• What's the big deal over P4 Extremes?
    93 replies, posted
Anyone else read the thread title in Seinfeld's voice?
hipsters builidng computers
[QUOTE=AxisofIdiocy;27053011]hipsters builidng computers[/QUOTE] Yeah I did, a couple months ago :colbert:
[QUOTE=n0cturni;27038535]I don't get it. A car that goes 150 mph is a car that goes 150 mph which means they get the same performance in terms of speed. :iiaca:[/QUOTE] It's a dumb analogy that doesn't make sense made by a dumb poster, ignore him.
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;27043900]But people will go "oh pffft a low end C2D CPU" than a "WOAHHHHH AN EXTREME HIGH END CPU FROM 2005"[/QUOTE] My Low end C2D can kick the ass of i3's and i5's still. 4.5Ghz E5300 has served me well since I paid the $45 for it.
[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;27064065]My Low end C2D can kick the ass of i3's and i5's still. 4.5Ghz E5300 has served me well since I paid the $45 for it.[/QUOTE] Haha no.
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;27064308]Haha no.[/QUOTE] I didn't specify how it kicked ass, price to performance its better. A C2D at 4.5Ghz will beat an i3 at stock frequencies. i5 not so much.
[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;27064403]I didn't specify how it kicked ass, price to performance its better. A C2D at 4.5Ghz will beat an i3 at stock frequencies. i5 not so much.[/QUOTE] proof [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] Also, i3 is not one single CPU.
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;27064444]proof [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] Also, i3 is not one single CPU.[/QUOTE] I am aware that i3 is a dual core. [url=http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/144?vs=54] Benchmarks of E8600 vs i3 650.[/url] You can see that the two are close to each other performance wise and thats a C2D at 3.33Ghz not 4.5Ghz.
[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;27064526]I am aware that i3 is a dual core. [url=http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/144?vs=54] Benchmarks of E8600 vs i3 650.[/url] You can see that the two are close to each other performance wise and thats a C2D at 3.33Ghz not 4.5Ghz.[/QUOTE] E5300 is a Pentium dual core which doesn't even come close to the performance of the highest end Core 2 Duo...
[QUOTE=Odellus;27065551]E5300 is a Pentium dual core which doesn't even come close to the performance of the highest end Core 2 Duo...[/QUOTE] The difference between an E8600 and an E5300 at 4.5Ghz is minimal. The difference is cache size.
[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;27065650]The difference between an E8600 and an E5300 at 4.5Ghz is minimal. The difference is cache size.[/QUOTE] Proof? They're two completely different architectures. I'm sure the difference is more than minimal.
[QUOTE=gparent;27040059]Let's stop defending the absolutely terrible car analogy, please? He shouldn't have said that in the first place. It's wrong, and doesn't prove his point at all (in fact, he's even discrediting himself by saying that) Simply because what n0cturni said: A car that does 150mph is a car that does 150mph. Period. They aren't slower miles per hour than another make and model's miles per hour. It's a common measurement applicable to all cars. Clock speed, however, is not. Which is what he was trying to say (sadly), but didn't convey very well.[/QUOTE] The car analogy works perfectly if you compare clock speed to engine RPM. A car running at 5k RPM will reach its destination faster than one of the same model at 1k RPM. A different car running at 1k RPM might get there faster than the 5k RPM one because it has a better engine.
[QUOTE=Alcapwne;26993950]the OC ability shouldn't affect price because even if you can get a single 7GHz core it doesn't beat a quad 3GHz processor which you can probably buy for about the same price[/QUOTE] But it probably costs more since the availability is not so good. Can also be that a high binned single core costs more to produce than a low binned quad, even though it's worse. [editline]30th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Legend286;27040377]Couldn't of said it better myself, it's all about the architecture.[/QUOTE] It's equally as much about the clock speed. The clock speed is also proportional to the performance. But you're right, you can not judge a CPU's performance solely on it's clock speed. Not solely on the architecture either.
[QUOTE=Odellus;27065881]Proof? They're two completely different architectures. I'm sure the difference is more than minimal.[/QUOTE] The E5300 is a Wolfdale processor and uses the same architecture of C2D, it is low binned because of errors in upper levels of cache. [url=http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35300&processor=E5300&spec-codes=SLB9U,SLGQ6,SLGTL]E5300 spec sheet from Intel[/url] [url=http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35605]E8600 spec sheet from Intel[/url] The only difference between the two is cache size, multiplier, and VTT support. E8600 came out Q3 2008, E5300 came out Q4 2008. TDP is 65W for both. 45nm process for both, Wolfdale series. E8600 has 6MB cache, E5300 has 2MB cache. The FSB for the E5300 is 800 while the E8600 is 1333. The 800 FSB Intel processors have always been the insane overclockers.
That's not proof.
[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;27039093]Reminds me of a friend of mine who sold his XBox 360 Elite box when the 360 was just launched with a description of something like "Show your friends you have an XBox 360!" and a price of $350. Someone bought it thinking it was a real 360. Did not get his money back, though :smug:[/QUOTE] Fraud isn't anything to be smug about.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;27091998]Fraud isn't anything to be smug about.[/QUOTE] Ha, you're funny. It said in the description "This is a box from an XBox 360 Elite. Make your friends think you have an XBox 360!" Also :frog:
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;27091998]Fraud isn't anything to be smug about.[/QUOTE] Stupidity is
[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;27092522]Ha, you're funny. It said in the description "This is a box from an XBox 360 Elite. Make your friends think you have an XBox 360!" Also :frog:[/QUOTE] Would have been prudent to have put that more specific description in your earlier post. Your original statement made it sound as if he claimed it really was a console up for sale. If he clearly stated it was a box up for purchase then he didn't commit fraud, he was just being a dick.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;27092667]Would have been prudent to have put that more specific description in your earlier post. Your original statement made it sound as if he claimed it really was a console up for sale. If he clearly stated it was a box up for purchase then he didn't commit fraud, he was just being a dick.[/QUOTE] How was he being a dick? It's not his fault the buyer had a sack of shit for a brain.
[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;27093268]How was he being a dick? It's not his fault the buyer had a sack of shit for a brain.[/QUOTE] He's a dick for intentionally trying to take advantage of people, stupid or otherwise. The trick may have worked due to the customer's foolish behavior, but the act of attempting to dupe someone in that manner is grounds enough to earn the title of "dick".
[img]http://cw-chronicles.com/anecdotes/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/derailed-train.jpg[/img]
^ But they cost so much because those are EXTREME! You see? EXTREME!
BuMP Okay, so there is something especially special about it. [quote]In September 2003, at the Intel Developer Forum, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (P4EE) was announced, just over a week before the launch of Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX. The design was mostly identical to Pentium 4 (to the extent that it would run in the same motherboards), but differed by an added 2 MB of level 3 cache. It shared the same Gallatin core as the Xeon MP, though in a Socket 478 form factor (as opposed to Socket 603 for the Xeon MP) and with an 800 MHz bus, twice as fast as that of the Xeon MP. An LGA 775 version is also available. While Intel maintained that the Extreme Edition was aimed at gamers, critics viewed it as an attempt to steal the Athlon 64's launch thunder, nicknaming it the "Emergency Edition". With a price tag of $999, it was also referred to as the "Expensive Edition" or "Extremely Expensive". The added cache generally resulted in a noticeable performance increase in most processor intensive applications. Multimedia encoding and certain games benefited the most, with the Extreme Edition outperforming the Pentium 4, and even the two Athlon 64 variants, although the lower price and more balanced performance of the Athlon 64 (particularly the non-FX version) led to it usually being seen as the better value proposition. Nonetheless, the Extreme Edition did achieve Intel's apparent aim, which was to prevent the Athlon 64 winning every single major benchmark over the existing Pentium 4s, which it would otherwise have done. A slight performance increase was achieved in late 2004 by increasing the bus speed from 800 MHz to 1066 MHz, resulting in a 3.46 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. By most metrics, this was on a per-clock basis the fastest single-core NetBurst processor that was ever produced, even outperforming many of its successor chips (not counting the dual-core Pentium D). Afterwards, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was migrated to the Prescott core. The new 3.73 GHz Extreme Edition had the same features as a 6x0-sequence Prescott 2M, but with a 1066 MHz bus. In practice however, the 3.73 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition almost always proved to be slower than the 3.46 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, which is most likely due to the lack of an L3 cache and the longer instruction pipeline. The only advantage the 3.73 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition had over the 3.46 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was the ability to run 64-bit applications since all Gallatin-based Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processors lacked the Intel 64 instruction set. Although never a particularly good seller, especially since it was released in a time when AMD were asserting near total dominance in the processor performance race, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition established a new position within Intel's product line, that of an enthusiast oriented chip with the highest-end specifications offered by Intel chips, along with unlocked multipliers to allow for easier overclocking. In this role it has since been succeeded by the Pentium Extreme Edition (The Extreme version of the dual-core Pentium D), the Core 2 Extreme, and most recently, the Core i7.[/quote] So in simple terms, it's a Xeon processor (or at least the bastard child of one of the Xeon core designs) that Intel managed to make compatible with the Socket 478 Northwood standard. Still, it's so old. Anyone who bothers with overclocking now has long since moved on to better chips so they are being sought after for some other reason.
[QUOTE=MIPS;27185138]BuMP Okay, so there is something especially special about it. So in simple terms, it's a Xeon processor (or at least the bastard child of one of the Xeon core designs) that Intel managed to make compatible with the Socket 478 Northwood standard. Still, it's so old. Anyone who bothers with overclocking now has long since moved on to better chips so they are being sought after for some other reason.[/QUOTE] records aren't usually about performance just the straight up clock speed
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;27186217]records aren't usually about performance just the straight up clock speed[/QUOTE] So....they are getting it because they can get massive clock speeds on it to wave their e-peen around?
Why not? A bit of e-peen waving never hurt anyone.
[QUOTE=MIPS;27194816]So....they are getting it because they can get massive clock speeds on it to wave their e-peen around?[/QUOTE] yeah pretty much most of the records have been with the really low end celerons too
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;27070676]The car analogy works perfectly if you compare clock speed to engine RPM. A car running at 5k RPM will reach its destination faster than one of the same model at 1k RPM. A different car running at 1k RPM might get there faster than the 5k RPM one because it has a better engine.[/QUOTE] That analogy is just as flawed as the original. Just because an engine runs at a lower RPM range, doesn't make it a worse engine. Engines also aren't directly attached to the power wheels on the vehicle, so you could turn a lower RPM with more power behind it into more speed with the transmission. Car analogies don't work with CPU clock speeds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.