When did Intel release the P4 3.6?
- Thread starter Hulk
- Start date
- Oct 9, 1999
- 5,160
- 3,776
- 136
Sorry, I guess this is the wrong forum to post such a question... oh wait, this IS the right forum
Anyway...
for those who may care, I discovered that there was NO official press release. Intel kind of snuck the announcement in with the 915/925 chipset release. Most likely as it was a paper release.
Anyway...for those who may care, I discovered that there was NO official press release. Intel kind of snuck the announcement in with the 915/925 chipset release. Most likely as it was a paper release.
Seeing as you wasted over $600 on a CPU, it doesn't surprise me to know that you're ignoring half of your CPU options.
I thought it was interesting that there was no "official" press release for the P4 3.6. Perhaps I should looked in the Intel pressroom under "portable space heater," or "toaster oven."
But seriously, I think it shows that Intel is having serious problems ramping P4 clockspeed since in the past they avoided such sketchy releases.
Not that I'm cheering for either side. I'm just happy that there healthy competition. I just hope it continues.
As for the "quasi-flamer" of my original post - I appreciate all of your sentiments. I've been here since the beginning and it's always been a pretty polite place to discuss hardware.
But seriously, I think it shows that Intel is having serious problems ramping P4 clockspeed since in the past they avoided such sketchy releases.
Not that I'm cheering for either side. I'm just happy that there healthy competition. I just hope it continues.
As for the "quasi-flamer" of my original post - I appreciate all of your sentiments. I've been here since the beginning and it's always been a pretty polite place to discuss hardware.
It depends on how you look at it I suppose. My overclocked Mobile Barton at 2500mhz isn't much slower than the FX-53, yet it costs $70 or so. I could buy 8 of these chips instead of a single FX-53. That's why I say it's a waste. Usually if one spends more than $200-$300 on a CPU they are not getting good value for their money whatsoever.
Just because the FX-53 is faster than the P4EE for less money, it doesn't mean it's a good deal IMO. A P4 3.0C would have been a much better value, but they're made by *gasp* intel.
Your 2.5Ghz Barton is considerably slower than a stock FX-53, more so to an OCd FX.
Try comparing it to the FX53 in lightwave/encoding/content creation.
Although I'm sure you were probably referring to 3Dmark or something.
I doubt it!!! Sickbeast is into some serious 3d CAD rendering ( I have seen his stuff and it is good) and I am sure he has looked at it seriously and more then just gaming like 90% percent of the morons at this site.....
I can't comment whether it is true or not just to say Sickbeast is pretty knowledgeable and i have known him for a bit and his methods seem sound.....
For 450 dollars I will soon have 2 2.4ghz M0 stepping xeons which should do 3.2ghz easily and then that should make that fx53 pretty much a waste in every benchmark**. When I run them at 17x multiplier and 216fsb I will lay waste to Marks system for 1/2 the price....HaHaHa....
**edit. In non gaming apps since I have a modded fx5800u to a GeforceFX Quadro card.
Mark (wink)...We will need to run some more comparison benchmarks soon!!! I live in the neighborhood now...Orenco Station...
:thumbsup:
The FX53 is roughly 15% faster than my mobile barton when it comes to 3D Studio Max, yet it costs eight times as much. If you look at these benchmarks you can make a direct comparison with an FX-53, and even an FX-55. What you need to do is multiply the XP 3000+'s render times by 0.84 (that's 21/25, the difference in clockspeed between what I use and the 3000+ at stock speed). For the benchmark at the top of the page, that means my processor would theoretically score 3.2 minutes. The FX-53 gets 2.78 minutes, making it roughly 15% faster in that test.
In the second test, yes, the XP gets pwned by the A64 chips. I don't use lightwave though (nor do most people in the architectural realm). Not only that, but the FX-53 would have to be eight times faster than the XP to be considered an equal value.
And yes, the dual xeons will dust an FX-53 in the apps we use, Duvie. I'm personally waiting for dual-core processors, and I might even go for an SMP setup so I'll effectively have 4 CPUs. 64-bit rendering apps are going to give us a massive performance boost too.
No way, I already have a mobile Barton, and the performance difference against the FX-53 is huge. But the mobile barton is good. Its just that the apps I use bennefit a lot from integrated memory contoller. I don't encode or use common apps. I use VHDL sinthesys and simulation development software, and the FX-53 is at least 5 times faster than my mobile barton CPU and like 8 or 10 times faster than the fastest P4 CPU in that kind of development software. In the rest of apps, I don't care even if the difference is 1%, FX53 is the fastest desktop CPU. Cannot say the same about the very much hotter P4 3.6E or the more expensive P4EE.
Reasons to hate intel.
To buy the slowest P4C processor you have to spend around $120. WTF, when you can buy a mobile Barton for 70 and kick it ass.
Crappy and expensive processors.
They make the most expensive PC processor in the world (P4EE), but still can be beaten by a $200 CPU.
To buy the slowest P4C processor you have to spend around $120. WTF, when you can buy a mobile Barton for 70 and kick it ass.
Crappy and expensive processors.
They make the most expensive PC processor in the world (P4EE), but still can be beaten by a $200 CPU.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter