Intel is expected to release a faster version of its powerful but expensive [3.46-GHz] Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor this week, alongside the introduction of a chip set [925XE] that uses a faster front-side bus to connect the processor and the memory. The Extreme Edition is basically the same as the Pentium 4, but features 2MB of Level 3 cache instead of 1MB. It’s also extremely expensive: $999.
IIRC it uses 2MB of L3 cache, and the usual L2 cache. The other P4s don’t even have L3
And from the benchmarks I’ve seen, it’s still not competitive with AMD’s offerings. Not to mention AMD’s offerings are 64-bit…
Intel is really behind these days. I wonder if they’ll ever catch back up.
The only benchmarks you should ever trust are the execution times of real world applications you’re interested in running.
I recently upgraded one of my Fedora Core 2 based game servers from a P4 2.53Ghz to a Athlon 64 2800+ running x86 64-Bit Fedora. I am a long time Intel fan and still only run Intel for my windows boxes.I thought i would give the Athlon 64-bit processors a try. I can attest to the fact that the 64-Bit AMD CPU’s are excellent CPU’s. It appears to handle load spikes much much better then the 2.53Ghz P4 ever did. At a clock speed of 1.8Ghz trully an impressive CPU offering from AMD. If i had $999 to burn on a CPU it would be for either an AMD FX 64-BIT based CPU or an Opteron without question.
The AMD CPU’s beat the shit out of Intel CPU’s on gaming platforms.
my Sonnet G4 upgrade CPU has 2 MBs of L3 cache on it. it only cost me 218 dollars though 🙂
I submitted a link to a nice article about the opteron vs xeon in linux (as far as I remember) a few weeks ago, and it didn’t get on osnews. It is strange how editors here choose what stories make it to the index page. Some will put links to articles concerning hardware, some won’t.
Anyway, who cares? this site was supposed to discuss OSes, not processors (except if there is new tech introduced with new hardware, which is not the case)
BTW, if someone really wants to know how the new P4EE scores, take a look here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2261
Our Doom 3 CPU Battlegrounds article already made it quite clear that Intel did not have what it takes to be the highest performer in Doom 3. The 3.46EE doesn’t manage to help Intel as much as they need.
This “new” P4EE is beaten by a AMD64 3200+ in the anandtech
Doom3 gaming test.
Take a look at the conclusion:
“So there you have it folks – the 1066MHz FSB does absolutely nothing for performance. The 3.46EE does manage to outperform its 3.4GHz/800MHz FSB predecessor, but the margin of improvement is negligible. Intel desperately needs a win here and other than the more affordable price of the Pentium 4 560, there’s very little going for the CPU king these days.”
“But with the move to the 1066MHz FSB we have a platform launch that, in the spirit of the 925X and 915 launches, does virtually nothing for performance.”
Seems like Intel cant get anything right these days!
Oh i almost forgot to mention that a AMD64 3200+ costs about EUR 209 here in Europe opposed to the $999 , so i could spend the rest on a Geforce 6800 Ultra and still have some money left.
Why would anyone buy this processor?
my Sonnet G4 upgrade CPU has 2 MBs of L3 cache on it. it only cost me 218 dollars though 🙂
The cache in your Sonnet G4 upgrade CPU also operates at a much lower frequency.
Intel and microsoft are trying to do everything they can, for putme in front a Mac!!!!!
As a side note, there also seems to be many mobo manufaturers upset by latests (925, 915) Intel’s sockets, which have the pins in the mobo, not in the CPU, making it a lot more easy for the ping to get bent over.
I was just pointing out that a large L3 cache is not what makes this chip expensive.
and if frequency was such a good measure, then the Athlon FX should be in trouble when compared to the P4EE, but ti is not.
Thus proving the utter foolishness of PC gaming. $999 and all for not being the highest performer for Doom 3. Meanwhile the Playstation 3 and X Box 2 will both have better specs than almost any home user’s pc and for a fraction of the price. What is the point of pc gaming anymore?
I think that the standard CPUs of both AMD and Intel and of a few other manufacturers too are already fast enough for most normal workstation and server purposes. People who need more power usually need: 1. a faster video card, 2. more RAM.
It might make sense even in marketing if the main CPU manufactures started to pay more attention to other things too: stability, heat, power consumption, silence etc. At least I, and I know that many others too, want to have CPUs that stay cool and stable. don’t need too loud active cooling nor a lot power (makes sense both in server or desktop use). It is, of course, nice to have a fast PC, but in real life it really doesn’t matter so much to me anymore if the CPU speed is a bit below 1400 GHz or a bit over 3400 GHz.
Take an example from the car industry: who seriously wants to buy a Ferrari when all that most people ever need is a reliable and economical car for everyday use?
Thus proving the utter foolishness of PC gaming. $999 and all for not being the highest performer for Doom 3. Meanwhile the Playstation 3 and X Box 2 will both have better specs than almost any home user’s pc and for a fraction of the price. What is the point of pc gaming anymore?
I use both consoles and PC’s for gaming most MMORPG’s on console are geared more towards kiddies. Everquest II is PC only from what i can tell. On the other hand there are some games i would only play on a console like Tiger Woods golf. Personally i like to keep my options open when it comes to gaming i will eventually have to buy an Xbox in order to play the next big bioware game since it won’t be available on PC. Fast hardware specs or not my simple gaming rig smokes my PS2
“Fast hardware specs or not my simple gaming rig smokes my PS2”
No doubt, but will it smoke the PS3?
I know somebody who just upgraded big time, 64 bit processor, 256MB video card and it turns out he’s the one out of ten or whatever of whom the card won’t work right with his bios. All together the guy just spent $1000 on a computer hardware, and if he was expert enough, he could probably get it all to work. But that’s the point. Should you have to be a hardware expert and spend a grand just to play Doom 3? I mean, he’s got Battlefront, and I got Battlefront. I’ll have KOTOR II 2 months ahead of him because I use an X-Box.
No doubt, but will it smoke the PS3?
Probably not now or for maybe a year to come. After that when you are waiting 5 years for the PS4 i will have upgraded my Gaming rig to outperform the PS3 for $500
And from the benchmarks I’ve seen, it’s still not competitive with AMD’s offerings.
Depends what you mean by “ahead”. If you’re running software being compiled from source, especially anything which relies largely on numerical transforms, Prescott and Nocona will crush Opteron. AMD’s implementation of SSE2 is slower than its FPU (when it should be at least an order of magnitude faster), and Prescott and Nocona both support SSE3, a vector instruction set which is basically on par with AltiVec.
Not to mention AMD’s offerings are 64-bit…
All newer Prescott and Nocona Xeon processors support EM64T, Intel’s implementation of AMD64, and are therefore 64-bit.
AMD produce excellent processors, many much better (certainly with 64-bit – if anyone really uses it yet) than their Intel counterparts, for far, far, far less money. Their Athlon XPs were good value, and their Duron 1600/1800s were unbelievably good value (basically Athlon XPs with less cache).
I absolutely cannot justify spending at least three, four or sometimes more on an equivalent (if you can call it that) Intel processor.
Intel have been all about ramping up the clockspeed, and lumping as much cache on as possible to try and make the things perform better. They don’t. That’s why they’re having such an inquest about where they are going with their processor design.
AMD’s implementation of SSE2 is slower than its FPU (when it should be at least an order of magnitude faster)
The secret with AMD is not to use SSE
. The results of comparisons are then quite a bit different.
It might make sense even in marketing if the main CPU manufactures started to pay more attention to other things too: stability, heat, power consumption, silence etc. At least I, and I know that many others too, want to have CPUs that stay cool and stable. don’t need too loud active cooling nor a lot power (makes sense both in server or desktop use). It is, of course, nice to have a fast PC, but in real life it really doesn’t matter so much to me anymore if the CPU speed is a bit below 1400 GHz or a bit over 3400 GHz.
I agree and this is the direction AMD are starting to follow now with the AMD64 with cool n’ quiet technology which lowers the chip voltage and turns the fan off almost permanantly while working on the desktop.
the desktop version of Pentium-M.
That is the only thing that can remotely compete with AMD CPU.
AMD64 right now is just too good.
The only reason you would by a P4 is for encoding video/audio.
i like my amd64 i wish M$ would add F*’ing support so i can take full advantage of it
Should you have to be a hardware expert and spend a grand just to play Doom 3? I mean, he’s got Battlefront, and I got Battlefront. I’ll have KOTOR II 2 months ahead of him because I use an X-Box.
Nobody forced him to buy that hardware upgrade, did they?
You really don’t have to be an hardware expert to upgrade your hardware
in order to have some enhanced gaming experience.If he had read more reviews on diverse hardware sites he probably would have found a better matching hardware component.What’s true for software is also the case regarding hardware: you have to read and comprehend the specs.
Printers are very cheap these days,the costs come with buying ink.The same goes for Gaming consoles like PS2,X-box Nintendo game cube, etc,the hardware is cheap.Games developed for the gaming console costs sometimes more then doulble the prize of the same game title for the PC.
What is more convenient one device that does all the jobs you throw at it or several ones that make one?
Gaming consoles lack the PC multiplayer exelence.
Not very good if you have to subcribe for every new game itle in order to play online human vs human.
My brother tells me the FPS are not good on consoles because a mouse is much faster than a controller. He believes the games like splinter cell are better on consoles though.
Of course PS3 will be more powerful than most desktops when released but then in a year it will be behind again and after 3 years well it will be bad.
Also PC games cost much less where I am. R500 for a new PS2 game versus R300 for the most expensive PC game.
Personally I prefer consoles.
You’re going to have to show benchmarks to back yourself up when you claim those kinds of things. Also, everything you’ve claimed as a strength for Intel is theoretical, and I could say the same of AMD just as easily.
On that note, maybe someone can correct me on this, but as far as I knew, the 64-bit Precotts were labelled F. All I ever see for sale is E.