Comments Locked

63 Comments

Back to Article

  • T8000 - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link

    The most important part of this release is the Intel 925XE chipset, that will allow much higher overclocks because of its 1066 bus support.

    This is because the 925XE will have the right divider to reach 1066 without any PCI-E overclock.

    So with a 925XE mainboard, you can run an Intel 530 CPU at 4Ghz with any PCI-E GPU you choose, because only the CPU will be overclocked and Prescott has excellent chances of reaching 4Ghz with modest water cooling or good air cooling.
  • Odeen - Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - link

    Realtek codec on an Intel board... and here I thought Intel actually made quality motherboards, which entails Sigmatel or Soundmax onboard audio chips.

    Sigh :(
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - link

    Slim: You're right... my bad. I didn't read every single page. I read the couple of introductory pages, then skipped to the test configuration page, perused a few benches, and then skipped to the conclusion.

    The measured results of course are no different than I thought they would be...
  • bob661 - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    We need to have our own review website called www.dontreleasesh!tunlessitsactuallyabetterproductthan theonebeforeit.com.
  • SLIM - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    johnsonx,

    Anand did isolate the fsb as the sole variable when he DOWNclocked both chips to 3.2ghz (266 x 12 and 200 x 16) on page 3. There was a slight caveat that faster chips would benefit more from a fsb boost. And yes the faster bus increased performance by almost 1% in some tests woohoo!!!

    SLIM
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    One thing that might've been interesting to see:

    Overclock the 3.4EE to 3.46Ghz by OC'ing the FSB to 203Mhz or 204Mhz (812 & 816 respectively). This would completely isolate the effect if the increased clock speed of the 3.46EE, showing only the increased FSB performance... at that point I suspect that the tiny performance gains would completely evaporate.

    Mind you, I'm not suggesting this would change the conclusion much, but it would put a big exclamation point to it...

    BTW, one does have to wonder why Intel bothered with this. If the 3.46EE/925XE combo is no faster than the 3.4EE/925X combo (I'm assuming the 925X=925XE @800FSB), then why go through all the trouble? Indeed, isn't it true that an 'old' 3.4EE/875 combo is faster still?

    Good grief, at least when AMD releases a new top-end chip it is actually measurably faster. Regardless of whether the rating is 'earned' or not, no one can argue that the 4000 isn't (generally) faster than the 3800, nor that the FX-55 isn't faster than any other A64.
  • Tides - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    Some benchmarks? Hardly. AMD owns in actual games, workstation apps, and half of the other stuff. Not to mention AMD doesn't make you upgrade to ddr2, and AMD cpus are 64bit. Intel's new chips have low shelf lives while the current AMD 64's you buy will last you a lot longer.

    Performance, realiability, and long lasting.
  • danidentity - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    IntelUser2000, you couldn't possibly be any more wrong. I will be the first to admit that AMD chips excel above Intel chips in many benchmarks.

    However:

    1. Intel is no where near dead. Calling them so is ridiculous. In Q3 of this year Intel posted revenue of 8.5 billion compared to AMD's 1.2 billion, or SEVEN times as much.

    2. AMD is NOT closing "very rapidly" in marketshare. It would appear that way from reading sites and forums like these, but it gives you a false impression. Keep in mind that the largest supplier of PCs on the planet puts Intel chips in every machine. AMD's mobile chips can't compete with the Pentium M in terms of performance and functionality.

    3. Intel is not stupid, they have some of the best engineers on the planet. If they seriously thought that AMD was going to topple them as the market leader, or even if they are predicting it, you can GUARANTEE they have something in the works to strike back. They have the means and the money.

    4. While many people don't know exactly what clockspeed is, everyone thinks it is the ultimate measure of performance. That mindset will take a LONG time to change, and by then, Intel will have something new.

    Most people out there don't even know AMD exists. Just because AMD chips beat Intel chips in some benchmarks posted on technical computer sites, don't mean they're going to topple Intel.
  • JonahStone - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    Performance is not the only reason why somebody buys a CPU. Although 64 bit might not be available now, does not make it unimportant. Many who buy a computer will keep it for a long time. I do not want to buy a new PC in a year's time to run 64 bit apps. All reviews keep on comparing 32 bit performance and do not even mention the advantage 64 bit will bring. It does matter!!!!!!!
  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Intel is not doing bad. They are doing terrible. So terrible that you might as well call them dead. Probably will last till 2009 before they fill bankruptcy.

    To those people who say people in forums don't know anything and that there are other people stupid enough to buy Intel chips(I mean all Intel chips): Uhh, yeah, get your head straight, since AMD is closing with Intel very rapidly in marketshare, in server, desktop, and laptop, and that means that gamers actually do make a difference(albeit slowly) making other people buy computers. You think other people will buy P4's because of high clock speed? That's BS, since people who is stupid enough to buy Intel chips don't even know what clock speeds does. There are only a very few that knows computers JUST enough to say clock speed is good.
  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Intel is not doing bad. They are doing terrible. So terrible that you might as well call them dead. Probably will last till 2009 before they fill bankruptcy.

    To those people who say people in forums don't know anything and that there are other people stupid enough to buy Intel chips(I mean all Intel chips): Uhh, yeah, get your head straight, since AMD is closing with Intel very rapidly in marketshare, in server, desktop, and laptop, and that means that gamers actually do make a difference(albeit slowly) making other people buy computers. You think other people will buy P4's because of high clock speed? That's BS, since people who is stupid enough to buy Intel chips don't even know what clock speeds does. There are only a very few that knows computers JUST enough to say clock speed is good.
  • Tides - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    believe me, everyone wants the best they can get for the least cash.
  • FinalFantasy - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Intel is not doing good right now. I know a lot of people rested their hopes for Intel to strike back with the release of this chip. But alas, we are still seeing the same problems with this chip as we've seen with it's predecessors.

    1. Way overpriced
    2. Still getting whooped by AMD's 64-bit chips

    The choice is clear here, buy an average AMD chip for a fraction of the price and still be able to outperform your friend's Intel EE based machine that he spent $2,500-3,000 on to build, while you spent about $1,500 (factor in price a person pays for an Intel EE chip and a couple of sticks of DDR2).
  • Pandaren - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    What the community here forgets is that the common person doesn't care for 10 extra FPS in a game or 3 seconds faster on that photoshop filter. They want a reliable, dependable computer with good support at a reasonable price.

    Dell provides that with Intel chips. People honestly don't care if the Intel chip is not faster.

    Those of us who do care about performance and price/performance will build our own. I replaced my Dell with a homebuilt AMD box for that reason, but I don't expect everyone to do the same.
  • SLIM - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    "SLIM

    You're forgetting DDR2 price which this needs in your so called Intel is "cheaper" comparison. If you want the same price setup you can get a FX-55 and really bring the wood."

    ZEBO
    Perhaps you didn't read my post correctly or didn't read the review, but the first paragraph in post #14 is a direct quote from the review (that's why there are QUOTATION MARKS around it). The two comments below the QUOTE were my views on Anand's conclusion of the 560 v 3800 comparison at the end of the review. Your comment actually agrees with what I said.
  • Tides - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    they would if they had it
  • swatX - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    why doesnt intel just release a dual core platform or a 64bit chip already..gezz its like they are acting like ATI "we will release 64-vit chips only when apps start to use it" ...
  • NotMrT - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Last time i remember AMD domminating this much was in the time of the thunderbirds
  • Chapbass - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    #43:

    One thing that i can vouch for, being a college student: Almost every college student not "in the know" with building systems buys a dell....because theyre sold through the college. At least my college they are. DEFINITELY the most common systems around here (and it makes me sick) : P.

    It seems like households are more into HP/compaq, where schools, both k-12 and college, are totally dell.

    Just something ive noticed around where im from. YMMV.

    -Chap
  • justly - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    I find it interesting that the page compareing an A64 3800+ to the P4 560 shows the P4 winning the multitasking content creation. Well that isn't the interesting part, but the fact that Intel only won this because it took all three SYSmark tests is (the SYSmark tests wher the only thing Intel won in this catagory). I guess what really amuses me is remembering a comment in a article a while back (I think it was Anand himself who made the comment) implying that the SYSmark scores did not reflect the rest of their testing and that it seemed to favor Intel.
  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Come on Dell, cheaper, faster..give in to the grown up taste!!!

    I still can't fathom Dell being the top computer seller worldwide, are soccer moms buying at record highs?
  • Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    i'd say ddr2 does suck when intel gets less performance with it vs an amd 939 with ddr1. what a waste of cash to have the intel branding.
  • jimmy43 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Most people dont care whats in their computer. Intel is a brand name people trust, but if they can get a computer for less money which can do all they need, then they will. And guess what? Theyl be blown away, and theyl realize AMD slays Intel and theyl laugh at their friends who got an Intel. The reason Intel is able to hold on so well to the market is because of conservative companies like DELL and other such multi-billion dollar partnerships. I say once DELL gives in, its over for Intel. But seriosly they really need to pick it up...
  • Zebo - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Those gaming benchmarks are embarresing.A "budget" athlon 64 3400 with the "old" socket 754 single channel mem controller is putting a whoppin' on Intels top chip.
  • Zebo - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    SLIM

    You're forgetting DDR2 price which this needs in your so called Intel is "cheaper" comparison. If you want the same price setup you can get a FX-55 and really bring the wood.
  • AnonymouseUser - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    "why didn't anyone try to overclock this thing and see how far it'll go?"

    They didn't want to melt the motherboard?
  • knitecrow - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    why didn't anyone try to overclock this thing and see how far it'll go?
  • Determinant - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    There is a graph missing in the "Business/General Use Performance" page.

    The graph for "Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3" is replaced by a duplicate of the preceding graph.

    I was surprised to see the big difference when burning CDs/DVDs with different CPUs until I realized that it was the wrong graph.

    I'm really interested to see how much of an impact faster CPUs make for burning CDs/DVDs because I didn't think that there would be a difference outside of the benchmark variance but since this was benchmarked it must have been noticable.

    Thanks
  • MMORPGOD - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    None of you are aware of the situation Intel has over the world computing market. Yes evryone here on Anand forum is hardcore or enthusiast of computer tech and gaming for PC. But one thing none of you have a grasp on is that Intel has millions of people who do not define themselfs as ever being knowledgable to computing performance or benchmarks. Basicly all of intel is going to be on top no matter what, unless something big happens where the community who purchases these computer systems from the retail stores either sees whats going on beforehand or just wises up and reads about there current technology. Its something thats proven and works, Intel is leading the world in publications of its product more then AMD, thus they have a hand on being on the top. I am a diehard AMD fan, and there isnt to many of us out there who have been since AMD came out, but I can tell you, with all this media coverage on Intel over the past years, its engraved into evry consumers head that the next PC they get they will most likely purchase retail INtel equiped PC. AMD needs to market a little more because average people dont give a damn about benchmarks. Just my opinion about evryone who I see post above who says man Intel is toast or Intel is gone, those are benchmark comments and dont disolve the real world consumers thoughts on a PC with Intel name. How many people go into a Circuit City or Best Buy and see more AMD products then Intel? Intel leads advertisements and in store showcasing, so until someone actually gives the word to the public that AMD is better, Intel will always lead but not in performace. Cant wait for my FX-55
  • Pythias - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    I really hope intel can get it back together, or we're gonna be looking at sky high processor pricing again. We need healthy competition.
  • AlexWade - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Now if only I can afford and find one ...
  • MMORPGOD - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

  • IntelUser2000 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    DDR2 is not a stupid move, its the speed they are at that's stupid. Remember DDR? They first ones ran at 200MHz, which were 50% faster than PC133 and still way faster than the enthusiast 166MHz SDRAMs. DDR's latency were higher, but since their clock is much higher, it wasn't a big problem as DDR2 vs DDR. However, PC1600 DDR still was not a big improvement over PC133, it was when PC2100 came that DDR started to shine.

    Another thing:
    Quote:"With the original 925X chipset we were a bit unhappy to see that the Pentium 4's 800MHz FSB was paired with DDR2-533, creating one of those frustrating asynchronous situations."

    I think 800MHz bus with DDR2-533 is actually VERY synchronous. First look it doesn't look like it. However since DDR2s latency is higher, it doesn't act like DDR533, it acts like DDR400. There was a Tomshardware review that was trying to predict the performance of 1066MHz bus.

    First config was: 800MHz bus, DDR2-533
    Second: 1066MHz bus, DDR2-533
    Third: 1066MHz bus, DDR2-667

    Guess which one had the biggest performance benefit? The third one, contrary to most people's belief. I think that tells that because of the DDR2's latency, you need DDR2-667 to perfectly match 1066MHz bus. Since Intel chose to stick with DDR2-533, they have created an asynchronous situation, making the performance not so much better. They should have went DDR2-667 with 1066MHz bus.
  • SLIM - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    One thing I didn't catch from anand's review is that the 3.46ee is rated at 110.7 watts according to [H]; just another reason to go AMD. Makes you wonder what the 3.73ee (which is supposed to launch this quarter) will have for a heatsink...
    Prometia for everyone:)
  • Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    I remember reading a week or two ago about "AMD is going to have a tough time keeping up," from the lips of an Intel guy.

    Was this latest outing with the new P4EE's the proof? Perhaps I lack the foresight to understand what will happen in 6 months time, but in who's world is AMD going to have a hard time keeping up with? Cyrix's?
  • Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    "ddr2 is a stupid move."
  • Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    not to mention, hi, ddr2 for is a stupid move. high latency, crap bandwidth, not just twice the price since you wouldn't have had to upgrade your ram otherwise if you already had solid ddr1.

    it reminds me of rambus. and beta max. and sony's discman. what else? ddr2 should have never come out imo. ddr3 is where it's at, hopefully amd will go straight to ddr3 and save it's customers and themselves the hastle of having to buy new ram, new mobos and so forth just to have to do it again with ddr3. i like faster everything as much as everyone else, but amd 64 proves ddr1 is alive and well, and ddr2 is what? exactly? perhaps in a year down the road, or two; it'll be worth something at the end of it's life cycle, just as ddr3 starts poking it's head about.

  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Why don't they just screw any other core and focus on pumping out $1000 EEs? Everyones buying them, might as well. I really would like to know the stats for Intel's sales on their new cpus and chipsets, exact numbers.
  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    #17 I was infering this world is off balance with that reality...
  • Gnoad - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    wow. $1000 a pop for a CPU that gets destroyed by processors that cost a quarter as much. Totally asinine.
  • Beenthere - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Intel has simply run out of Hail Mary solutions to their unending design, engineering, production, sales, management, and marketing problems. Even Wall Street knows this by now.
  • Wesley Fink - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    For those who asked, the 1000 lot Intel price for the 3.46EE is $999.
  • coldpower27 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Well you could get a direct comparison between the Athlon 64 3700+ vs the Pentium 4 560 as those 2 processors are priced pretty directly against each other on Newegg, though their MSRP differ in actuality.

    64Bit Windows isn't likely to be released until Prescott 2M with Intel EM64T is released in Q1 2005. We will have to see though if Microsoft will released in 2005 WinXP 64.
  • jimmy43 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    #14 I was thinking the same thing. The 3500 would probably still win or tie in most of the categories and it costs nearly half the price of an intel 560. I feel like Anand is trying to be fair to both companies and reccomending a bit of both. Realistically, AMD has Intel beat in every market segment... by alot. It's also funny how everyone is COMPLETELY forgetting that AMD's proccessors are 64 bit so in a year or so, you will get a considerable free speed boost and youl be able to run the latest OS. Is that not a huge advantage? Come on, people need to stop overlooking that its really bugging me.
  • DukeN - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Once again, Intel shows why it's the Sony of the CPU world with terrible products terribly overpriced.
  • Gnoad - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    I might have missed it, but how much will Intel price this at? Considering it's an EE, one can guess about $900. If thats true, they MIGHT sell 3 or 4 of them.
  • skunkbuster - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    underdog in terms of market share
  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Since when did the world spin where a chip that is superior in 90% of chip tasks is the underdog?
  • stephenbrooks - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    So... I was thinking of investing some money in shares. You don't think AMD might happen to be a good bet right around now, would you?
  • SLIM - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Great review as always, but there's always room for improvement:)
    [/begin nitpicking]
    "So in the end, who takes the crown? AMD or Intel? The 3800+ took four category wins, while the Pentium 4 560 only took two, however with the exception of the gaming and professional apps category, AMD's victories were not overwhelming - especially once you take into account the fact that the 3800+ is priced much higher than the Pentium 4 560. Now that you can purchase at least a couple of 915 based motherboards for less than $130 the total cost of ownership for the Intel platform doesn't eat into the CPU price advantage. For the most part we'd say the 3800+ is faster than the Pentium 4 560 but not always worth the added cost. It's unusual but in many cases, the Pentium 4 560 is actually the bargain high-end chip of the two."

    Alrighty, two comments:
    1) It's bad science to make a detailed comparison, and then in the conclusion talk about switching the chipset and memory in order to make the price comparison hold up. (Maybe include the numbers from a 915 review to back up the assertion that the 560 will still perform just as well with 915/DDR).

    2) I'd be curious to see how the 3500+ would hold up in these same comparisons since it is about $150 cheaper than the 560.

    Bonus nitpick:
    4 of the graphs don't include the new 3.46ee (ACD on page 9 and 3 games benches); I don't know if that was intentional or not. [/end nitpicking]

    Thanks again for the best reviews.

  • IceWindius - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Considering that Dell of all companies is playing the "Well, were starting to have second thoughts" game, I think its just a matter of time MAME.

    After all, it wasn't long ago that people thought AMD was going bankrupt and being bought by Intel now was it?
  • nlhowell - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    The ACDSee info is from the A64 FX-55 and 4000+ review, I believe.

    The 1ghz FSB seems delightfully useless. Maybe this was an attempt to get more people using the 925X chipset?
  • MAME - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    while AMD looks quite attractive in comparison, Intel does not have to worry about AMD for a long long time. AMD is unknown to almost the entire "average joe" market. Even if AMD had finally broke through to Dell and large businesses effectively, they simply can't produce enough chips for Intel to be effected
  • IceWindius - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Ahhhhh AMD just keeps looking better and better. :)

    I WILL have a nForce 4 and AMD .90nm purring in my machine before Christmas. Half Life 2 will be pure utter buttery smoothness baby.
  • Steg55 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    At this rate Intel are really going to lose favour in the eyes of....well everyone. If AMD can capitalise on this - get some aggressive marketing out they might finally be able to remove the underdog tag from there name.
    Just educate the masses AMD - MAKE AMD THE HOUSEHOLD NAME then nothing will stop you.

    Steg
  • LocutusX - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    neo means new in Latin anyways, so no biggie. ;)

  • Hulk - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Jeez, another "so what?" release from Intel.

    I hope these guys can get it together enough to continue to remain competitive with AMD.
  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Neo = New lol
  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    "We can only wonder what Intel is thinking."

    Yes, canceling Tejas and 1.2 FSB and releasing crappy chipsets. Neo CEO = New Death for a company.

    AMD you can take another sigh of relief.
  • skunkbuster - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    lol
  • Gnoad - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Wow, Intel just got the crap kicked out them...
  • GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    It's good to have you back Anand, feels like Jordan came back to the Bulls. :)
  • shabby - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    Meh, nothing special.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now