Which Processor excites your the most?

[Dan_D]

This is for Intel users obviously. No AMD talk is needed on this one. I'm just curious if anyone will be buying a 3.74EE or a 660.

Personally I like the new 3.74EE, but I think the 3.6GHz 660 is the best buy as it's got everything the EE has except the clock speed and bus increase.

I simply dropped my multiplier and set my system to the 1066MHz bus and BAM there it was.

So I don't think the EE is worth it. Thoughts?

 

[iddqd]

Whatever replaces Dothan.

 

[pxc]

I think i'll be sticking with my 3.4F until 2006. It already has EM64T and it's an 84W core.

iddqd: You mean the dual core Dothan named Yonah? :drool:

 

[Winchester1897]

none of them i want to seem how dual core cpu's will turn out

 

[Dan_D]

Wow I am surprised to see so many like the 3.74EE. It lacks the throttling functions of the 600 series and it has the same amount of L2 cache. So other than a slight clock speed increase and a 1066FSB it's the same thing.

 

[lithium726]

honestly, none of those really excite me, with the extra cache the latency was pushed up and they just dont give the performance i was hoping for from another 1mb of L2

im looking forward to seeing what intel does with dothan and dual core

 

[Jonsey]

Wow I am surprised to see so many like the 3.74EE. It lacks the throttling functions of the 600 series and it has the same amount of L2 cache. So other than a slight clock speed increase and a 1066FSB it's the same thing.

I'm unimpressed. The new EE gets beat by the old 3.46 in many tests, that's just sad. Not worth an upgrade from my D0 550. Although I would like to try a new 660 just to see how it overclocks. Lots of reviews are showing low 4 GHz overclocks on the stock heatsink. I bet 4.5 wouldn't be too hard with decent watercooling.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

if forced to pick one, i'd say one of the lower speed 6x0's..
i'm personally a fan of the dothan, however... i don't like it's lack of performance in the multimedia based applications. seems awesome for a quiet server/backup gaming rig though

 

[MalfurionStormrage]

I'm in all likelihood going to be picking up a 3.2F (630?). Second best bang for the buck in the 64-bit region and a potential nice in-between processor to fill in the gap until the dual-core chips and chipsets get in at a reasonable price.

Matching this with a good 915/DDR2 board should be enough juice to keep you going for another 18 months or so.

<Aside> I know that you said no AMD talk, but the reason why I am picking up the Intel is not for the chip, but for the chipset. I really like AMD processors; I really hate the sub-standard chipsets that saddle the AMD platform for PCI Express.

 

[Dan_D]

I'm unimpressed. The new EE gets beat by the old 3.46 in many tests, that's just sad. Not worth an upgrade from my D0 550. Although I would like to try a new 660 just to see how it overclocks. Lots of reviews are showing low 4 GHz overclocks on the stock heatsink. I bet 4.5 wouldn't be too hard with decent watercooling.

I was thinking about that too. I was also thinking about getting a 3.46EE and OC'ing that. Good old Northwood/Gallatin style core. Although I wouldn't get as high MHz wise, it would probably be a better match for the FX55 if I could get it to around the same speed my current setup is. I don't think 3.73 for a 3.46EE is impossible with the right cooling.

By the same token though, I could probably break 4GHz with a 3.74EE much easier.

 

[Laforge]

I don't like your multiple choice

If it were free, i'd say the 3.74 EE

but the most exciting concept for me is dual core, EMT64 enabled (or, dual core opterons...)

 

[ImLazZzy]

This is for Intel users obviously. No AMD talk is needed on this one. I'm just curious if anyone will be buying a 3.74EE or a 660.

Personally I like the new 3.74EE, but I think the 3.6GHz 660 is the best buy as it's got everything the EE has except the clock speed and bus increase.

I simply dropped my multiplier and set my system to the 1066MHz bus and BAM there it was.

So I don't think the EE is worth it. Thoughts?

no, no turnons, not yet....

64-bit ---> software support any1?
XD-bit ----> the new crop of viruses won't even use buffer overun....
SpeedStep, C1E --> why would I want my proc to run @2.8 considering its a $600 3.6??
only b/c these new chips still run as hot as hell??!!

BAH! Intle eat my @#$%....

 

[Dan_D]

no, no turnons, not yet....

64-bit ---> software support any1?
XD-bit ----> the new crop of viruses won't even use buffer overun....
SpeedStep, C1E --> why would I want my proc to run @2.8 considering its a $600 3.6??
only b/c these new chips still run as hot as hell??!!

BAH! Intle eat my @#$%....

64-bit ---> software support any1? (Umm the same can be said for AMD 64's. )
XD-bit ----> the new crop of viruses won't even use buffer overun.... (The same thing can be said for AMD 64's)
SpeedStep, C1E --> I've seen this run on Xeon's and this doesn't hurt anything. Reducing ambient heat and power consumption isn't bad when the processor is idle. Also Intel didn't include that feature in the 3.74EE. Which is a nice. While the processor usage is down so is heat and fan speeds. Not a bad thing at all, especially for media center PC's.

AMD !!!!!!isms weren't asked for and weren't needed.

At least Intel never marketted the XD bit as "Built in virus protection." Which was a crock of shit. I've actually had a customer come into my work and tell me that they're systems were having problems that sound virus like. When I ask them about Anti-virus one customer said "I don't need it, I removed it because my AMD 64 processor has it built in."

I'm not joking either. AMD's can eat my @$$.

 

[Redefined]

well all extreme editions excite me

 

[jonneymendoza]

i got a northwood 3.4ghz old but still pretty good for what iw ant, but i wont upgrade till i see a 4.4ghz proccessor and when the new operating systems come out

 

[chrisf6969]

well all extreme editions excite me

You have been littering the whole forum with your EE fanaticism. (FS: threads, etc...)

Get a grip. EE's are worthless now that the 600 series came out.

THEY HAVE THE SAME CACHE.
THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY SEPARATED IT BEFORE.

The higher FSB is easily attainable with many other processors.

I've been running at 1200Mhz FSB for almost 2 years now.

I'd much rather get a 630 (3Ghz) and Overclock it to 4Ghz at 1066FSB.

EX:
P4 EE 3.73
Sisoft cpu: 11,129 MIPS -- 7755 MFLOPS
Sisoft mem: 6568/6525

I've been hitting those #'s with my 2.4C @ 3.6Ghz for ages....
sisoft CPU: 11,000mips -- 8100 mflops
sisoft mem: 6000/6000

Ok the ram isnt quite as high, but not bad for 2 year old DDR400 and 512Kb L2 cache.

 

[ImLazZzy]

64-bit ---> software support any1? (Umm the same can be said for AMD 64's. )
XD-bit ----> the new crop of viruses won't even use buffer overun.... (The same thing can be said for AMD 64's)
SpeedStep, C1E --> I've seen this run on Xeon's and this doesn't hurt anything. Reducing ambient heat and power consumption isn't bad when the processor is idle. Also Intel didn't include that feature in the 3.74EE. Which is a nice. While the processor usage is down so is heat and fan speeds. Not a bad thing at all, especially for media center PC's.

AMD !!!!!!isms weren't asked for and weren't needed.

At least Intel never marketted the XD bit as "Built in virus protection." Which was a crock of shit. I've actually had a customer come into my work and tell me that they're systems were having problems that sound virus like. When I ask them about Anti-virus one customer said "I don't need it, I removed it because my AMD 64 processor has it built in."

I'm not joking either. AMD's can eat my @$$.

Yes, you can say the same to AMD64 except they run a lot cooler. We all know cooln'quiet together with C1E is CR** while NO, you got it all wrong! I was comparing the new chips to their predecessors, namely, 5xx, Prescotts, and Northwoods, of course. Did I mention AMD at all? Get this straight -- the new 6xx series costs 25%-50% more for what? 2MB cache? And? SpeedStep? Come on! give me a break... Let me say this again - I have nothing against 6xx goers and know everybody thinks if you say sth against Intel, then you are an AMD !!!!!!. That's so not true! I still prefer Intel chips but Im just irritated abt they keep churning out crap to squzzeee our wallets for nothing at all/a little to be fair(but so out of proportion to prices). how long have we been waiting on cooler procs from Intel? Boy! A friend of mine just installed a 660 days ago and it still almost went up t flames...SpeedStep eat Dlr+ on my @$$. Again, thank you for your opinions ... if anyone finds this post offensive, sry, I didn't mean to....

 

[FreiDOg]

What really excites me?
Constant rumors of Pentium M desktops.

The new 2.13/533FSB parts are looking good. less power than my 35W 2200+ and will hand my AXPM desktop it's ass given the chance.
one of the nice Zalman heatpipe VGA coolers, couple of the nice and quiet Seagate HDDs and I've got a screaming gaming machine with no noise.


Of these, mabye the low end 600 series, if they overclock well they might be interesting, but honestly, I'm not realy intrested in any of these chips. Even if they manage to nudge out a few A64's in gaming, they're still space heaters and power hogs.

 

[ImLazZzy]

SpeedStep/TM2/C1E, they only take care of the two ends of the spectrum. When the proc is idle, OK, you get lower temps and when it throttles, you get lower frequncies. All useless Band-As. That sh** needs to be overhauled Intel!

 

[ImLazZzy]

What really excites me?
Constant rumors of Pentium M desktops.

The new 2.13/533FSB parts are looking good. less power than my 35W 2200+ and will hand my AXPM desktop it's ass given the chance.
one of the nice Zalman heatpipe VGA coolers, couple of the nice and quiet Seagate HDDs and I've got a screaming gaming machine with no noise.


Of these, mabye the low end 600 series, if they overclock well they might be interesting, but honestly, I'm not realy intrested in any of these chips. Even if they manage to nudge out a few A64's in gaming, they're still space heaters and power hogs.

They nudge out A64's in gaming? After four sub generations(northy, pressy, 5xx, 6xx), AMD still beats Intel when it comes to gaming thanks to the integrated mem controller. Did anybody mention that you need to keep an eye on temps when gaming with your *HOT* Intel rig? And don't get so excited that your gonna burn down the house. Nothwood is a keeper tho...

 

[Dan_D]

They nudge out A64's in gaming? After four sub generations(northy, pressy, 5xx, 6xx), AMD still beats Intel when it comes to gaming thanks to the integrated mem controller. Did anybody mention that you need to keep an eye on temps when gaming with your *HOT* Intel rig? And don't get so excited that your gonna burn down the house. Nothwood is a keeper tho...

Um I don't feel the need to monitor my temps. The Prescott is hot, but if it becomes dangerously so it throttles down on its own. You'll know it too when the performance dives. The vast majority of Prescott gamers do not have this problem.

So what if it runs hot. It was built that way and it can handle it. I would prefer a cooler running chip as overclocking would become easier. But by no means should the heat at stock speeds be considered a hinderance. As it generally isn't.

Yes, you can say the same to AMD64 except they run a lot cooler. We all know cooln'quiet together with C1E is CR** while NO, you got it all wrong! I was comparing the new chips to their predecessors, namely, 5xx, Prescotts, and Northwoods, of course. Did I mention AMD at all? Get this straight -- the new 6xx series costs 25%-50% more for what? 2MB cache? And? SpeedStep? Come on! give me a break... Let me say this again - I have nothing against 6xx goers and know everybody thinks if you say sth against Intel, then you are an AMD !!!!!!. That's so not true! I still prefer Intel chips but Im just irritated abt they keep churning out crap to squzzeee our wallets for nothing at all/a little to be fair(but so out of proportion to prices). how long have we been waiting on cooler procs from Intel? Boy! A friend of mine just installed a 660 days ago and it still almost went up t flames...SpeedStep eat Dlr+ on my @$$. Again, thank you for your opinions ... if anyone finds this post offensive, sry, I didn't mean to....

Larger cache makes a huge difference in processor cost. Speedstep is just something for less power and cooler processors at idle.

At best such things are a marketting tool and have no real tangible value to the end user. Not in a desktop anyway.

I for one am glad for the cost. While I like the 3.74EE I think it's kind of a waste compared to the other processors. What I do like is the 1066MHz FSB and that's what Intel should have done with all 600 series processors. Since the cache is the same as the 600 series it doesn't hold that much bennifit over the 600 series and a 1066 bus hardly is a justifiable reason for almost twice the cost. Even with the slight clock speed advantage over the 3.6. The enthusiest can easily do what I did with my processor and drop the multiplier on an Abit or Asus board and switch to the 1066FSB. And there you've got the same thing as the EE.

What Intel should have done was include a gargantuan 3 or 4MB L2 cache to the processor. Leave out Speedstep (which they did) and then we'd have something really worthwhile.

 

[chrisf6969]

What Intel should have done was include a gargantuan 3 or 4MB L2 cache to the processor. Leave out Speedstep (which they did) and then we'd have something really worthwhile.

Maybe by 2006 when they upgrade the Xeons to dual core, they might make one with a 4Mb cache (2Mb per core) that they'll carry over to the EE brand. (and HT = 4 threads!)

 

[wtburnette]

I can't vote as I don't see anything that makes me want to move from my P4 3.2C

 

[FreiDOg]

They nudge out A64's in gaming? After four sub generations(northy, pressy, 5xx, 6xx), AMD still beats Intel when it comes to gaming thanks to the integrated mem controller. Did anybody mention that you need to keep an eye on temps when gaming with your *HOT* Intel rig? And don't get so excited that your gonna burn down the house. Nothwood is a keeper tho...

I said if they mangae to nudge out the A64s,
I haven't' seen any of the low end stuff, comperable to the 3000/3200+ S939 chips, which lets face, aren't exaclty the best performing chips in their class. (S754 of comperable ghz knock them off pretty easy).
If a 660 is splitting the gap between a 560 and a 3800+, the low end 6xx chips might make a decent run at the low and S939 chips, depending on relative overclocking and price points these could spur some nice competition done in lower end of the CPU spectrum.
I haven't seen anything yet that's going to knock off a 4000+ or 4200+, but most people aren't buying $600 CPUs, so the 6xx series can still be a nice competitor.

 

[Dan_D]

Well I'd really like a 3.46GHz EE or a 3.74EE. While I do have the money for this I don't think that they are worth thier price over the 660. I'd rather invest in better video cards with the difference I save cash wise.

 

[ImLazZzy]

Um I don't feel the need to monitor my temps. The Prescott is hot, but if it becomes dangerously so it throttles down on its own. You'll know it too when the performance dives. The vast majority of Prescott gamers do not have this problem

I was just saying gaming with A64 is more likely trouble free. when it throttles or the system reoots, the performance suffers as well as your gaming experience. Imagine in the middle of a shooting fest during a session of CS and you are about to kick some guy's butt, then suddenly the game becomes sluggish or even worse, the screen goes off. In a general sense, procs being hot is no good at all.

So what if it runs hot. It was built that way and it can handle it. I would prefer a cooler running chip as overclocking would become easier. But by no means should the heat at stock speeds be considered a hinderance. As it generally isn't.

maybe the end users can tolerate the heat issue but in a general sense, it's no good at all. whether it would become a hinderance or not depends on how you use it.

Larger cache makes a huge difference in processor cost...

but it doesn't make that much difference in performance and they still think we should pay for it, how do you justify that?

I for one am glad for the cost.

well...by paying more for something you can get cheaper and everything else you don't really think worthy such as SpeedStep? I don't get it unless you are saying no matter what crap Intel produces, you would take it and never mind the prices.

What Intel should have done was include a gargantuan 3 or 4MB L2 cache to the processor. Leave out Speedstep (which they did) and then we'd have something really worthwhile.

what Intel really should have done is to ditch the prescott architecture or at least redesign it reducing the number of pipelines which is the source of overheating. That way, the throttling control machenism wouldn't be necessary and the proc could cost a lot less too.
I remember A64's used to have only 512K cache but they beat those 1Mb Prescotts. Now they bring in 2Mb but still won't make a difference. You see the problem here? The integrated mem controller is much more effecient than just simply putting more mem in.

 

[ImLazZzy]

I said if they mangae to nudge out the A64s,
I haven't' seen any of the low end stuff, comperable to the 3000/3200+ S939 chips, which lets face, aren't exaclty the best performing chips in their class. (S754 of comperable ghz knock them off pretty easy).
If a 660 is splitting the gap between a 560 and a 3800+, the low end 6xx chips might make a decent run at the low and S939 chips, depending on relative overclocking and price points these could spur some nice competition done in lower end of the CPU spectrum.
I haven't seen anything yet that's going to knock off a 4000+ or 4200+, but most people aren't buying $600 CPUs, so the 6xx series can still be a nice competitor.

what's your point? Take a look at the price list --
"P4 670 (EM64T) 3.8GHz N/A ($851 when it comes out)
P4 660 (EM64T) 3.6GHz $605
P4 650 (EM64T) 3.4GHz $401
P4 640 (EM64T) 3.2GHz $273
P4 630 (EM64T) 3.0GHz $224"
A64 3500+ only costs $260 and it beats pretty much all of them (in gaming). A64 3400+ beats 650 and the below, which costs only $190 now. The only selling/redeeming point for Intel is the hyper-threading functionality, along with solid chipsets and some vague reputations which are already at stake.

 

[iddqd]

Hmm, I would have got a Dothan, but they didn't have any good board at the time (the Aopen and DFI with their DDR333 single channel bus and AGP4x are not what I have in mind). Now Intel is finally coming out with a good chipset for Pentium-M's ... but I already got this A64 rig. Oh well.

 

[knightshade]

Have been running a P3 933 since they came out..Have just gone to the 640 on an Asus P5P800 board which incorporates thier version of AI NOS. Set it to a 30% boost as needed for load. So far this thing flies no problems with heat (thermaltake jungle 512) not to mention 7 80mm case fans. Needed an upgrade badly and this one was the best bang and will do wonderfully till the next time. When bought the 933 wasnt anything for desktops close within 2 years a doorstop..Next big change is just a couple ??? away

 

[pxc]

"P4 670 (EM64T) 3.8GHz N/A ($851 when it comes out)
P4 660 (EM64T) 3.6GHz $605
P4 650 (EM64T) 3.4GHz $401
P4 640 (EM64T) 3.2GHz $273
P4 630 (EM64T) 3.0GHz $224"

I remember posting that a while ago. I recognized it because that's that way I write tables and comments. It's scary when I look up something on yahoo or google and it takes me back to an old [H] post I made.

 

[JetUsafMech]

what's your point? Take a look at the price list --
"P4 670 (EM64T) 3.8GHz N/A ($851 when it comes out)
P4 660 (EM64T) 3.6GHz $605
P4 650 (EM64T) 3.4GHz $401
P4 640 (EM64T) 3.2GHz $273
P4 630 (EM64T) 3.0GHz $224"
A64 3500+ only costs $260 and it beats pretty much all of them (in gaming). A64 3400+ beats 650 and the below, which costs only $190 now. The only selling/redeeming point for Intel is the hyper-threading functionality, along with solid chipsets and some vague reputations which are already at stake.

You did say "vague reputations", correct?

 

[ImLazZzy]

I remember posting that a while ago. I recognized it because that's that way I write tables and comments. It's scary when I look up something on yahoo or google and it takes me back to an old [H] post I made.

Yes, I cited from one of your posts. It just came in handy at that time. Sorry that I didn't mention the source but I did use the quotation marks. Thanks for the list.

 

[ImLazZzy]

You did say "vague reputations", correct?

Um...anything wrong?

 

[JetUsafMech]

No, I'm just curious as to what "vague reputations" you are refering to.

 

[ImLazZzy]

Well, we all know Intel has been around for quite a while posing as DE industry leader for making processors. Back to the *mediaeval ages* when Cyrix was still alive and kicking, Intel was known for its platform stability. It's also so transparent that Intel has been making short-sighted decisions and simple-minded mistakes one after another ever since they started going down on this *pure speed* path. They finally realized the rooftop was in sight so they started backing out and *putting more features in* as a lame afterthought. They think they are so big that no one could resist nmw they offer or ppl are all dopes and would definitely buy their spin with no questions asked so they blatantly put heavy price tags on their 6xx chips. They must know adding more cache wouldn't do much better but they still did it anyway. Why? It's a desperate move and nasty business trick. I am not saying P4 is a complete flop.Nothy was actually a good start while everything changed when Intel decided to add more pipelines wanting pressy to hit 4GHz and beyond. Things could have been A LOT better. Anyone who was observing the transitions from P3 to P4 on the Intel side and AXP to A64 on the AMD side would see AMD started to outperform Intel as a better proc designer with better products long time ago!

 

[Teukka76]

Pentium-M, if they only could get the i915GM boards out...

 

[darktiger]

Dual core A64 processor...

 

[wtburnette]

Ya gotta love how the AMD people just have to come in here and pimp AMD, in the INTEL forum...

 

[ImLazZzy]

Ya gotta love how the AMD people just have to come in here and pimp AMD, in the INTEL forum...

First off, this is not an Intel forum. I guess you were trying to say thread. We forgive you. In the Intel forum, we don't always have to *pimp* Intel and trash AMD do we? If you are so opinionated that you'd take nmw CR#$ Intel dumps on you with full euphoria, well, like I said, some ppl just do that so again, we forgive you but know this: We are not AMD ppl.

 

[wtburnette]

First off, this is not an Intel forum. I guess you were trying to say thread. We forgive you. In the Intel forum, we don't always have to *pimp* Intel and trash AMD do we? If you are so opinionated that you'd take nmw CR#$ Intel dumps on you with full euphoria, well, like I said, some ppl just do that so again, we forgive you but know this: We are not AMD ppl.

It's a thread in the Intel Processors forum, isn't it? Or am I missing something?

If you see what I posted before, you'll see I'm running a P4C, not exactly taking whatever crap Intel dishes out. The Northwood is a pretty decent version of the P4, even if it isn't as good as an Athlon64. My comment about pimping AMD refers to this:

This is for Intel users obviously. No AMD talk is needed on this one. I'm just curious if anyone will be buying a 3.74EE or a 660.

The starter of this thread says he's not looking for AMD talk. So why is there discussion of that at all? Pretty pointless if you ask me. He's not looking to be converted, he's asking about what people think is better between those choices. Anything else, even my own post about my northwood, is pretty much off topic. For my part I apologize about that...

BTW, that post was mainly in response to this anyway:

Dual core A64 processor...