Do Intels Extream Edition chips change speeds over time?

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
As the topic states...do the EE chips ramp up in speed as the whole processor line increases in speed, or do they basically represent the max that intels plans on pulling out of the processors?
 

stevty2889

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2003
7,036
8
81
Well they usualy end up coming out with a faster EE eventualy. The Pentium-D EE 655 should be showing up soon(3.73ghz dual core with HT), but that will be the end of Presler.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Well they usualy end up coming out with a faster EE eventualy. The Pentium-D EE 655 should be showing up soon(3.73ghz dual core with HT), but that will be the end of Presler.

does it ramp up as much as the rest of the line? Or do they only introduce 1 or 2 new EE chips?
 

JAG87

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
3,921
3
76
I think the EE version is supposed to represent the best intel will ever squeeze out of the technology, but no... they do ramp up as time goes. just look at the 955 extreme edition, a bit later the 965 came out. so if you bought the 955, you thought you had the most out of the presler core, but intel says no you dont, heres the 965 :)



edit for spelling
 

secretanchitman

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
9,352
23
91
oh man, i always wanted the socket 478 gallatin core 3.2/3.4Ghz Extreme Edition...too bad they're all Extremely Expensive.

sucks. well, thats what conroe is for. a nice E6600 (2.4Ghz) to hold me over.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: JAG87
I think the EE version is supposed to represent the best intel will ever squeeze out of the technology, but no... they do ramp up as time goes. just look at the 955 extreme edition, a bit later the 965 came out. so if you bought the 955, you thought you had the most out of the presler core, but intel says no you dont, heres the 965 :)



edit for spelling

that doesnt seem to be such a significant jump. But man...those prices are INSANE. I suppose if you want the best of the best and dont want to overclock or for it, its a decent buy...
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
oh man, i always wanted the socket 478 gallatin core 3.2/3.4Ghz Extreme Edition...too bad they're all Extremely Expensive.

sucks. well, thats what conroe is for. a nice E6600 (2.4Ghz) to hold me over.

I'm actually asking because if they release a conroe EE at like 3.5 or higher, I might pick one up (I'm tired of overclocking. My time is worth more just enjoying than messing around with settings)
 

JAG87

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
3,921
3
76
not really, buying an extreme edition of an FX chip is exactly for overclocking. assuming they dont have any cold bugs, the unlocked multipliers make many phase change cooling owners salivate. Then again if you own a pahse change unit, that explains why you buy an FX or an EE chip.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
One thing that bugs me is that all EE are priced $999 even the old 3.2 gallatin are still at that price. Unlike AMD FX the older line price drops.
EE history

3.2 gallatin @ 800 FSB+HT $999
3.4 gallatin @ 800 FSB+HT $999
3.46 gallatin @ 1066 FSB+HT $999
3.73 Prescott @ 1066 FSB+HT $999
3.2 Smithfield @800 FSB Dual Core +HT$999 // Unlock Multipliers start with this chip!
3.46 Presler @ 1066 FSB Dual Core +HT $999
3.73 Presler @ 1066 FSB Dual Core +HT $999
3.33 Conroe @ 1333 FSB Dual Core $999 // coming later this year
?.?? Kenfield@ at least 1333 FSB Quad core $999 // First half next year
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,676
0
76

The problem is that AMD eventually released ordinary versions of their Athlon FX processors.

Athlon FX 51 = Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon FX 53 = Athlon 64 4000+

Athlon FX 55 = Discontinued
Athlno FX 57 = ~ 800ish
Athlon FX 60 = ~ 1000ish

There isn't that much difference between the FX and normal editions on the AMD side as opposed to Intel making their EE alot different then their Single Core counter parts for the most part.

Intel used Galatins on their EE's, had HyperThreading on their Dual Core EE, and typcially used a higher FSB to differentiate their EE.



 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Originally posted by: coldpower27

The problem is that AMD eventually released ordinary versions of their Athlon FX processors.

Athlon FX 51 = Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon FX 53 = Athlon 64 4000+

Athlon FX 55 = Discontinued
Athlno FX 57 = ~ 800ish
Athlon FX 60 = ~ 1000ish

There isn't that much difference between the FX and normal editions on the AMD side as opposed to Intel making their EE alot different then their Single Core counter parts for the most part.

Intel used Galatins on their EE's, had HyperThreading on their Dual Core EE, and typcially used a higher FSB to differentiate their EE.

The non-FX versions still have locked multipliers.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,676
0
76
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Originally posted by: coldpower27

The problem is that AMD eventually released ordinary versions of their Athlon FX processors.

Athlon FX 51 = Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon FX 53 = Athlon 64 4000+

Athlon FX 55 = Discontinued
Athlno FX 57 = ~ 800ish
Athlon FX 60 = ~ 1000ish

There isn't that much difference between the FX and normal editions on the AMD side as opposed to Intel making their EE alot different then their Single Core counter parts for the most part.

Intel used Galatins on their EE's, had HyperThreading on their Dual Core EE, and typcially used a higher FSB to differentiate their EE.

The non-FX versions still have locked multipliers.

Yes, but the performance is identical. The FX had unlocked upper multipliers that's all.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I have a Intel 3.2 EE!! I have had it over clocked on just air all the way up to 4.4.
I have run it stable for a week at 4.2 and I currently have had it running for over a year at 3.8!!!
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
the EE is just the best that Intel can produce AT THAT TIME, as they improve their process tech, or their core then it will get faster. The important thing is that they have unlocked multipliers, and the highest binned silicon, so they should overclock better than normal processors. Though, really they are WAY overpriced just like the FX line, and its makes little snese to buy either one. For the differnece in price between an EE and a normal chip you could buy a phase cooler, and I guarentee you that on phase you can overlcok that normal chip way higher then the EE will ever go on air.
 

pcoffman

Member
Jan 15, 2006
117
0
0
Originally posted by: FallenHero
if they release a conroe EE at like 3.5 or higher, I might pick one up
I wouldn't worry about a Conroe at 3.5GHz or so. Intel seems to be through playing the clock speed game.

Conroe EE is almost a contradiction in terms. EE, as far as I know, is a NetBurst chip. Conroe will be based on Intel's upcoming microarchitecture.

Am not sure what Intel will do for their high end offerings when Conroe debuts. Maybe nothing. The main reason we have EE chips is that Intel needed something to compete with the competition's high-end chips, so they took a server chip and converted it to the desktop.
 

stevty2889

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2003
7,036
8
81
Originally posted by: pcoffman
Originally posted by: FallenHero
if they release a conroe EE at like 3.5 or higher, I might pick one up
I wouldn't worry about a Conroe at 3.5GHz or so. Intel seems to be through playing the clock speed game.

Conroe EE is almost a contradiction in terms. EE, as far as I know, is a NetBurst chip. Conroe will be based on Intel's upcoming microarchitecture.

Am not sure what Intel will do for their high end offerings when Conroe debuts. Maybe nothing. The main reason we have EE chips is that Intel needed something to compete with the competition's high-end chips, so they took a server chip and converted it to the desktop.

EE just means extreme editon, just because there have only been EE versions of netburst chips, doesn't mean it's netburst exclusive. The Conroe EE's are supposed to use a higher FSB(1333) and have a higher clock speed, than the non-EE versions.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Conroe EE will use a 333mhz FSB and run at 3 or 3.3G, EE is simply the best desktop chip that Intel puts out, it has absolutely nothing to do with netburst, it is simply a chip that uses a higher FSB, clockspeed, or enabled HT to differnetiate itself from the other offerings. In the case of the Conroe EE it will ahve a higher FSB and clockspeed, and that is all.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Conroe EE will use a 333mhz FSB and run at 3 or 3.3G, EE is simply the best desktop chip that Intel puts out, it has absolutely nothing to do with netburst, it is simply a chip that uses a higher FSB, clockspeed, or enabled HT to differnetiate itself from the other offerings. In the case of the Conroe EE it will ahve a higher FSB and clockspeed, and that is all.

From what I have seen from ES chips with not so good OC boards 2.4 GHz chip to 2.9 on air. So seems 14 stage pipe may just scale short of 3.5-4.0ghz on air for EE chip.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
??? First you say they are bad OC, then you say they will overclock to 3.5-4 (which would be insanely high) ???

Anyways, it doesn't really matter about any of that, Intel said its 3 or 3.3G on the EEs, and I think that maybe they are better informed than you are.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
??? First you say they are bad OC, then you say they will overclock to 3.5-4 (which would be insanely high) ???

Anyways, it doesn't really matter about any of that, Intel said its 3 or 3.3G on the EEs, and I think that maybe they are better informed than you are.

I was saying they were getting 500+mhz OC on boards that have bios problems. Hence why they cannot OC as well as they could with the right Mobo. But still 500 MHz oc is nothing sneeze at. The EE should be able to at least hit 3.5 on air when OC. It would not scale as High as netburst for sure I am guess with phase change it would be less the 5ghz for top speed.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
if Conroe EE can overclock to 5G on phase it will mean that Intels process is by far the best in the world, since this is likely not the case I consider it extremely unlikely that 5G will be obtained under phase on the current process.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
if Conroe EE can overclock to 5G on phase it will mean that Intels process is by far the best in the world, since this is likely not the case I consider it extremely unlikely that 5G will be obtained under phase on the current process.

Amd CPUs can Get 4+ GHz on Phase change and they are on 90nm process and shorter pipeline.

Older Netburts Can get 7Ghz+.
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
Athlons max out at about 4GHz, it looks like conroe will go higher since they are actually selling a 3.33GHz one, 5GHz might be doable on phase...we'll see