P4 Extreme Edition discontinued

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
to be the implication.

I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
now?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
34 answers Last reply
More about extreme edition discontinued
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
    > now?
    >

    Huh ? Why would you think the two things are related at all ?

    P4-EE was Intel's answer to the Athlon FX. Just
    because Intel has decided they now have a better
    "answer" than the EE, it does not follow that AMD
    should roll over and play dead.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    It looks like just the P4 3.2 EE is being cancelled. I wonder if we will soon
    see a P4 3.6 EE? The 3.2 EE was priced too close to the 3.4 EE, so I
    doubt it sold well. I don't know how well the P4 3.4 EE is selling, however
    Intel needs something to try to compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. The EE
    chips are probably also quite expensive to produce. Let's see what Intel
    comes up with for the holidays. I guess AMD is supposed to come out
    with the FX-55 in October?

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
    > mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
    > to be the implication.
    >
    > I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
    > now?
    >
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > --
    > Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
    > Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:
    >
    >This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
    >mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
    >to be the implication.
    >
    >I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
    >now?
    >
    >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html

    My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
    discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
    for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
    $80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
    different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
    while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.

    Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
    FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
    FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.


    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
    > >mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
    > >to be the implication.
    > >
    > >I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
    > >now?
    > >
    > >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
    >
    > My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
    > discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
    > for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
    > $80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
    > different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
    > while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.
    >
    > Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
    > FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
    > FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.
    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In reconsidering the Athlon 64 3800+ vs FX-51 benchmarks, I now
    realize that the Athlon 64 3800+ seems like a much better performer
    overall than the FX-51. So the FX-51 doesn't really make sense for
    AMD to continue to produce, since imo the Athlon 64 3800+ is also
    probably much cheaper to make.

    JK wrote:

    > I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    > $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    > the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    > FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
    >
    > Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > >This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
    > > >mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
    > > >to be the implication.
    > > >
    > > >I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
    > > >now?
    > > >
    > > >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
    > >
    > > My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
    > > discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
    > > for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
    > > $80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
    > > different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
    > > while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.
    > >
    > > Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
    > > FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
    > > FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.
    > >
    > > -------------
    > > Tony Hill
    > > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    JK wrote:
    >
    > I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    > $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    > the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    > FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.

    I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    The P4 EE chips are also probably very expensive to make, so I
    doubt that Intel would want to keep making the P4 3.2 EE, especially
    if they felt they might soon need to drop the price to well under $600.
    Perhaps it might also mean that there might be a P4 3.6 EE?
    I wonder if there will be a P4 3.8 ghz before the end of the year, or
    if Intel plans some 3.6 ghz chips with other enhancements besides
    clock speed (and besides a huge cache) to boost performance before
    the end of the year.

    The Athlon 64 3800+ is a tough chip to compete against. The Athlon 64
    4000+ on 90nm will be even more exciting. I wonder how it will benchmark
    against the FX-53? It looks like it will be released around the time of the
    FX-55, so AMD might decide to discontinue the FX-53 after the Athlon 64
    4000+ and the FX-55 are out ? It looks like the FX-55 and Athlon 64 FX-55
    are scheduled for October release.


    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

    Johannes H Andersen wrote:

    > JK wrote:
    > >
    > > I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    > > $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    > > the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    > > FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
    >
    > I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Bitstring <411664DC.1580E4F1@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com>,
    from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
    <johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> said
    >
    >
    >JK wrote:
    >>
    >> I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    >> $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    >> the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    >> FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
    >
    >I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.

    'Extreme' actually, but I guess that the 'extreme' could indeed apply
    mostly to the expense .. it sure as hell doesn't apply to the relative
    cost benefit.
    8>.

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:43:27 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

    > Bitstring <411664DC.1580E4F1@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com>,
    > from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
    > <johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> said
    >>
    >>
    >>JK wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    >>> $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    >>> the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    >>> FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
    >>
    >>I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
    >
    > 'Extreme' actually, but I guess that the 'extreme' could indeed apply
    > mostly to the expense .. it sure as hell doesn't apply to the relative
    > cost benefit.

    It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
    performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?

    --
    Keith
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:10:02 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


    >It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
    >performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?

    I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
    them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
    cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

    I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
    couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
    friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
    years ago.

    Ed
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Where did you see that?

    Judd wrote:

    > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:03:41 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
    <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

    >That's the followers for you. I haven't built an Intel based machine for
    >about 5 years now .. high prices, mediocre performance (except for
    >running prime95, where they really kick @$$).

    My very first PC build used an AMD K5-90MHz, my last Intel was the
    P2-400.

    >
    >Maybe the next one - if Intel get to proper dual cores before AMD do
    >(and if the price is right). Hmm .. fat chance, I guess.

    I keep saying that too.. maybe the next one, maybe the next one.

    Ed
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:21:58 -0500, Ed wrote:

    > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:10:02 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
    >>performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?
    >
    > I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
    > them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
    > cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

    Again, did anyone actually buy one? It was there to fill the
    performance/marketing slot. In case noone here has noticed 90nM has been
    a serious problem for everyone.

    > I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
    > couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
    > friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
    > years ago.

    AMD shill! ;-)

    --
    Keith
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:51:12 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >
    >AMD shill! ;-)

    Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p
    Ed
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:

    > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >
    >
    Who would buy something that slow?

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:46:01 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

    >Judd wrote:
    >
    >> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >>
    >>
    >Who would buy something that slow?

    It's all in the IPC, MHz is just a myth. ;p
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:33:25 -0500, Ed <me@home.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:51:12 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>AMD shill! ;-)
    >
    >Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p

    What? You're not going to blame the AMD "gang of thugs" in this NG for
    your err, bias?:-)

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:51:24 -0400, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >>Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p
    >
    >What? You're not going to blame the AMD "gang of thugs" in this NG for
    >your err, bias?:-)
    >

    I blame Intel.

    Cheers,
    Ed

    >Rgds, George Macdonald
    >
    >"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:411828D8.5020601@prodigy.net...
    > Judd wrote:
    >
    >> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >>
    >>
    > Who would buy something that slow?

    A collector of classic systems.

    Falls between a typical 8080 (2 MHZ)
    and the wonderfully fast 8088 (4.77 MHZ).

    --

    ... Hank

    http://horedson.home.att.net
    http://w0rli.home.att.net
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Ed" <me@home.com> wrote in message
    news:p1kgh0pdg7vqvglt4k3rvstam159aq7bqb@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:46:01 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Judd wrote:
    >>
    >>> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Who would buy something that slow?
    >
    > It's all in the IPC, MHz is just a myth. ;p


    So given an issue width of around 1000 ...

    --

    ... Hank

    http://horedson.home.att.net
    http://w0rli.home.att.net
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:4117F088.A76631F@netscape.net...
    > Where did you see that?
    >
    > Judd wrote:
    >
    > > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >

    It's been in the news for some time. Q4 announcement likely to come soon.
    925XE is supposed to have the 1 GHz bus and probable support for DDR2-667.
    The new EE chip has a 2 MB L2 cache kind of like the Dothan's and is on a
    90nm part. Should be a screamer. It's the first of the 700 series of
    Pentiums.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    JK wrote:

    > Chips with such a huge cache are very expensive to make. Production
    > of more complex chips probably results in a larger percentage of
    > chips that need to be discarded. Much fewer of the more complex chips
    > fit on a wafer since the die size is so large relative to chips with
    > a much smaller cache.

    http://endian.net/details_compare.asp?ItemNo=3951&ItemNo=3153&ItemNo=3429&ItemNo=331

    Gallatin
    ~24 KB L1, 512 KB L2, 2048 KB L3
    178 million transistors (~120 million for L3)
    237 mm^2 @ 130 nm

    Gallatin is not much larger than the Opteron (193 mm^2 @ 130 nm).

    Prescott
    ~32 KB L1, 1024 KB L2
    125 million trnasistors
    112 mm^2 @ 90 nm
    1.116 Mtransistors / mm^2

    Dothan
    64 KB L1, 2048 KB L2
    140 million transistors
    83.6 mm^2 @ 90 nm
    1.675 Mtransistors / mm^2

    AFAICT, a 90 nm Gallatin would take 110-140 mm^2, in other words, it
    would be cheaper to manufacture than an Opteron.

    Why hasn't Intel shrunk the Gallatin core?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Ed <me@home.com> wrote:

    >I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
    >them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
    >cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

    They don't want them putting price pressure on their mainstream chips.
    It's not like they really want to sell many EE's - they just want
    something that looks good in the benchmarks, so it's less apparent
    that they are getting their butts kicked by the A64.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:24:54 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    >news:4117F088.A76631F@netscape.net...
    >> Where did you see that?
    >>
    >> Judd wrote:
    >>
    >> > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >>
    >
    >It's been in the news for some time. Q4 announcement likely to come soon.
    >925XE is supposed to have the 1 GHz bus and probable support for DDR2-667.
    >The new EE chip has a 2 MB L2 cache kind of like the Dothan's and is on a
    >90nm part. Should be a screamer. It's the first of the 700 series of
    >Pentiums.


    "EE edition"... "XE edition"... sounds like car mfrs when they have a
    turkey on their hands.... 'coming to you from the performance division of
    Intel'?<gulp>. So is this thing going to have EM64T and will the 925XE
    have the 36-bit data on FSB?

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    news:covhh010nj9sdnvku0ora1vg77r24kgpc6@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:24:54 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > >news:4117F088.A76631F@netscape.net...
    > >> Where did you see that?
    > >>
    > >> Judd wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    > >>
    > >
    > >It's been in the news for some time. Q4 announcement likely to come
    soon.
    > >925XE is supposed to have the 1 GHz bus and probable support for
    DDR2-667.
    > >The new EE chip has a 2 MB L2 cache kind of like the Dothan's and is on a
    > >90nm part. Should be a screamer. It's the first of the 700 series of
    > >Pentiums.
    >
    >
    > "EE edition"... "XE edition"... sounds like car mfrs when they have a
    > turkey on their hands.... 'coming to you from the performance division of
    > Intel'?<gulp>. So is this thing going to have EM64T and will the 925XE
    > have the 36-bit data on FSB?
    >
    > Rgds, George Macdonald

    I'm almost sure it will have EM64T as it seems Intel will finally release it
    for Prescott. I presume it will have the kludgy 36-bit Xeon MP borrowed
    data too... or is it 40-bit?
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:10:04 -0500, Ed wrote:

    > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:51:24 -0400, George Macdonald
    > <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p
    >>
    >>What? You're not going to blame the AMD "gang of thugs" in this NG for
    >>your err, bias?:-)
    >>
    >
    > I blame Intel.

    Good plan. Go after the deeep pockets! ;-)

    --
    Keith
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:48:18 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    >news:covhh010nj9sdnvku0ora1vg77r24kgpc6@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:24:54 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    >> >news:4117F088.A76631F@netscape.net...
    >> >> Where did you see that?
    >> >>
    >> >> Judd wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >It's been in the news for some time. Q4 announcement likely to come
    >soon.
    >> >925XE is supposed to have the 1 GHz bus and probable support for
    >DDR2-667.
    >> >The new EE chip has a 2 MB L2 cache kind of like the Dothan's and is on a
    >> >90nm part. Should be a screamer. It's the first of the 700 series of
    >> >Pentiums.
    >>
    >>
    >> "EE edition"... "XE edition"... sounds like car mfrs when they have a
    >> turkey on their hands.... 'coming to you from the performance division of
    >> Intel'?<gulp>. So is this thing going to have EM64T and will the 925XE
    >> have the 36-bit data on FSB?
    >>
    >> Rgds, George Macdonald
    >
    >I'm almost sure it will have EM64T as it seems Intel will finally release it
    >for Prescott. I presume it will have the kludgy 36-bit Xeon MP borrowed
    >data too... or is it 40-bit?

    It's 36-bit and according to the data sheets, the 925X does not have the
    extra 4 bits on FSB. Can they add them for 925XE?... I dunno but from my
    POV the marketing people at Intel are fiddling with disaster.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    JK wrote:

    > Judd wrote:
    >
    >> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
    >
    > Where did you see that?

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2117
    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2152
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:34:52 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
    >
    >I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
    >$1,000 P4 3.4 EE.

    The two prices I quoted were from www.newegg.com, a nice handy shop
    that I often use for quoting prices. I'm sure other spots might have
    one chip or the other for a bit cheaper, particularly if you check the
    Pricewatch bottom-feeders.

    > Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
    >the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
    >FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.

    Yeah, that's part of it too. Same deal goes for Intel's P4EE vs. P4
    line. The 3.6GHz P4 beats out the 3.2GHz P4EE in most benchmarks but
    is cheaper to produce and to sell. Since presumably this chip is
    going to enter wide-scale production and availability soon, it makes
    sense to discontinue the 3.2GHz P4EE.

    With the prices and market segments for these Extreme Edition and FX
    chips it really only makes sense to have a single, top-of-the-line
    chip at any given time. Anything else is just too expensive and no
    one is going to buy them.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:21:58 -0500, Ed <me@home.com> wrote:
    >On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:10:02 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
    >>performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?
    >
    >I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
    >them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
    >cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

    Production price has VERY little to do with selling price, it almost
    all comes down to market factors, product positioning and all those
    other fun things that us CS, IT and engineering types like to avoid at
    all costs.

    >I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
    >couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
    >friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
    >years ago.

    Peer pressure on CPU purchases? Eh, why not... It's worked for cars,
    clothes, stereo equipment and any number of other things... :>

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:VXdRc.1542171$Ar.528866@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued.

    Who cares? ;) I think $100 is too much for a CPU. But $400+??! Ouch.
    Indy cars are cool, but not very practical as grocery-getters. (I'm not a
    3D gamer or anything like that though, but I think that segment may get
    too much press rather than more practical computing).

    AJ
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <xYYUc.3355$ZC7.3297@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
    ng@newsgroups.net says...
    >
    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    > news:VXdRc.1542171$Ar.528866@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > > This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued.
    >
    > Who cares? ;) I think $100 is too much for a CPU. But $400+??! Ouch.

    You aren't in the target market. Who cares?

    > Indy cars are cool, but not very practical as grocery-getters. (I'm not a
    > 3D gamer or anything like that though, but I think that segment may get
    > too much press rather than more practical computing).

    Perhaps you're right, though the g(l)amers are the ones who *do*
    need performance. There are others in that category, but to hold
    your nose up at those who do want to spend the bux is a tad lame,
    don't you think? Yes, I bought an Opteron 144, pretty much
    because I can. ;-) ...and no, I don't do games either.

    --
    Keith
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    >>>>> "KR" == KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:

    KR> In article <xYYUc.3355$ZC7.3297@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
    KR> ng@newsgroups.net says...
    >> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    >> news:VXdRc.1542171$Ar.528866@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    >> > This article states that the original P4EE is being
    >> discontinued.
    >>
    >> Who cares? ;) I think $100 is too much for a CPU. But $400+??!
    >> Ouch.

    KR> You aren't in the target market. Who cares?

    >> Indy cars are cool, but not very practical as grocery-getters.
    >> (I'm not a 3D gamer or anything like that though, but I think that
    >> segment may get too much press rather than more practical
    >> computing).

    KR> Perhaps you're right, though the g(l)amers are the ones who *do*
    KR> need performance. There are others in that category, but to hold
    KR> your nose up at those who do want to spend the bux is a tad lame,
    KR> don't you think? Yes, I bought an Opteron 144, pretty much
    KR> because I can. ;-) ...and no, I don't do games either.

    Another reason to buy a faster CPU would be to increasing overall
    system lifetime. I find it amazing these days that cases, and cpu fans
    can cost more than memory or processors.

    Later,

    Alan
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs