Prescott v. Extreme Edition

Akasha · Post by **Akasha** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:48 am

Which one would you all prefer? Prescott, or the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz HT EE?

I personally would wait for Prescott, or build a computer with a 64-bit CPU and OS. I looked at SharkyExtreme, and they built a system with The P4 Extreme Edition. It just seems to me that Extreme Edition is just short-lived marketing junk.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:52 pm

Hmmmm. I just cancelled my Prescott order, and went for a standard P4. Recent reports on the 'net indicate Prescott has a pipeline that may be 35 instructions deep!!! This will mean that using todays apps, at the release-speeds, Prescott will be slower than Pentium 4.

The Prescott process is apparently an optimal design for a core running at 4GHz+, but until the speeds ramp that high, they will be slower, clock-for-clock, than a regular Northwood P4.

I think the P4EE chip is fine if you have more money than brains, or you desperately need a life.

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:56 pm

And Mobius sayeth "Let there be light" and he saw that it was good

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:15 pm

I dont think the P4EE would be a very good investment, in fact, I dont think you could possibly get much worse.

I was under the impression that the P4EE is a dead end marketing chip. Prescott might be a little early in the game, and a 35 stage pipeline is insane (anyone got any conformation on that?). But if true then the low end versions of the chip should prove to be exceptional overclockers.

As for the 64 bit processor, its not really needed yet, I think the 64 bit boat is still over a year off. So its not like a big emergency that you will need 64 bit support and soon. On the other hand the existing 32 bit support on the Athlon 64 is exceptional, clock for clock nothing else comes close. The big issue here is that the Athlon 64 NEEDS to ramp up the clock speed or AMD will end up scratching at the scraps left over by the 4 GHz Intels.

AMD has a knockout budget chip in the Barton core Athlon XP, but if they want the mid range and high end market share they need to get those clocks up.

The P4 Northwood's days are numbered, but the 2.4-2.8 GHz versions are excellent mid range processors that wont break the budget and most likely will overclock more then a little bit (but probably not as much as my 77.2% Athlon XP

).

In short, if you read my opinion, everything high end is almost always garbage.

-Krom

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:34 pm

GASP - SPLUTTER!!111

KROM IS RIGHT!

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:11 pm

I've also seen numerous reports about the 30+ instruction pipe. Zdnet and The Reg. Throw in the 100watts or heat and I wouldn't bother with it... The P4EEs are supposedly just Xeon chips rebadged. I wouldn't be suprised if the Xeons are actually cheaper...

<font face="Arial" size="3">"It will have a larger pipeline," the Intel representative said. "The larger the pipeline, you can do less work per clock and speed up the processor."</font>

ROTFLOLLMAOKTHXBYE!!2! It's all about the clock speed! **** the performance!

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:53 am

Krom, I'm not so sure about that.
AMD plans to release an Athlon 64 4000 to compete with Intel's P4 4.0GHz. It's clocked at 2.6GHz, but the onboard memory controller is where the boost comes in. But if you can't wait for the end of this year. I would go with the Athlon 64 3400 Socket 939. It comes out Q2 04 with 2.2GHz and 512KB of Cache 2. Plus it has a dual channel DDR memory controller unlike the Socket 754 chips which have single channel memory controllers. If you are asking why this and the Socket 754 version both have the same number yet this one has half the Cache 2, the answer is found in the dual channel memory controller. Also, according to some tests I have seen with the Athlon 64 3400 and the Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE, the Athlon 64 3400 beats it 10/17 tests. And with the new Socket 939, you won't have to worry about getting a new mobo until 2006 when the K9s ship out. And since it is from AMD, it will be extremely inexpensive when you compare it to the P4 3.2GHz EE which costs close to 1K.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:27 pm

A 4000 rating on a 2.6 GHz chip, thats just like the Barton 2.2s 3200+ rating WRONG!

Seriously, AMD just needs to get a 3 GHz Athlon 64 out, slap a 4000+ label on it, and tell Intel to eat their dust.

-Krom

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:30 pm

Word.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:51 pm

That aint gonna happen any time soon. AMD need a mature 90nm process to do that.