Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-24-2005, 01:01 PM   #21
Daemon Poster
 
prosser13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,080
Send a message via MSN to prosser13
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

Sorry for double posting , but I've just stumbled across a nice review from Hexus.

http://www.hexus.co.uk/content/revie...VybF9wYWdlPTU=

Page 1, the FX-55 "rules the roost". Not even having 1MB less of L2 cache can stop it. And in the second test, the 'amazing' 3.73 EE was beaten by the not so amazing P4 570J. "For the unbeatable AMD64 processors."

http://www.hexus.co.uk/content/revie...VybF9wYWdlPTY=

Page 2, and the P4 EE wins on the first test. In fact, it takes 1st and 2nd. But if you look again, the slower 3.46GHz old EE beats the new 3.73GHz EE. Also, like Hexus says, the application is biased in P4's favour thanks to the code, so if P4s didn't win there would be something wrong with the application. In the MP3 coding, the 3.73 EE is beaten by the older EE and the 570J. In Cinebench again the new EE is thrashed by the older version. Things are not looking good. Finally though, in the last test, the P4 3.73 EE gets it's own back and beats the 3.46, but still doesn't manage to beat the FX-55.

And the reviewers final thoughts?

"A 3400+ Athlon 64 will have a lot of fun smacking a 630 around too (and even the faster 540J). Extrapolate anywhere between 3400+ and 4000+ as you compare to P4 and you can see what I mean.

The Extreme Edition CPUs remain a pointless exercise for Intel. A 570J will best a 3.73GHz Extreme Edition in more than a few tests, just on that 66MHz. For $999, does anyone really care any more? Get an FX-55 if you're that rich, and give the change from a grand to me as thanks."

So it seems the new EE isn't all you've made it uo to be!
__________________

__________________
If I help you, I welcome Reputation Points to show your thanks. I won't forget it!
prosser13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2005, 01:10 PM   #22
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
I'll write more in a minute, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/prescott-10.html

Look at the first test and you will see the FX-55 beats the EE by 3 seconds. Not an amazing margin, true, but it still beats it.

Posted by Lord Kalthorn :

I'm not sure where you found the 3D Studio max thing where the FX beats the EE but it would be interesting to see...


If you can get that wrong what else may be wrong...
Haha; well Intel won That's all that matters in the end. Not sure why the 570 was better than the EE... but hey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
A small quote from techreport.com :

"I should probably say a word or two about the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz. At its customary price of $999, the Extreme Edition was never a bargain hunter's dream chip. This new 3.73GHz version performs comparably to the previous 3.46GHz one, but no better. The move to a Prescott-based Extreme Edition processor was no doubt inevitable, and the move does bring 64-bit support, but it's an even trade. Go buy an Athlon 64 3500+ if you want a gamer's CPU. It's faster than any Extreme Edition, and you can pocket the $727 you save (or better yet, buy an obscenely expensive graphics card.) Personally, I'd rather have a Pentium 4 660 than an Extreme Edition 3.73GHz. Without SpeedStep or the C1E halt state, the Extreme Edition is less attractive than its 600-series siblings."

Seems not everyone agrees with you...
The EE always will be less attractive than the rest of the 600 series; its only natural its a considerable amount more for not that much more on the benchmarks but in all, it is more in the benchmarks and if you want that extra and have that money then why not? Its the same thing with the FX-55; you get tests a normal Processor beats it in, but its there for those few who want the tiny difference overall in the benchmarks. We're takling about the best though; not the practical applications of the different processors and which is better to get; and in the end, ultimately if you want a Gaming PC you'll get an FX-55, some even if the EE beats the FX in gaming marks, but only if you want a Gaming PC and plan to do nothing on it but that. If you want a powerful PC; you'd get an EE. The PCMark CPU Tests people will say are unbalanced; AMDs don't have Hyperthreading, even in Memory Tests however the EE is 400 points above the FX-55. In the CPU Tests the EE is practically nine hundred points above, the 570 of course seems to get more; very odd, but that's still a whole lot faster than the next best AMD attempt If I had the money, based on Benchmarks, 400/900 points in PCMark would be worth the extra few score of dollars over the FX-55. I may however be a cheap arse and wait for the 670 and get it if the 570 beats the EE in CPU tests though.

The top 10 Processors on the Futuremark Site for PCMark 04 are Intels, all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
Sorry for double posting , but I've just stumbled across a nice review from Hexus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
http://www.hexus.co.uk/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMDA3JnVybF9wYWdlPTU =

Page 1, the FX-55 "rules the roost". Not even having 1MB less of L2 cache can stop it. And in the second test, the 'amazing' 3.73 EE was beaten by the not so amazing P4 570J. "For the unbeatable AMD64 processors."
I have no idea what FPU is. However, it is obvious these are all benchmarks directed at FPU, and while I'm sure FPU is probably a good sign of power - its also obvious that most programs, if not all, aren't programmed like these tests to take advantages of FPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
http://www.hexus.co.uk/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMDA3JnVybF9wYWdlPTY =

Page 2, and the P4 EE wins on the first test. In fact, it takes 1st and 2nd. But if you look again, the slower 3.46GHz old EE beats the new 3.73GHz EE. Also, like Hexus says, the application is biased in P4's favour thanks to the code, so if P4s didn't win there would be something wrong with the application. In the MP3 coding, the 3.73 EE is beaten by the older EE and the 570J. In Cinebench again the new EE is thrashed by the older version. Things are not looking good. Finally though, in the last test, the P4 3.73 EE gets it's own back and beats the 3.46, but still doesn't manage to beat the FX-55.
The way they say these; is that they're not testing them, they're ranking them. For instance: 'by pipeline length', now you say is biased; these tests take one specific bias and put it at the processors - the only non biased test that is available is the PCMark Memory (some think the CPU one being threaded for more than one processor is biased), and that shows the actual results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
And the reviewers final thoughts?

"A 3400+ Athlon 64 will have a lot of fun smacking a 630 around too (and even the faster 540J). Extrapolate anywhere between 3400+ and 4000+ as you compare to P4 and you can see what I mean.

The Extreme Edition CPUs remain a pointless exercise for Intel. A 570J will best a 3.73GHz Extreme Edition in more than a few tests, just on that 66MHz. For $999, does anyone really care any more? Get an FX-55 if you're that rich, and give the change from a grand to me as thanks."

So it seems the new EE isn't all you've made it uo to be!
The EE is the Processor which is the best of Intel's line - its not worth the extra money for it over the other Intel Processors, but that's not the point, it is the best.

Would be nice to know what FPU was
__________________

__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2005, 01:14 PM   #23
Daemon Poster
 
prosser13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,080
Send a message via MSN to prosser13
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

I don't understand why you don't get it. The FX-55 "rules the roost" and, when the FX-57 and the FX-55 S.S. come out, AMD will have a complete grip on the top of the market. Personally, I would sacrifice twenty seconds video encoding time and three seconds extra time to load up an application for an extra twenty, thirty, even forty frames per second. And that is what makes an FX-55 the best processor in the market, it is an amazing all-rounder and can cope with anything you throw at it.

And answer me one question please. How much better do you think the new 3.73GHz EE is than the old 3.46GHz EE in percentage figures?
__________________
If I help you, I welcome Reputation Points to show your thanks. I won't forget it!
prosser13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2005, 01:35 PM   #24
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
I don't understand why you don't get it. The FX-55 "rules the roost" and, when the FX-57 and the FX-55 S.S. come out, AMD will have a complete grip on the top of the market. Personally, I would sacrifice twenty seconds video encoding time and three seconds extra time to load up an application for an extra twenty, thirty, even forty frames per second. And that is what makes an FX-55 the best processor in the market, it is an amazing all-rounder and can cope with anything you throw at it.

And answer me one question please. How much better do you think the new 3.73GHz EE is than the old 3.46GHz EE in percentage figures?

20, 30 or 40 Frames per Second is superfluous, You can see 20 seconds extra on Video Encoding, you can see 3 seconds more on Application Loading times; you can see the 2MB Cache speeding up Visual Studio, you cannot see even 50 Frames more unless the start Framerate is 10FPS.

Hmmm... haha. Not enough to make up the monetal difference that's for sure I've already said I'm pushing Intel's best processor, I'm not pushing the one which represents the most sense to purchase. I'm not sure even you would push the FX-55 if you were thinking of the AMD that represents the most sense to purchase.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2005, 01:42 PM   #25
Daemon Poster
 
prosser13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,080
Send a message via MSN to prosser13
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

"Short for floating-point unit, a specially designed chip that performs floating-point calculations. Computers equipped with an FPU perform certain types of applications much faster than computers that lack one. In particular, graphics applications are faster with an FPU.

Some microprocessors, such as the Intel 80486 and Pentium, have a built-in FPU. With other microprocessors, you can usually add an FPU by inserting the FPU chip on the motherboard.

Floating-point units are also called numeric coprocessors , math coprocessors , and floating-point processors."

Answer your question? Personally, given the choice, I would get an FX-55 every single time. Then again, given the choice, I would choose an AMD 64 over a Pentium 4. It's all down to personal opinion.

The new AMD 64 cores are going to be sweet though. They are going to be released in just a few weeks, and they will kick P4s ass thanks to SSE3 and even more overclockablility.
__________________
If I help you, I welcome Reputation Points to show your thanks. I won't forget it!
prosser13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2005, 05:48 PM   #26
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
Answer your question? Personally, given the choice, I would get an FX-55 every single time. Then again, given the choice, I would choose an AMD 64 over a Pentium 4. It's all down to personal opinion.

Yup I was talking more about which you would buy for sense, not given the choice, which made more sense to buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
The new AMD 64 cores are going to be sweet though. They are going to be released in just a few weeks, and they will kick P4s ass thanks to SSE3 and even more overclockablility.

That will be interesting; but in the end anything Single Core is a fill in to boost sales until Dual Cores come. It will be interesting to see if these SEE3s will get anything better on PCMark.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2005, 06:01 PM   #27
xxcobraxx
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 6,224
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

you 2 stop coping and pasting, just put the link down.
__________________
Liveleaker
IAntDemo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2005, 01:34 AM   #28
Golden Master
 
alvino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,967
Send a message via AIM to alvino
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

The only Intel product that I like is the Centrino or the Pentium M.

BTW About your sig LK, the EE is a waste of money while you get shit for it. The FX gives you the bang for every penny of the $800 you pay.
alvino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2005, 04:26 AM   #29
Daemon Poster
 
prosser13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,080
Send a message via MSN to prosser13
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

Thank you Alvino. The EE is basically a downgraded Xeon with it's Gallatin core, if it still uses the Gallatin core that is. Or has it gone Prescott, which was a step backwards.

Your wrong. These processors are not a stop-gap to fill in this year before the Dual-Cores come out. They are processors where Intel and AMD are practising their methods, and, most importantly, choosing their market, for the Dual-Cores. Massive companies like these two don't just say "as the Dual-Cores are coming out next year we won't design anything new". That would be a waste of a years profits.

For all the money you would pay for an Extreme Edition it would be much more worth it buying two Xeons. The FX-55, though, is a much more well rounded processor which isn't as bad as you say it is.

The reason the FX-55 is better is thanks to its shorter pipeline. If we go back a few posts, to where you are complaining about the test I found being biased, then you said they are ranked in pipeline length order. That would have meant the FX-55 would have come last, so I don't see how that works?!

He he, look at this quote from penstarsys.com :

"Currently Intel has nothing to compete with the FX-55 adequately, and they certainly won’t have anything this January when AMD releases the FX-57. Once AMD keeps raising the core speed, then even areas where Intel once held sway will begin to fall away (such as video editing, MP3 ripping, streaming applications, etc.)."
__________________
If I help you, I welcome Reputation Points to show your thanks. I won't forget it!
prosser13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2005, 09:04 AM   #30
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
Thank you Alvino. The EE is basically a downgraded Xeon with it's Gallatin core, if it still uses the Gallatin core that is. Or has it gone Prescott, which was a step backwards.

It has gone Prescott Probably purely because the Gallatin was taking up extra manufacturing space that could have been spared for newer Cores. Ultimately a EE is a downgraded Xeon, that is the point. If you could afford a Xeon you'd get one, but to a good deal of people the EE is their prefered option, or getting a higher end normal one like a 660, 670.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
Your wrong. These processors are not a stop-gap to fill in this year before the Dual-Cores come out. They are processors where Intel and AMD are practising their methods, and, most importantly, choosing their market, for the Dual-Cores. Massive companies like these two don't just say "as the Dual-Cores are coming out next year we won't design anything new". That would be a waste of a years profits.

Perhaps they are practise Cores; but practise Cores are still Stopgaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
For all the money you would pay for an Extreme Edition it would be much more worth it buying two Xeons. The FX-55, though, is a much more well rounded processor which isn't as bad as you say it is.

Of course it isn't as bad as I say it is But compared to an EE you will see what the EE does, you can't see what the FX does. It would be more worth buying two Xeons - but if I came on here and pushed that the Xeon is the best Desktop Processor available it would be perhaps more funny to you than me saying it of the EE Although Dual Xeons at 3.06Ghz, the Processors at least aren't that much more than the EE, and still by percentage not much more than the FXs; their Motherboards however are more expensive and inpractical for general Desktop use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
The reason the FX-55 is better is thanks to its shorter pipeline. If we go back a few posts, to where you are complaining about the test I found being biased, then you said they are ranked in pipeline length order. That would have meant the FX-55 would have come last, so I don't see how that works?!

It actually said the Intels were ranked by pipeline length, in that the longest came first and so on and then by something else. I read that wrong But yeah - its still all Floating Point stuff and I don't know of any programs I use that would care about such things other than Games - and the advantage in Games is as I have said not noticable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
He he, look at this quote from penstarsys.com :

"Currently Intel has nothing to compete with the FX-55 adequately, and they certainly won’t have anything this January when AMD releases the FX-57. Once AMD keeps raising the core speed, then even areas where Intel once held sway will begin to fall away (such as video editing, MP3 ripping, streaming applications, etc.)."

People can say it; but even I don't like the Prescott We have to hold out hope to the Smithfield's more Pentium M style of design.
__________________

__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0