over £100 over an EE, which could then be spent on better hardware. AMD will come out on top with the Dual-Cores.