3.46EE With 1066MHZ FSB & 925XE Chipset article

its a gallatin, i thought they would make the extreme edition from a nocona core cpu. that means that its basically just a northwood m0
 
I'm a little dissapointed in the relatively low gain in memory bandwidth performance....

But that's not your fault!

Good write-up.
 
thecarguy said:
I'm a little dissapointed in the relatively low gain in memory bandwidth performance....
Click to expand...

i dont buy that score...my system at 266fsb with my ram 1:1 was getting over 6.1-6.2 gb/s with sisoft.

id like to see that chip put in a ddr1 board with some pc4200 or higher.
 
i could buy a AMD 3400+, a motherboard and a gig ram for the cost of this CPU, and the AMD system will still be faster.
 
acascianelli said:
i dont buy that score...my system at 266fsb with my ram 1:1 was getting over 6.1-6.2 gb/s with sisoft.

id like to see that chip put in a ddr1 board with some pc4200 or higher.
Click to expand...

Maybe they aren't running the less than meaningful buffered mode. New stuff doesn't change the validity of what we may currently own, but for a new purchase there is really only one choice for gamers right now IMHO.
 
I do not see any need to upgrade any computer until the advent of XP 64 AND dual core chips from AMD (or Intel, if that is your thing). It will just be a waste of money before then.
With no new operating system to require more power, why bother? That goes for upgrading video cards also, no new DirectX or OpenGL why upgrade?

If the [H] people could withhold buying the chips and gfx boards for 6 months or longer, we could force prices down more. Maybe we could actually get an increase in real world applications from upgrading later not just a couple more frames per sec or other synthetic benchmark increase we are settling for now.

My opinion, just like assholes, everybody has one. Great write-up by the way.
 
mjz_5 said:
i could buy a AMD 3400+, a motherboard and a gig ram for the cost of this CPU, and the AMD system will still be faster.
Click to expand...

I second that. In fact my 3200 is like on par with this CPU in gaming. Except for UT in which the 3200 blows away the P4EE. 3200 is like close to 200 while the 3.46 will likely cost over 1000. You do the math.
 
acascianelli said:
its a gallatin, i thought they would make the extreme edition from a nocona core cpu.
Click to expand...
Nocona is basically the same core as Prescott - 90nm with 1MB L2 cache - not much of a performer to warrant the 'Extreme' moniker or price. The next P4 EE (the 3.73) will use the Irwindale core - that's the same core as the P4 6xx series chip uses (regular Prescott plus 2MB L2 cache). I think Intel will need to use the Potomac core to compete with A64 though - that's a Nocona core with 8MB of L3 cache. :eek:
 
I think this new P4EE chip and 1066 fsb are disappointing. (especially for the price)

I miss the days when Intel was more competitive.
 
I think intel fudged up. IIRC, the future 6xx and the dual core cpu's will only support an 800 MHz fsb, which means that the only processors that will support the 1066 fsb stock are the $1000+ 3.46 and 3.73 GHz cpu's.

On the other hand, the new chipset should place the overclocking limiting factor onto the processor and create more headroom with the northbridge when using the 5xx series. :cool:
 
Agree with Kyle's statements about the multitasking comments.
I have both worlds now, and the P4 3.4c can run Folding and UT2K4 at the same time with no lag. On the AMD machine, it chugs if more than one processing is running.
If you want to do multiple things at once, you may want the Intel even if it means less FPS. If you're gaming only, go the AMD route.
 
NoGodForMe said:
Agree with Kyle's statements about the multitasking comments.
I have both worlds now, and the P4 3.4c can run Folding and UT2K4 at the same time with no lag. On the AMD machine, it chugs if more than one processing is running.
If you want to do multiple things at once, you may want the Intel even if it means less FPS. If you're gaming only, go the AMD route.
Click to expand...

this is bull.. what the heck is Kyle doing. encoding porn, ripping mp3s, surfing the web, watching a web cast, writing a novel in word, install software, while running prime95.

I admit, the intel may be slightly better in multitasking, but unless you are trying your hardest to slow down the A64, you wont notice a thing.

And if you have such a hard-on to run all these apps at the same time, with the extra money you are spending on a EE and DDR2, why not just get a dual Opteron.
 
mjz_5 said:
this is bull.. what the heck is Kyle doing. encoding porn, ripping mp3s, surfing the web, watching a web cast, writing a novel in word, install software, while running prime95.

I admit, the intel may be slightly better in multitasking, but unless you are trying your hardest to slow down the A64, you wont notice a thing.

And if you have such a hard-on to run all these apps at the same time, with the extra money you are spending on a EE and DDR2, why not just get a dual Opteron.
Click to expand...

I conqure with this. I have both an A64 and P4 2.8. It depends on what multitasking you are doing. If you are encoding, running a webserver, and gaming then the P4 is for you otherwise get the Athlon 64.
 
Yeah, something seems strange with the memory bandwidth. Even with just an 800MHz FSB and untweaked memory (925x chipset, default SPD 4-4-4 timings), I get virtually the same score.
 
Arkanian said:
I conquer with this. I have both an A64 and P4 2.8. It depends on what multitasking you are doing. If you are encoding, running a webserver, and gaming then the P4 is for you otherwise get the Athlon 64.
Click to expand...

I have another one: running more than one instance of an MMO and compiling database items. Unfortunately the A64 choked at this task while my trusty 2.4 @ 3.0 ran the operation just fine. Does this mean I recommend the P4EE just for HT? Heck no, if you are looking for an HT-capable CPU, go for something much cheaper and lower and then just overclock the snot out of it.

BTW: If AMD found some way of emulating HT technology on their A64's, I'd be sold (common, hurry up AMD)! :D

- James
 
I expected some gain for the 1066 FSB, but wow I was really surprised to see the lack of almost any gain. I was really hoping to see some improvements justifying some high speed DDR2. DDR2 just seems to be less and less compelling (wonder if DDR2 will get dropped like it did with the Graphics community).
 
meh.. i was expecting much more gain from the higher FSB..

its really been boring on the CPU front recently, AMD releases a 2.6ghz fx55 that improves very slighty on the fx-53, and Intel releases a 3.46EE with a 1ghz fsb that can barely outrun the 3.4EE

i want dual core now, damnit! no more of this refresher crap
 
James54321 said:


BTW: If AMD found some way of emulating HT technology on their A64's, I'd be sold (common, hurry up AMD)! :D

- James
Click to expand...

It's pretty much safe to say we'll never see HT on the A64 side of things (or the dothan / pentium M for that matter). On a CPU with a short pipeline like the A64, there's just no sense trying to run two simultaneous operations. You don't see enough performance gain to warrant even trying. On a nice long pipeline, it starts to make a little sense. That's because there's an obscene amount of wasted stages as a pipeline gets longer and longer.

The part I find ironic is that it's considered a "missing feature" for AMD to not support it, but the only reason they CAN'T support it is because their chip was designed better in the first place. Go figure.

I think when we get into the dual core CPUs, the first 6 months is when AMD will shine (and hopefully set up a reputation for being the best). The NetBurst core is just not designed for scaling to multiple cores. Heck, even the traditional dual-CPU Xeon setup suffers from sharing a bus to the northbridge and the RAM. AMD's on-die memory controller and dedicated RAM for each CPU will be a huge advantage right off the start. Of course, it's not like intel hasn't noticed that, and I'm sure that we'll see a competing product eventually. AMD just has a head start right now, which hopefully they won't waste.
 
It seems as if the reviewer got really, really negative about this new CPU. I'm no Intel fan-boy, as I own a A64 3800, but the reviewer really put this P4 down in almost every sentence, especially in the conclusion. What bothered me the most, however, is this sites' reluctance to compare these newer CPU's to other CPU's in the mid-range, i.e. 2.8Ghz and above speeds. In this article, they only compared it to AMD's current flagship CPU's @ 4Ghz rated speeds, and really low-end 2.4Ghz CPU's. What people really want to know is how does this new CPU compare with AMD's CPU's at the same rated speeds like 3.4 to 3.8Ghz. To normal consumers, a 4Ghz rated CPU is supposed to beat a CPU with a 3.4Ghz speed, most people I know are upgrading from 2.8's to 3Ghz CPU's and they wanna know how much faster are these CPU's compared to midrange CPU's, not budget CPU's. I know time constraints and deadlines are involved with these reviews, but why not update these articles later on to include midrange CPU's?

Just my 2 cents.

Kwincy
 
well, someone looking to buy a midrange CPU is most certainly not going to be looking at a 3.46EE CPU only compatable with the 925XE set and DDR2.. so only high end procs are compared.. i think it makes sence

and i think there is a negitive tone beacuse.. well... this CPU just downright failed to deliver. we were all expecting much more out of this new bus, and frankly, it just sucks
 
Kwincy said:
It seems as if the reviewer got really, really negative about this new CPU. I'm no Intel fan-boy, as I own a A64 3800, but the reviewer really put this P4 down in almost every sentence, especially in the conclusion. What bothered me the most, however, is this sites' reluctance to compare these newer CPU's to other CPU's in the mid-range, i.e. 2.8Ghz and above speeds. In this article, they only compared it to AMD's current flagship CPU's @ 4Ghz rated speeds, and really low-end 2.4Ghz CPU's. What people really want to know is how does this new CPU compare with AMD's CPU's at the same rated speeds like 3.4 to 3.8Ghz. To normal consumers, a 4Ghz rated CPU is supposed to beat a CPU with a 3.4Ghz speed, most people I know are upgrading from 2.8's to 3Ghz CPU's and they wanna know how much faster are these CPU's compared to midrange CPU's, not budget CPU's. I know time constraints and deadlines are involved with these reviews, but why not update these articles later on to include midrange CPU's?

Just my 2 cents.

Kwincy
Click to expand...
Basically, they rated flagship vs flagship. Not too many people who are willing to spend 800 dollars on a CPU would even look at the mid-cpu anyway. With the extra cache, (and the extra money spent), the general concept is that the Intel should excel above the AMD in all fields, but it lacks in gaming. I dont think it was a great move to release this chip, Intel is still basing their ideology that bigger numbers are better, when that's not really true. If you take a look at the P-M dothans, they are actually better then the a64 clock for clock. I'd say intel should go into that field, but they're still a huge part of the market, and they dont have to try to try very hard with it, just sitting on their p4's. It really would be interesting if most of the world knew what the minority on a few computer forums know, but until then, we'll be watching OGM NEW p4 4.0 ghz CPU when an a64 will generally be faster (at least in gaming) at 2.8-2.9.
 
viccyran said:
If you take a look at the P-M dothans, they are actually better then the a64 clock for clock.
Click to expand...

i thought the P-M was slightly slower to right on par with the a64 clock for clock? got linkage?
 
lithium726 said:
i thought the P-M was slightly slower to right on par with the a64 clock for clock?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's also pretty much what i've seen. The single channel pc2700 memory bandwidth is the limitation that prevents it from running faster, probably the smaller L1 cache too.
 
Wow, AMD continues to impress!!! I won't even be considering putting intel into my computer for a long time.
 
The most important part of this release is the Intel 925XE chipset, that will allow much higher overclocks because of its 1066 bus support.

This is because the 925XE will have the right divider to reach 1066 without any PCI-E overclock.

So with a 925XE mainboard, you can run an Intel 530 CPU at 4Ghz with any PCI-E GPU you choose, because only the CPU will be overclocked and Prescott has excellent chances of reaching 4Ghz with modest water cooling or good air cooling.
 
Great article, and I love Hardocp for their objectiveness and thoroughness. I actually rate the articles as good or better than Anand, whom I also respect a great deal.

Back to the topic at hand. Intel is playing catch up, and this article basically points that out. FSB is no longer the mother of all things to have. Intel will need to go to an integrated memory controller as well because memory access is the bottleneck right now.

That said Intel will catch up. Their R&D is too talented and their pockets are too deep to not get things going in the right direction. I have to admit that AMD has done a great job in helping to push Intel along. I have spent many $$$ on both companies and a lot of great products over the years. With these two companies always doing battle good things come to us consumers. Which in the end, isn't that what we all want anyway??? :D :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top