your thoughts on the p4 extreme

[bozilla]

I'm buying a top of the line machine for myself and I can tell you FORGET about single CPU machines. It's not so much about raw speed but about smoothness of operation. You can never get that on single CPU machine running Windows XP. I asked around on few big forums, people from one and the other side of the fence and people agree. Currently the top of the line machine (which I'm planning of building very soon) is this:

- SILVERSTONE TEMJIN Series Black ATX Full Tower Case with Wind Tunnel, Model "SST-TJ06-B"
- Tyan "Tiger K8W (S2875ANRF)" AMD-8000 Chipset Server Motherboard for Dual AMD Opteron
- ASUS ATI RADEON X800 XT Video Card, 256MB GDDR3, 256-Bit, DVI/VIVO, 8X AGP (Core: 520mhz Memory: 1120mhz)
- Dual AMD Opteron Model 250, 1MB L2 Cache 64-bit (Socket 940 / this is FX53 in 940 socket)
- 2Gb Corsair XMS Platinum Series, LL 1GB(512MBx2) ECC Registered DDR PC-3200
- Dual Western Digital Raptor 74GB
- Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA
- PIONEER Black DVD±RW Drive DVR-A08XL 16x / 4x DL
- ASUS Black 16X DVD-ROM
- Antec 550W Power Supply, Model "TRUE550"

It will set your brother back $4,000.00 but it's highly unlikely that he would pay less for EE version.
If he needs a lot of ram for future upgrades then he can go with $150 more expensive Tyan model that supports PCI-X and up to 16gb of ram.

Second machine by speed and more of a technological breakthrough, comes from Intel side:
- SUPERMICRO "X6DA8-G2" E7525 Dual Intel XEON (SCSI320)
- ASUS ATI RADEON X800 XT PCI-E dual DVI (Core: 500mhz Memory: 1000mhz)
- Dual Intel Xeon 3.6EA GHz with EMT64, 800MHz FSB
- 2 Gb Kingston ValueRAM DDR2-PC2 3200 Registered
- Dual Western Digital Raptor 74GB
- Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA
- PIONEER Black DVD±RW Drive DVR-A08XL 16x / 4x DL
- ASUS Black 16X DVD-ROM
- Antec 550W PSU, 24-Pin, Model "TRUE550 EPS12V"

It's pretty much the same price.

Once you go dual you will never ever go back to single CPU machines. Again, it's not that much of a speed gain in games or so, but the smoothness of work is unmatched. No lags whatsoever, everything pops up instantly and in multitasking when you have few apps opened is just unbelievably fast.

Think about it. This is the best money can buy today.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
the fact of the matter is that intel sucks right now and the only people who buy them are geniuses who think a more expensive cpu is better

entirely incorrect. many people buy intels for reasons other than price, and they certainly don't "suck". a 2.4c running at 3.6 ghz is certainly comparable in value to anything else out there.

the 939 3000+ also seems to have some very nice headroom, however i'd like to see more than one reviewer obtain those results. also wish there were more choices in 939 mb's... tho time will fix that.

ok, i know, i meant the EE and people who drop over a grand for them (cough, cough, coughelix) but in many cases, and i think most cases across the performance range, amd's outperform equivalently priced intels. forget clocks and ratings, i care what the performance is for what i pay, and that's why i'd buy an amd now.

i agree that a 2.6 is a good deal too, but i think is is less likely that you will get it to run on stock cooling at 3.6 than you will a 3000 at 2.6. i think as soon as we see some new motherboards for 939 with next gen chipsets and some higher clocking revisions of 90 nm winchesters the 3000 will become a much better deal

 

[imported_goku]

Im a P4 person and I'm fine with my 2.8C (the one in my sig) but even I can admit that the EE is a complete waste because the AMD 64s just perform much better at a lower price. Possibly for video encoding like the whole RDRAM thing where it beats DDR that might win but even the 2.8C would as well, you even said it's going to be a gaming machine, so just stick with the AMD 64 if you want a real sick gaming machine and in the process, you bro can save a wad of cash. With the money your brother saved, he could just get a prometia cooling system so he could *really overclock that thing and then he will have the ultimate dream machine.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
the fact of the matter is that intel sucks right now and the only people who buy them are geniuses who think a more expensive cpu is better

entirely incorrect. many people buy intels for reasons other than price, and they certainly don't "suck". a 2.4c running at 3.6 ghz is certainly comparable in value to anything else out there.

the 939 3000+ also seems to have some very nice headroom, however i'd like to see more than one reviewer obtain those results. also wish there were more choices in 939 mb's... tho time will fix that.

ok, i know, i meant the EE and people who drop over a grand for them (cough, cough, coughelix) but in many cases, and i think most cases across the performance range, amd's outperform equivalently priced intels. forget clocks and ratings, i care what the performance is for what i pay, and that's why i'd buy an amd now.

yea, the EE is the worst "value" out there in cpus - even compared to other intels. as far as "pay for performance" and going amd.. well, it kinda depends on what's most important to you. but it's cool that's what you prefer

i agree that a 2.6 is a good deal too, but i think is is less likely that you will get it to run on stock cooling at 3.6 than you will a 3000 at 2.6. i think as soon as we see some new motherboards for 939 with next gen chipsets and some higher clocking revisions of 90 nm winchesters the 3000 will become a much better deal

well, time will tell. as i said, one review and two chips is not exaclty a great example. as always, overclocking is very YMMV, however the 2.4c has proven itself over time, but the 90mm 3000+ does sound very promising. still, i think i'm gonna take a "wait and see" approach until there's a bit better selection of mainboards - tho being as impatiant as i am i might just ck out the msi 939 w/ the 90mm 3000+, if for no other reason than to ck out if the 939/dual channel might help some of my a64 performance gripes...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
nothing strange about that, as it's 2 different platforms. i you read the article, the first refers to the 925XE w/ 1066 FSB; the second chart is with an 800 FSB. the fx cpu's were also different; socket 940 & 939. also, they were taken at diffent times, with different peripherals.

the rest is also nonsensical, comparing different resolutions, different accompanying hardware, etc.

FS also showed the EE slightly faster.

much ado about nothing...

No no, that's not the thing

if you look at the links I provided, and read what I wrote

The i875p 3.4 EE lost to the FX-51 in Quake III Team Arena in the older benchmark I listed

Then, in the most recent benchmark, the P4EE 3.4 ghz i875p(SAME PLATFORM AS ABOVE) beat the FX-51 in Quake III Team Arena.

I went well out of my way to point that out in my post, noting that the only difference was the common vid card, which was a 9800XT in the older benchmark, and a 6800GT(both AGP) in the newer benchmark.

As far as the platform for the FX-51 changing between tests, it certainly shouldn't have slowed it down due to a move to socket 939. In fact, I didn't even think there WERE any FX-51s sold for socket 939. Did they underlock a FX-53(939) or what?

I will grant you that the tested resolutions were different, but judging by the shifts in performance due to changes in resolution that can be observed in the 925XE review, I would not say that the EE gets any stronger in Quake III Arena or Team Arena at higher resolutions. The later 925XE article ran the benchmark at a higher resolution(where the EE should have been weaker) and showed the i875p P4EE 3.4ghz beating the FX-51, while the older benchmark showed the same EE(same platform) losing to the FX-51 at a lower resolution(which should have favored the EE).

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

who cares 3.4EE = a grand
fx 51 = way cheapo on ebay,
fx53 = better than 3.4EE = way cheapo compared to EE = anybody with an EE is dumb

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

if anything, you act more like a damn teenager then anyone else.

Dang..I didnt know you were old enough to be a teen.

:roll:

Everyone says you are a 3 year old. Are they correct?

so what? i'm 3 yrs old. boo hoo. there goes my self-asteem. ouch, that really hurt me. i think i'm gonna go shoot myself now. :thumbsdown:

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I am an EE user. I love the thing and had a thread with benchmarks in it until 100s of trolls came out to ruin it. They were so damn jealous of it. I will be posting that thread again.

I say go for it. :thumbsup:

i sure hope you don't work as a financial planner or accountant. here's ars's take on the ee now that the 3.8 is out. here's what they say:

In fact, if the 3.8GHz bludgeons anything, it's the P4 3.46 EE, making the almost US$400 in price difference practically a litmus test for sanity. Friends don't let friends buy EE, folks."

so freezrburn, i hope you didn't get an ee.

 

[dug777]

damn, that 3.8ghz didn't look too shabby, pity intel canned the 4ghz, as the anandtech review sez (i think it was anand ne way ), they would be basically leading the way except for games against the AMDs at those speeds.

It does make rather a mockery of the EE tag sadly ) ), it will be interesting to see where intel take it from here with the EE...

 

[Thermalrock]

the 570j is very nice. i really wished the p4 would have scaled better and tejas wouldnt have been canned and emt64 implemented in desktop chips too. if everthing had worked perfect (looking at roadmaps 2 years ago) i could purchass a 5ghz tejas with sse 4 1266 mhz front side bus. instead im stuck with a 3500+. oh well the 67w is nice. but damn it they better up the watts of the pm to 60-70 and turn it into a desktop monster. P3 gogo~~