Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955 215

Posted by Zonk from the end-of-the-year-chip dept.
BSG Man writes "Intel's 3.46 GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 955 dual-core processor launches today, and HotHardware has a full review with benchmarks on Intel's new i975X Express based D975XBX motherboard. This processor is based on Intel's 65nm (or .065 micron) Presler core with 2MB of full speed, on-die L2 cache dedicated to each core, for a whopping 4MB of total L2 cache. As expected, the new Pentium Extreme Edition 955 scores well in encoding, desktop business and a few professional rendering tests but overall it's given a run for its money by AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual-core processor, especially in gaming scenarios."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955 More

Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955

Comments Filter:

  • +1 grammar (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:38PM (#14346823)
    but overall it's given a run for its money by AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual-core processor

    Wow, you managed to use "it's" and "its" in the same sentence, and both correctly. A /. first!

  • is this a *real* launch? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:41PM (#14346847) Journal
    Is this a launch launch, or a paper launch?

    I kinda got tired of reading about product launches that you couldn't go to a store and buy.

  • Run for its money.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:41PM (#14346849)
    Pentium Processor Extreme 955

    Price: $1,112.37 - $1,393.49 [google.com]

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz, Toledo, Dual-Core, 2x1MB L2 Cache, Socket 939, 64-bit Processor

    Price: $780.74 - $1,185.00 [google.com]

    More run, less money, it would appear.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The x86 server market loves stuff like this (maybe not the top-of-the-line-expensive, but in general I mean really hardcore $1000+ CPUs). A business I help just placed an order for an 8-way opteron dual-core (16 cores), and they really need it.

        -Jesse
      • What you don't seem to appreciate is that most high-end CPUs, with a few exceptions(such as the EE with its large l2 cache) are cut from the same wafers as lower-priced CPUs. They're often binned based on how well the cores come out, with the best cores being put in the most expensive CPUs.

        Of course they could make more money selling "these chips" for "half as much"(or even less). Just look at the low-end range of products from any of these processor lines.

        Example: The AMD X2 4400+ vs 4800+, and AMD x2 38
        • They come from the same wafers. What makes a 4800+ a 4800+? It was just a better core that went through testing better

          Does this mean a processor labelled as 4400+ would have failed some tests? Then how come overclocking seems so successful unless these processors passed the tests but are just being sold to run slower?
          • Just because a CPU appears to run OK under normal conditions does not mean that everything is fine. If you look at the datasheet, you will see that the CPU is tested and guaranteed to run under certain specified ranges of voltages, temperatures, timing margins, etc. An overclocked CPU may no longer work over the same range of conditions as it would at its marked speed. Overclocking can also shorten the life of the part or damage it. It may work today, but start getting flakey after months or years of being
      • Dear God, how the hell can anyone justify selling a single CPU to anything approaching the "PC" market for that much nowadays!?

        They can justify the chip if people buy it, of course.

        Besides, they are probably only expecting small volumes to sell anyway. Just think of these $1000+ CPUs as test runs for the mainstream chip 2 years from now.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Run for its money.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:08PM (#14347101)
        The AMD 4800+ was faster in a LOT of the benchmarks, it's cheaper, it uses less power, and it's available today while the Intel part will be available in limited quantities sometime in January.

        I think this is one of those times that Intel would prefer to have the benchmarkers say nothing and silently release their white elephant. 8-)
      • I think it is ironic the site "HotHardware" has the review. That sucker has got to be running very very hot. AMD beats Intel in price, performance, power use and runs cooler as well. Intel still has it's massive marketing machine though which keeps its' name up front when people are considering buying a PC. Kinda like that big Seattle area software company that has great Marketing and not to good performance.
    • you misread the intel product name, it says Pentium EE == Extremely Expensive.

      and for that money, it's not even worth looking at.
      who would be insane enough to pay more for a slower cpu ? it still got it's booty kicked in many tests.
    • Pentium Processor Extreme 955

      Price: $1,112.37 - $1,393.49

      AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz, Toledo, Dual-Core, 2x1MB L2
        Cache, Socket 939, 64-bit Processor

      Price: $780.74 - $1,185.00

      Which makes me wonder how this chip would perform against an equally expensive AMD offering like the dual-core Opterons.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:43PM (#14346868)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Times have changed (Score:3, Funny)

    by trifish ( 826353 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:45PM (#14346890)
    When I read about that 4 MB of L2 cache, I recalled that my Atari ST had 0.5 MB of regular RAM back in 1990. I'm probably too sentimental...
    • Yeah but you couldn't play games for the PC like Duke Nukem Forever on your old Atari ST. Oh wait....

    • Heh! (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      Yeah, things have changed in computing. My PET 3032 had, well, 32K of RAM. So did the BBC micro. Fast-forwarding a bit, it is still possible to run Linux in 4 megs of RAM (2, according to some), so it would be possible to load a working image - kernel and userspace - into the L2 cache of this chip. No need for main memory at all, then. It would suck on performance, but without the need of any support chips or main memory, you'd have one hell of an embedded system.

      Actually, one of my favourite processors fro

  • But do games support them? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jacco de Leeuw ( 4646 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:46PM (#14346895) Homepage
    What games actually take advantage of those dual cores?

  • Hope Dell Reads This Article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:49PM (#14346930) Homepage

    With AMD, continuously beating Intel in both price and performance, it just pisses me off to see them exclusively sell Intel processors. Even in their highend gaming rigs, they use the Extreme Edition with no option of getting an AMD processor. That's just pathetic. Think of how cheap their boxes could be if they didn't force you top buy Intel and Windows.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • just because on the retail end amd processor is cheaper, doesnt mean that DELL pays more for intel.
      im sure they get incredible price breaks from intel.
    • Think of how cheap their boxes could be if they didn't force you top buy Intel and Windows.

      Dell machines with AMD processors would be incredibly cheap. You'd just have to pay $350 shipping. And $87 handling. And fees. And don't forget to plug in some more RAM, doubling your 512MB to a gig will only set you back $125. And a 8ms TFT screen suitable for gaming for $200 extra. Then you'd be set. Hella cheap.
    • My guess would be that their boxes are as cheap as they are Just Because they are using Intel processors.

      Think of it as manifacturers subsidized computer company, that, altough doesn't brings any profit, but ensures that large number of potential customers are constantly exposed to Intel processors and associate "Intel" with "Computer" without thinking.

      It's not exactly a monopoly, buy it is some hell of a good marketing.
    • Buy a different brand.

      This is the problem with consumers these days. They're rather complain about the company than jump to the competition. People try to legislate companies into offering the products that they like. Ok, but capitalism is all about giving your money to the company that gives you what you want.

    • Re:Hope Dell Reads This Article (Score:4, Insightful)

      by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @05:23PM (#14347690)
      and are they forcing you to buy Dell???
      • Its not about someone buying Dell, its about Dell giving AMD a better chance to gain some more ground on Intel's market share.
      • No, but his frustration stems from the short-sightedness exhibited by Dell when it comes to AMD.

        I worked at a large university for 5 years at a high performance computing department. It's a public school, and price/performance was king. Thus we were primarily an AMD shop. Often it wasn't about just price -- AMD would often spank the equivalent Intel CPU at the time in real-world scientific computing benchmarks.

        Every year or so when we invited Dell back to bid and tell us what they had, it was always

        • No, but his frustration stems from the short-sightedness exhibited by Dell when it comes to AMD.

          But why is this a bad thing? It allows a more competitive landscape for smaller companies, as your post demonstrates. If Dell carried AMD, it seems you would have bought Dells for your institution, rather than going to a better company. That can't be good.

    • So? Fuck Dell. They're not the only game in town. You want a godly gamebox? Build it, it's not like it's hard. You'll learn a lot about the specifics of *your* system, and when you're done it'll be just what you want, and cost less too.
    • it just pisses me off to see them exclusively sell Intel processors

      Would you be happier if Dell used AMD as well, boosting competition between rival CPU makers and lowering computer prices? Or does Dell have a deal with Intel to allow them to sell computers for less? So would we be better off if Dell used AMD? Dell has so much advertising it's my benchmark for computer pricing. I know I can get a better deal than a Dell but I wouldn't take a worse deal.

    • With AMD, continuously beating Intel in both price and performance, it just pisses me off to see them exclusively sell Intel processors.

      Why does that piss you off? Is there some reason you actually want to buy a Dell, or see Dell succeed? Seems like a very strange attitude. What's bad for Dell is good for the country.

    • Funny you should mention that it pisses you off, quite appropriate really, Intel calls these new performance processors the PEE range. Pentium Extreme Edition. WTF. I hope the little case badge is yellow and says PEE on it in big letters. I want my computer to have PEE in it. NOT!
  • and HotHardware has a full review

    No doubt, given that it's a Hot chip.

    • ...the French are planning on using the new Intel chips to trigger fusion reactions purely from the heat output...

  • Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kickboy12 ( 913888 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:01PM (#14347045) Homepage
    About time Intel made a processor that gives the AMD 64 a run for it's money. But even though the new processor is using a smaller process, more L2 cache, and faster clock speeds, the AMD still comes out on top. Makes you realize how far ahead Intel is in technology, and yet how far behind they are in quality. I garuntee the next AMD X2 chips will feature the same 65nm process, and once again it will take Intel 1-2 years to make something that even comes close to it's rival.

    (Thanks to PG&E I had to type this twice. Incompetant mother fuckers)
    • For 2006, Intel has announced a 64bit, desktop version of the new Yonah mobile processor. I guess they will clock it a bit higher at the expense of needing more power, thus creating something that matches the existing Athlon X2 chips in performance (and power dissipation). At that point, the Presler version of the P4 will be dead and not mourned.
      With leaves us with the question of how soon AMD can switch their own manufacturing to 65 nm. Because when they do, they might get their current advantage back.
  • The "Extreme" edition is marketed to gamers?

    You don't say.

  • Faster? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:11PM (#14347118) Homepage
    What I find interesting is: a few years ago the fastest processor you could buy ran at about 3.1 GHz or so. Now it's around 3.5 GHz. Ten years ago, the processing speed was doubled every few years. What is keeping the speed around 3.5 GHz? Is it the processor itself, or the electronics around it that can't be made faster? Or is there no demand for faster processors? (I can hardly imagine that!)

    • Re:Faster? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pdbogen ( 596723 ) <<tricia-slashdot> <at> <cernu.us>> on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:46PM (#14347431)
      Just a short lesson in processor speed:
      The throughput of a processor is related to the number of pipeline stages (think of a laundry room; you have three "stages"- washer, dryer, folding table. You can have three "loads" ("instructions") in the laundry room ("pipeline") at one time). When you shorten the clock time (i.e., increase the 'speed' to a higher number of Hz), you usually do this by adding more stages to the pipeline. This results in a longer pipeline (a given instruction takes more cycles to complete, AKA longer latency), but also gives you greater throughput (some instruction finishes every N seconds).
      Recently, additions such as dual core changed all of this. Instead of fscking with the pipeline (in general), you just add a second pipeline. You double your throughput without affecting latency or timing. Other changes, such as reducing the number of pipeline stages while maintaining the same clock cycle, also result in an increase in speed. As well as greater on-die L1/L2 cache, since it significantly speeds up memory accesses.
      This is why Intel is trying to get away from the association of GHz == performance, and why AMD a long time ago started using numbers (e.g., 4800) instead of clock speed.

      So, the bottom line is that a 3.5GHz processor is not faster than a 3.1GHz processor or a 100Hz processor (well, probably the last one) because it has a higher clock speed; the clock speed is one symptom of some of the techniques used to increase performance. It's a lot like looking at a car and determining it's max speed by its MPG; sure, all other things equal (aerodynamics, etc.), a lower fuel efficiency means a higher powered engine means top speed- but this doesn't work if you're comparing a Motorcycle to a Hummer.
    • That's been bugging me as well, but the fact is, no, the majority of the uses people have for computers, especially in the office, just haven't changed in ten years. Sure, the types that would buy anything with the name "Extreme" will drop a grand for an erg or two more power just for bragging rights, but with everyone else, what's the point when your eleventy billion Ghz processor is idle 99.99999999% of the time?

      • Re:Demand, yes. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ghjm ( 8918 )
        Yep.

        These days, when I can't avoid being dragged into someone's office to "just have a look," their performance problems are *always* spyware or installer-cruft. Invariably, the computer they have is more than fast enough to suit their needs.

        So they are presented with a choice: Have someone spend two or three hours at $100+/hr reinstalling Windows and/or cleaing crap off their machine, or wander down to the local megastore and buy the cheapest machine they have, which is usually $250 and ten times faster th

    • Re:Faster? (Score:2, Informative)

      by smoker2 ( 750216 )

      What is keeping the speed around 3.5 GHz? Is it the processor itself, or the electronics around it that can't be made faster? Or is there no demand for faster processors? (I can hardly imagine that!)

      a) Moores Law relates to processor power not speed, so that (although you didn't mention it directly) is still holding true.

      b) The whole reason why AMD outpaced Intel, was because they didn't go for raw Ghz, but instead used the existing power more efficiently, with consequently less wasted energy (ie heat)

      c) Cl

      • Re:Faster? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by The Mayor ( 6048 )
        Actually, Moore's Law relates to the number of transistors per unit area, not processing power or clock speed. The corrolary to Moore's Law indicates that the price per transistor halves every 18 months. Nothing is ever said about clock speed or processing power. Check this link [webopedia.com] for the actual wording. By the way, Moore's Law still seems to be holding, and with the proliferation of multi-core computing and whatnot, I expect Moore's Law will hold for a while to come. The difference now is that we will s
    • Clock speed and processor speed are two fundamentally different things.

      Moores law is an observation based on experience in the industry. It isn't a prescriptive mathematical model, so much.
    • a few years ago the fastest processor you could buy ran at about 3.1 GHz or so

      No, it didn't. I can assure you there were no 3.1 GHz processors in 2002.

    • Well... (Score:3, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      Other posters have given excellent comments on the inner workings aspect. I'll throw in a few more, though, just for luck.

      First, the fastest overclocked Intel processor was something like 7 GHz, so it is evident that the electronics are capable of substantially better performance.

      Second, the new Intel chips are hyperthreaded and multicore... ...but don't obviously allow the different cores to access the full set of processing elements, only the ones in that core. It would seem easy enough to have the actual

    • Heat. Intel invented the P4's netburst architecture with the sole plan of making it almost infinitely clockable (they were predicting 10GHz when the top of the line P3 of the time ran at 1.0 GHz). They were right about its clocking ability, but forgot about heat dissipation. Even the early P4s were heat monsters compaired to the cool running P3s and Athlons of the day, and today's Prescott cores are simply insane. You can go to any decent gamer site and find a how to on getting a P4
    • Well, actually the fastest (in clock speed) Intel processor is the P4 3.8Ghz. It's actually been out for quite a while. The fastest dual core chip is now the 3.46Ghz mentioned in the article. Probably the main reason why the dual core chips are lagging a bit in speed is heat and power issues. Two 100W+ cores in the same chip means you need to dump a lot of heat.

  • Urine? (Score:5, Funny)

    by dannyelfman ( 717583 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:17PM (#14347161)
    I'm not so sure the market droids gave it much though when they came up with this critter's name. Ah, can't wait to see the zine articles: ``Intel's PEE will flush the competition''

    What's next? Will AMD come out with Fast Asynchronous Redundant Technology?

    • The next announcemnts will indicate something of the fabrication techniques required...

      Clean Room Array Processor used for Simultaneous HI-Tech applications. You know, those that require lots sitting and thinking time...

      However, they might want to come up with better acronyms.

      The ones implied above should only be a number 2 option.

      See? PU.

  • The new Pentium Extreme Edition 955 improves upon the older Pentium Extreme Edition 840 in virtually every meaningful way.

    Price?

  • with a 266MHz quad-pumped front side bus

    Sounds like something you'd do in the gym, but how do you quad pump a bus? I gather your somehow sending 4 databits for each bus clock-cycle.

    • by sending a data bit on every "corner" of the square wave.

  • Use words more precisely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:28PM (#14347255)
    When you say "given a run for its money" it suggests that the AMD chip's performance is about even with the EE Pentium. But this is wrong. The article itself concludes

    "The Athon 64 X2 4800+ was the faster CPU in a majority of our real-world tests, and it consumed less power to boot."

    But even that's a big understatement if you looked at the actual benchmark results. Neck and neck? Come on! Please, editors, accept submissions that aren't misleading.

  • Article has questionable conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SnakeJG ( 719306 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @04:37PM (#14347350)
    From the article's conclusion:
    Benchmark Summary: The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor performed well overall throughout our entire battery of benchmarks. Due to the processor's relatively high-clock speed, dual execution cores, HT technology and 1066MHz bus, the synthetic benchmarks, 3D rendering tests , and audio encoding tests ran best on the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 / D975XBX platform. However, most of the gaming tests, content creation and desktop applications, and the video encoding tests ran best on the AMD Athlon 64 X2 / NF4 SLIX16 combo.
    However, if you look at the actual 3d rendering tests they do (Kribibench v1.1), the AMD processor wins one test by ~20% and loses one by ~5%. Although the second test was a more 'difficult' test, it seems quite a jump to say that the Intel chip performs better at 3D rendering.
  • Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition 955; meanwhile, AMD points and laughs.

    More at 11.

  • two words (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @05:44PM (#14347842) Homepage
    heat dissipation.

    Well that and the ALU is really crap still. Sure it does well at bulk data movement tasks but compiling/crypto it's a useless core.

    That and for the love of god ... "diminishing returns" does that mean anything to them? Why not a 32MB cache!!! 128MB!!! a gig!!!

    Tom
  • I don't give a rats ass about gigahertz anymore, nor about megabytes of cache. Every CPU they still sell has "plenty" of both, and everyone is using clusters in the real world.

    What I do care about is the watts, heat and JigaDollars that it costs to power and cool the thing. Especially with rooms of 100's of them.

    Just got the parents both Mac Mini systems. Cheap, quiet, AND cool. No more IE Virus Engine® or Outlook Spam Engine® is just an added bonus.
  • Intel Launches Pentium Extreme Edition

    That is so awesome it makes me want to drink a Pepsi Max and go heli-snowboarding.

  • HotHardware indeed (Score:3, Funny)

    by Halvard ( 102061 ) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @10:08PM (#14349480)
    Lot's of Intel gear has kept my coffee warm over the years.

  • Not on par for gamers ? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vulcann ( 752521 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @01:29AM (#14350219)
    scores well in encoding, desktop business and a few professional rendering tests but overall it's given a run for its money by AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual-core processor, especially in gaming scenarios

    Let me get this straight - we have double the cache, 3.something GHz of speed and two cores, just so that I can start Outlook faster ?!?!?

    The real market for any typical high end machine is in gaming and rendering. Sure there will be a market for people who use these machines for "encoding" but if it cant compete in a billion plus gaming market that pretty much drives a lot of hardware innovation, I'd say this thing is a waste of time for Intel.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got.

Close