• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

3.73EE Vs 660

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redefined

Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
562
would you really tell the diff between these two? is there anyway to OC the 660 to a 1066mhz fsb, and @ 3.73ghz? because the 3.73EE just has a faster clock speed, and a higher FSB. like would i tell the diff in the game called "joint operations"?? becuase i really play this game alot with a friend. so is the extra 400 bucks worth it? or is the extra 400 bucks just for bragging rights?
 
I believe the only difference between the 660 and the 3.73EE is a faster FSB and (I believe)a larger cache, but other then that there is no difference.

Yeah, you can OC the 660 to a 1066MHz fsb and get the exact same thing as the 3.73EE.

If you have 400$ dollars to spend, you might as well just get the 3.73EE. But ONLY if it's mere pocket change to you. Other wise, get a 660 and OC the sucker.

So, for a mere 400$ you too can enlarge you E-man-hood! Catch this limited Intel offer! ;)

EDIT: Guess I was mistaken, reading another thread it appears that the 660 and 3.73EE have the same cache as well. So, you're play 400$ for a 1066 FSB as opposed to an 800 FSB.
 
They are the same thing, except that the 660 has a higher multiplier. Their cache is the same size, and it's the same Prescott core. Yes, the EE has a higher FSB at stock, but its not much effort to go from 200mhz to 266mhz on an ASUS board.
 
Sorry for the double post. But, would you see an improvement in your games? No. In benchmarks, probably but in every day preformance you wont notice any difference.
 
Redefined, please, just buy the 3.73EE. It is everything you hope for in a prescott and more.
 
robberbaron said:
Redefined, please, just buy the 3.73EE. It is everything you hope for in a prescott and more.
Click to expand...
:D
either one would work, but if i was gonna spend a lot of money, i'd get the best and go for the bragging rights. though be forewarned that there will be jealous people who make fun of you for spending so much. it's to be expected :(
 
lol, everyone wants me to buy the 3.73EE. well im trying people! im poor! im selling my other pc parts on ebay to get one! or if not the 3.73EE, it will be a P4 660.
 
660 or 560..... but never the EE.... too much $ not enough performance.

3.733 on 1066FSB is an easy reach for a 925XE for a good mainboard. There are many to choose from that will do the multiplier reduction trick. Mine is mearly one of the examples.

the 3733 EE is 14x266 with 1066 FSB
the 560 and 660 is 18x200 with 800 FSB
my 560J is 14x278 for 3.9 with 1114 FSB <--- I'm doing the multiplier reduction trick. The bandwith is enormous. But the additional cache of the EE adds very little for all the $$$s that it will cost you.


The [H]orde needs You!
 
jfb9301 said:
the 3733 EE is 14x266 with 1066 FSB
the 560 and 660 is 18x200 with 800 FSB
my 560J is 14x278 for 3.9 with 1114 FSB <--- I'm doing the multiplier reduction trick. The bandwith is enormous. But the additional cache of the EE adds very little for all the $$$s that it will cost you.
Click to expand...

Redefined, you're a EE whore. Do a search for User: Redefined Term:EE and there's like 800 posts of you spamming how much you want a EE and how much they own.
The problem is THEY DON'T.

The newer 500 and 600 series have a power management feature which allows you to run lower mutlipliers on many OC'ing motherboards. The 600 series has the SAME exact CORE AND CACHE. The only difference in the FSB. So if you bought a 660, 650, or 640, you should be able to set the mutliplier to 14 and the FSB to 1066+ and get your 3.73EE SUPER EASY and much cheaper.

ONLY a FOOL like you (redefined) would buy a 3.73, instead of a 600 series processor. (or a complete NOOB who can't do a SIMPLE OC)

Back when there were only Northwoods or Gallatin EE's there was at least a tangible difference in the processors. But now, there's really nothing different about the 600 series and EE's.
 
660 cache latency is 3 cycles
3.73EE cache latency is 2 cycles

other than the increase in FSB to 1066 from 800Mhz....THAT'S IT
 
chrisf6969 said:
Redefined, you're a EE whore. Do a search for User: Redefined Term:EE and there's like 800 posts of you spamming how much you want a EE and how much they own.
The problem is THEY DON'T.

The newer 500 and 600 series have a power management feature which allows you to run lower mutlipliers on many OC'ing motherboards. The 600 series has the SAME exact CORE AND CACHE. The only difference in the FSB. So if you bought a 660, 650, or 640, you should be able to set the mutliplier to 14 and the FSB to 1066+ and get your 3.73EE SUPER EASY and much cheaper.

ONLY a FOOL like you (redefined) would buy a 3.73, instead of a 600 series processor. (or a complete NOOB who can't do a SIMPLE OC)

Back when there were only Northwoods or Gallatin EE's there was at least a tangible difference in the processors. But now, there's really nothing different about the 600 series and EE's.
Click to expand...

ive reported you to the Mods, hopefully they can take care of your thread crapping.
 
I have to say though, chrisf6969 does have a point....

The newer 500 and 600 series have a power management feature which allows you to run lower mutlipliers on many OC'ing motherboards. The 600 series has the SAME exact CORE AND CACHE. The only difference in the FSB. So if you bought a 660, 650, or 640, you should be able to set the mutliplier to 14 and the FSB to 1066+ and get your 3.73EE SUPER EASY and much cheaper.
Click to expand...

That there, anwsers your questions. Be thankful.
 
Redefined said:
ive reported you to the Mods, hopefully they can take care of your thread crapping.
Click to expand...
i don't mean to be a jerk, but you do the same thing in the amd forum quite often redefined. nothing personal though, just pointing out what i observe.
and chris is right. they do have the same core. one's just 'faster' than the other. i still say get the EE for bragging rights. :p
 
chrisf6969 is not right. there are differences beyond the FSB. they are subtle but they are different nonetheless. most people would really have to dig to find out what it is....which is why you have people that THINK they are exactly the same sans the bus speed.
 
Ok, yes, there are SUBTLE differences, but it doesn't matter. The are 95% of the same, and the 5% difference doesn't even matter.

Fron AnadaTech
The new core, shared by both the Pentium 4 600 and the new Extreme Edition chips, is still built on the same 90nm process as the original Prescott, but thanks to the larger cache weighs in at 169 million transistors, an increase of 44 million (or 35%) over the original Prescott 1M core.
Click to expand...

And, if you REALLY want to compare the differences....

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=865970,867285&familyID=1

The only difference is FSB, and, the subtle difference.... EIST!

Intel has also brought its Enhanced Intel SpeedStep (EIST) technology to the Pentium 4 6xx processor series. EIST was originally developed to improve power efficiency in mobile processors, and Intel has added it to the 6xx series to help reduce power consumption. Enabled under Windows XP SP2, EIST allows the operating system to dynamically lower or increase the CPU clock frequency depending on the processing workload. The OS can reduce the CPU speed while you're just browsing the Web and then throttle the CPU back up to full speed when you launch Half-Life 2. The power-stepping technology will help reduce power consumption, heat output, and fan noise.
Click to expand...

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-15261-1515-x-x-x
 
The L2 and L3 cache debate is a tough one to call a winner. L2 is fast but large L3 is a bit more noticble in benchmarks.Of course that for older EE chips. Now they both have 2m L2 cache. It really boils down to what do you want to pay for, at this level the performance difference is close but the $ figure isnt. If you have to have the best than the EE is the beast to have and if you want great but bit cheaper get the 660.

No clear winner....well there is but its in the eye of the beholder.

I'll stick with EE ;)
 
EQTakeOffense said:
Ok, yes, there are SUBTLE differences, but it doesn't matter. The are 95% of the same, and the 5% difference doesn't even matter.

Fron AnadaTech


And, if you REALLY want to compare the differences....

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=865970,867285&familyID=1

The only difference is FSB, and, the subtle difference.... EIST!



http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-15261-1515-x-x-x
Click to expand...


I already told you one of the difference...and NO, it is not listed on a Intel comparison sheet. The cache latencies are DIFFERENT. It is 50% higher for the 6xx CPU over the 3.73EE.
 
I believe that Intel spec sheet is not correct for the EE. B/c I know its got Execute Disable. And I'm pretty sure its got EIST. Unless they disabled EIST to make sure it runs faster (doesn't throttle as much).

From AnadaTech said:
The new core, shared by both the Pentium 4 600 and the new Extreme Edition chips, is still built on the same 90nm process as the original Prescott, but thanks to the larger cache weighs in at 169 million transistors, an increase of 44 million (or 35%) over the original Prescott 1M core.
Click to expand...

The 600 series shares the SAME CORE, STEPPING, DIE, as the new 3.73EE. There aren't any "subtle" differences.

The 600 series and new 3.73EE both have more transistors than the 1Mb 500 series.

The only difference (I CAN SEE) is multiplier & FSB.

Report away Redefined. They should look at your thread spamming. Quite a few people besides myself have noticed your overzealous spamming of "I love the 3.73EE" everywhere.

Hey maybe, I'll get Funny-0 Jackass-2 ! LOL

freecableguy said:
I already told you one of the difference...and NO, it is not listed on a Intel comparison sheet. The cache latencies are DIFFERENT. It is 50% higher for the 6xx CPU over the 3.73EE.
Click to expand...

Where is that data from then, if its not in the Intel comparison sheet? B/c I haven't seen it anywhere. Are you sure, you're not talking about differences in the 500 series and 3.73EE? ?
 
ScienceMark will settle this!

32-bit version here

64-bit version here

Start the program and then go to "Membench" -> "Run Benchmark"
Take a screen shot and post results. Include your CPU type and family [Northwood, Gallatin, Prescott 1MB, Prescott 2MB, or Prescott EE (Nocona?)], speed, memory type and size, and memory latencies. We will explore what we find out about the 5xx, 6xx, 3.4EE/3.46EE and the 3.73EE. You might be surprised.

I will go first. This is a 3.4EE ES (Gallatin) running at 255x16 (4.335Ghz). Memory is 2GB (2x1GB) of OCZ DDR2-4200 running at 1:1 255Mhz (DDR510) CAS3-2-2-5.

Gallatin_SM2.bmp


-Kris
 
EQTakeOffense said:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=2

You people are so, anal... OMG! OMG! THE CACHE LATENCIES ARE DIFFERENT! THIS PROVES THEY'RE NOT THE SAME!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Now, now. You and other said they were:

The 600 series shares the SAME CORE, STEPPING, DIE, as the new 3.73EE. There aren't any "subtle" differences.
Click to expand...

Well...if they were the "same" they would have the "same" results. Since the results are "different" that means the cores are "different." See kids, that's what we call logical deduction and the scientific process. People have been doing that for hundreds of years.

Let me try to explain what I am saying in the easiest possible terms. Read these lines one at a time and please, feel free to repeat reading the line until you understand the full magnitude of the statement made.

1. The P4EE is more expensive than the 6xx series P4.

2. I personally don't think that the EE performance over the 6xx series justifies the extra cost.

Wait for it...here's the kicker...take a deep breath...

3. The P4EE based on the Prescott core (3.73EE) is NOT the same as the 6xx series P4.

-Kris
 
freecableguy said:
Now, now. You and other said they were:



Well...if they were the "same" they would have the "same" results. Since the results are "different" that means the cores are "different." See kids, that's what we call logical deduction and the scientific process. People have been doing that for hundreds of years.

Let me try to explain what I am saying in the easiest possible terms. Read these lines one at a time and please, feel free to repeat reading the line until you understand the full magnitude of the statement made.

1. The P4EE is more expensive than the 6xx series P4.

2. I personally don't think that the EE performance over the 6xx series justifies the extra cost.

Wait for it...here's the kicker...take a deep breath...

3. The P4EE based on the Prescott core (3.73EE) is NOT the same as the 6xx series P4.

-Kris
Click to expand...

i totally agree. atleast someone else on these forums are not amd fan-boys :rolleyes:
 
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4-600/7.shtml <--- this shows a minor difference.

Its probably due to a difference in how the chipset/ BIOS is handling the FSB/latency for the processor. There is probably a slightly faster PAT mode used for a default FSB of 1066 vs. one set manually (overclocked FSB). (like the old 533FSB, 800FSB strap PAT, etc)

There's a much bigger difference between the old Gallatin and the new EE's. The new EE's handle the larger transfers better, while the Gallatin handles the smaller transfers better.

Reguardless, I still see practically no difference between a 3.73EE and an overclocked 600 series.

Meaning the new EE's are not worth their price premium, unlike the older Gallatin EE's when there was actually a HUGE difference in performance between a Northwood 512 & a Gallatin 2Mb.

I'm actually an Intel fan boy. (i'm not saying buy AMD, I'm saying buy a lowend 600 series and OC it.)

They can use the same core, and just laser cut / program minor differences, like enabling 64-bit, or HT, etc...

Though I think it has to do with the 925XE chipset having something built in to it to enhance the EE slightly. Try running at EE and a 600 series with 14x266 and a regular 925 and see if there's still a latency difference.
 
Redefined said:
i totally agree. atleast someone else on these forums are not amd fan-boys :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You know, just because everyone says AMD processors are currently better performers in games doesn't mean they are amd fan-boys. Might just mean, you know, they are currently better than Intel in games. Its also really funny as you are definately the most blatant fan-boy on these forums.

-zac
 
I still see practically no difference between a 3.73EE and an overclocked 600 series.
QUOTE]

cuz ur a dumbass? :rolleyes: can someone say revenge?
 
Well from what I can see there is no real world difference... but thats not what we are arguing here.

So what you are telling me, is that The 3.73EE and the Prescott 2MB is the Exact Same Chip.... Just the EE has a Lower Latency Cache ?

I just want to make sure this is the Fact i am leaving this thread with.
 
I'm not trying to make enemies here. I just want everyone to realize that the 3.73EE and the 6xx series are not EXACTLY the same. I think we have made a step in the right direction here.

No one is arguing about the price-to-performance ratio...I think we all agree that the new EE series is not worth the extra cost.

We are also not trying the start and AMD vs. Intel war. They each have their strong and weak suits. We all know what they are. The choice is always on a case-by-case basis? What's more important, multitasking? encoding? balls-to-the-wall game performance? benchmarking? costs? reliability? ease of use? etc.
 
Gallatin (older EE) are still the best in my book. I'm sure others see it another way but for now thats how I feel. If you are lucky enuff to run it at the newer speeds 3.7+ then you will be happy no matter what.
 
freecableguy said:
I'm not trying to make enemies here. I just want everyone to realize that the 3.73EE and the 6xx series are not EXACTLY the same. I think we have made a step in the right direction here.

No one is arguing about the price-to-performance ratio...I think we all agree that the new EE series is not worth the extra cost.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll admit they are NOT EXACTLY the same thing.

One has 3.73EE laser etched on it... one has... ;)

But I think they ARE THE SAME EXACT CHIP/ CORE/ STEPPING. Just different lasering to enable a different multiplier & FSB programming.

Masks are expensive. Thats why they create as few as possible that can be used for different things, all they have to do is cut 1 or 2 transistor paths. Bam, you get a Celeron, P4, etc... (not saying current Celerons & 600/EE's share the same core, though the Celeron D does share the same core with an original Prescott 1Mb)

And there MIGHT be some slight latencies differences. But there needs to be more testing to further prove or disprove this. I personally think IF there is any difference its in the way the chipset/BIOS is handling the EE, vs and OC'd bus of the 600.

And Redefined does think the EE rocks in every way. As his multiple posts indicate. Asking when & where he can buy one. I point him to an ebay chip selling for well under retail, but he didnt bid on it. And just in general spouting off about how wonderful it is like a noob.

My whole point is the 600 series makes the EE a retard product in its current incarnation. (3.73EE) It needs a bigger cache, like the 4MB or 8B of the current XEONs. (4x the P4, just like the Gallatin was 4x the Northwood)

Or at least when dual core chips come out. The EE's will have HT, which is a major difference compared to an "OC'd bus"
 
The new EE is pathetic. The old EE (3.4) beats it in lots of benchmarks. Around here, buying an extreme edition won't get you bragging rights. It will get you a fair amount of ridicule for wasting your money, though.

Buy whatever makes you happy. But don't buy a chip to impress people on a forum, because if you buy an EE, you're going to get the exact opposite affect.
 
chrisf6969 said:
Well, I'll admit they are NOT EXACTLY the same thing.

One has 3.73EE laser etched on it... one has... ;)

But I think they ARE THE SAME EXACT CHIP/ CORE/ STEPPING. Just different lasering to enable a different multiplier & FSB programming.

Masks are expensive. Thats why they create as few as possible that can be used for different things, all they have to do is cut 1 or 2 transistor paths. Bam, you get a Celeron, P4, etc... (not saying current Celerons & 600/EE's share the same core, though the Celeron D does share the same core with an original Prescott 1Mb)

And there MIGHT be some slight latencies differences. But there needs to be more testing to further prove or disprove this. I personally think IF there is any difference its in the way the chipset/BIOS is handling the EE, vs and OC'd bus of the 600.

And Redefined does think the EE rocks in every way. As his multiple posts indicate. Asking when & where he can buy one. I point him to an ebay chip selling for well under retail, but he didnt bid on it. And just in general spouting off about how wonderful it is like a noob.

My whole point is the 600 series makes the EE a retard product in its current incarnation. (3.73EE) It needs a bigger cache, like the 4MB or 8B of the current XEONs. (4x the P4, just like the Gallatin was 4x the Northwood)

Or at least when dual core chips come out. The EE's will have HT, which is a major difference compared to an "OC'd bus"
Click to expand...

ROFL, you never showed me a 3.73EE on ebay. lol if you did, i would of bid on it ASAP.
 
I am an Intel Guy.. But Intel has dissapointed me.

The Dual Core A64's are looking to be very attractive
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
The Dual Core A64's are looking to be very attractive
Click to expand...
as will the yonah (that is the p-m with dual core, right? i forget now)

cableguy, i'm not questioning what you say, i just want to know out of curiosity's sake, exactly what differences are there between the 3.73EE and 660 other than fsb, speed and EIST?
 
cableguy, i'm not questioning what you say, i just want to know out of curiosity's sake, exactly what differences are there between the 3.73EE and 660 other than fsb, speed and EIST?
Click to expand...

Its like asking the difference between Red, and Fire Truck Red....
 
that's kinda what i'm gathering. i don't understand all this about different cache latencies. that was back in the day of the old EE with a L3 cache. now all the cache is L2, so it should be exactly the same as the 660, plus the speed advantage
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top