Intel and the its first 64 desktop

[SLX]

Its called Intel Xeon w/ EMT 64, EMT means Extended memory 64 (not a guy who saves your life).

Dont know why I havent heard of ne one in the sysopt forums excited about intel x64 unlike the athlon 64.

Id get one but they are more expensive.

heres a article...
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Jun/bch20040629025784.htm

[Yoshi]

Wait for the next Prescott (Early Feb.) It is Intel's next Pentium's and will be titled 6xx. They have EMT64 suport and 2MB cache. Also they rin on Socket 775

[cyber_gubat]

and expect it to be more expensive than the athlon 64's early launch price.:t

[SLX]

Originally posted by cyber_gubat
and expect it to be more expensive than the athlon 64's early launch price.:t

Yep, hehe Intell has a reputation for being higher prices than AMD.

[MadPistol]

normal case:

Higher Clock = Higher Price (most of the time)

I wonder if Intel will ever learn. And the above theory is not in effect, as you can buy 2 3Ghz P4's for the price of an Athlon 64 FX-55, which is a whopping 2.6 ghz. :eek: (albiet, the FX-55 smokes the 3Ghz P4 hands down)

[Rugor]

One of the reasons people aren't generally as excited about the Intel 64 bit chips is because they really aren't as exciting. First they're based on the NetBurst Architecture, which has never taken the enthusiast community by storm.

The second factor is that AMD's 64-bit architecture brought a number of very exciting changes to the table, rather than just being a 64-bit bolt-on to an existing design. Hyper Transport doesn't just replace the FSB but it also provides for high speed multi-processor interconnects. The other really big change (and the one that got most enthusiasts excited) was moving the memory controller onto the CPU core.

Intel's EMT64 doesn't do any of those things so to most enthusiasts it's pretty boring. All it really does is add the ability to use a 64-bit OS and address more memory.

More of the same isn't as exciting as something new.

Of course as an Athlon 64 owner I could be prejudiced.

[CrazyCrusher]

id wait untill some benchmarks come out before I say anything.

[tweakerpc]

Maybe intel will buy amd:D :D :D :D :D

[Someone Stupid]

Athlon 64's and Prescott's can wait awhile for me. I really want a Dothan, actually I want a viable desktop dothan board. Not the DFI in all the reviews (though ig they made it that would be great). Yes the performance is insane with what little you have (nothing), but I'm not going to buy into something Intel is going to keep retarded for retarded reasons that they've been known for doing. Vcore adjustments and a way to mount a block or real heatsink. Don't even need that option really, I'll run mine hot (or so MBM tells me) if it even can get to that.

I just want an 855 chipset that has the option to play with the vcore, dinky heatsink or not. That would just be insane potential.

[Rugor]

I'd love a Dothan too, I've always liked that core better than the P4.

However, my previous point about the AMD64 vs. Intel EMT64 doesn't really have so much to do with performance. Intel may (I think it's unlikely and what benchmarks I've seen show otherwise) have better performance with their 64-bit architecture, but that's not the point.

The point is that until and unless Intel shows huge performance increases with it people just aren't going to be as excited. It's either innovation or performance that draws enthusiasm, and Intel's 64-bit implementation doesn't have a lot of innovation going for it.

Without the innovation, people will have to wait for the benchmarks.

It may be a good processor, but it's not an exciting one.

[willg99]

Originally posted by tweakerpc
Maybe intel will buy amd:D :D :D :D :D

That'd be nice. Things might be a lot cheaper then.

[SLX]

Originally posted by willg99
That'd be nice. Things might be a lot cheaper then.
Dear god no. There wont be any competition and that will lead to less innovation, less performace increases and higher prices. I wouldnt be surprised if intel and amd got together to slow down the performance leaps.

you guys are right there hasnt been much innovation on intels part much since the change from willamite p4 to the new Northwood p4's since then they have only added hyperthreading and upped the FSB. Introduced an extra 1mb l2 cache and new instructions. as well as the extreeme edition. but no big innovations. And now an add on 64 bit??

Thats might be the reason that I havent uppgraded my 2.4 p4 for the last 3 years. Infact its the oldest thing in my computer (besides my hard drive). Its in a new motherboard and vidcard psu and faster ram. In fact ive OC to 3.2 ghz in the new board.

[willg99]

Originally posted by SLX
Dear god no. There wont be any competition and that will lead to less innovation, less performace increases and higher prices. I wouldnt be surprised if intel and amd got together to slow down the performance leaps.

you guys are right there hasnt been much innovation on intels part much since the change from willamite p4 to the new Northwood p4's since then they have only added hyperthreading and upped the FSB. Introduced an extra 1mb l2 cache and new instructions. as well as the extreeme edition. but no big innovations. And now an add on 64 bit??

Thats might be the reason that I havent uppgraded my 2.4 p4 for the last 3 years. Infact its the oldest thing in my computer (besides my hard drive). Its in a new motherboard and vidcard psu and faster ram. In fact ive OC to 3.2 ghz in the new board.

I'm just sick off all the up-to-date processors being so expensive. a 3.4 GHz 1MB cache costs $334 on Newegg. And a Athlon 64 3500+ costs $269 dollars. And all the high-end stuff gets close to the $1000 Range. These prices are just ridiculous for a little chip that is hardly an inch square in size.

[cyber_gubat]

i guess the idea today is "the smaller the better" miniturization.

and besides that what they call "innovation" hehehe