I was heckbent on an Athlon X2, but the 9xx series is newer and cheaper

[Duke3d87]

Yes, but according to CrazyCurl earlier in this thread:

if that's the case why is Intel updating it's Presler chips in the middle of the year that supports the power saving features if it's just a bios update?

 

[steviep]

True. But my question... why isn't it in there already? Or IS it in there already? lol
Anyone who works for Intel?

 

[Duke3d87]

poncho does. The general belief is that Intel could not get the power saving modes to work properly and so didn't include it.

 

[ND40oz]

Personally, I could care less about the power saving features. I'll be overclocking the chip anyway and most likely i'm buying a 920 or 930, which clock down from uh...2.8 to 2.8 and 3.0 to 2.8, how much power savings are you really likely to see?

Hopefully, if these 65 nm chips live up to the hype, we won't have to worry about thermal throttling, although that is a nice feature that could theoretically save your chip.

I, for one, am more interested in the vt technology on these chips, can't wait for the xeons to get it.

 

[steviep]

It's not even about overclocking your chip... When my PC is just sitting there and doing nothing (it's on 24/7, often doing nothing but serving) it would be nice if it downclocked itself to not only save power, but keep your case cooler.

 

[ND40oz]

The thing is, when the p4 and pD chips clock down, they only clock down to a 14 multiplier. It's not like a pentium m which clocks down to a 6 multiplier. If you buy a 520, 620, 820 processor they already don't support eist because they're capped a a 14 multiplier to begin with. The fact is, clocking down from a 17,16 or 15 multiplier to a 14 multiplier is not going to save that much power in the big grand scheme of things. If it significantly lowered the voltage and lowered the multiplier into the single digits like the pentium m, then you would see power savings.

 

[robberbaron]

Presler has at least a 13x multi. The 955 EE runs at 13x266.

 

[Donnie27]

You haven't seen the 965 boards yet.... and trust me, 975 will be the clear winner for the next 1 1/2+ years. I am not a fan of 965.

As for EE's..... I agree that they are over priced, but they have their niche market and it makes intel money. The average consumer won't appreciate that chip, nor will the "overclocker" market. But there are always people willing to buy the best..... and it's smarter to let those people buy them at a premium then allowing that piece of silicon to go to the soccer mom who just bought a new puter.

You are 100% correct, I've NOT seen 965 yet. I have dealth with Intel since the 286 days and if nothing else, they are consistant. They list 965 with Conroe and 985 with Conroe XE, not 955 or 975. Sure, I'm 90% sure it will work. I'm 100% sure i965X will work, will ship with ICH8, even better DMI and etc...

These current board cost way too much to chance. So Intel needs to do two things to keep from drawing the ire of folks in this market.
1. Come right out and say. Folks, Chipset X doesn't work or works with Processor Y.
2. Keep giving clear signals like they did with i875/i865 and 800MHz.

#2 gave folks confidence and Intel sales were great. If there weren't mixed messages about compat or not, then the friggen' i975-i955X prices wouldn't be so high. That open Intel won a lot of folks over. This shussin', not saying anything is dumb IMHO.

Moral, the press should be better than this. Sadly, it isn't. The merest hint of research would have shot so many holes in this conspiracy even the rabid !!!!!!s wouldn't have brought it up in forum posts. Move on to something real people. µ

The Game in-Box ads are a lie;

POWER UP. TAKE CONTROL

You Game Hard. You play to win. You expect nothing lesss from your processor. Choose the Technology that gives you the edge. At Intel, we give you the perfomance you need to game on.

I got it out of Call Of Duty 2 or Brothers In Arms, Earned In Blood.

That's like AMD running ads about the AthlonXP being a great Multi-Media beast.

Donnie27

 

[steviep]

Hmm... well I just don't like the fact that my new CPU would be "missing features" that would be added in its second run later this year... know what I mean?

 

[Down8]

well, according to Intel, it does not have it. I noticed it a while ago when i was looking for the 9xx series. With it enabled, it should decrease power consumption by 15 watts (so i hear) which apparently is enough for Intel to launch a 3.6 GHz Presler.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/body_view_pd.htm

This one says all but the 820 do have EIST.

-bZj

 

[steviep]

Read the fine print

‡ Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology for specified units of this processor will be available in the 2nd quarter of 2006. See the Processor Spec Finder at http://processorfinder.intel.com or contact your Intel representative for more information.

 

[KevC]

Read the fine print

Yeppp...

http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...=1039&PkgType=7021&SysBusSpd=6107&CorSpd=5467

These parts do NOT support Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology, Enhanced HALT State, or Thermal Monitor 2.

 

[Parmenides]

more back on subject, how do you think the P 940 D sizes up against the AMD 3800 for gaming? Do you think it will be close? It is a cheaper choice.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Holy old thread batman I think the OP made his decision a long time ago.

 

[jvrobert]

You haven't seen the 965 boards yet.... and trust me, 975 will be the clear winner for the next 1 1/2+ years. I am not a fan of 965.

Why specifically do you say that? All indications are that the 965 will be the performance part for Conroe despite the lower model #.

 

[Poncho]

Why specifically do you say that? All indications are that the 965 will be the performance part for Conroe despite the lower model #.

Let me clarify a bit. 965 in the first 6 months I would rather go with 975, 965 in 6 months or so might be a different story. This is from a "enthusist standpoint" mind you.