bit-tech.net

Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965

Comments 1 to 22 of 22

Reply
RotoSequence 22nd March 2006, 16:07 Quote
An Intel actually won in part of the gaming benchmark suite?

Nice review as usual bigz; too bad netburst is being killed off now; Intel's new efforts to tweak the silicon and use minimal power for the clock speeds theyre getting could really have given netburst one last good run against the Athlon 64 - at let us enthusiasts go nuts with the overclocking ;) :D
Tim S 22nd March 2006, 16:21 Quote
on the subject of overclocking - I'm working on it right now ;)
sadffffff 22nd March 2006, 16:37 Quote
about the dvd shrink bench, wouldn't it have been better if you ripped the vob files to the hard drive without encoding, then opened the vob files and encoded from there? seems like that bench is more of a motherboard IDE bench than anything.
Tim S 22nd March 2006, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadffffff
about the dvd shrink bench, wouldn't it have been better if you ripped the vob files to the hard drive without encoding, then opened the vob files and encoded from there? seems like that bench is more of a motherboard IDE bench than anything.
We'll be changing some things in the near future and this is one of those things on the list. ;)
sadffffff 22nd March 2006, 16:48 Quote
killer
hitman012 22nd March 2006, 17:32 Quote
Good review - looking forward to the overclocking :D. It's quite funny that, as Intel are just about to retire NetBurst, they come up with technology capable of curbing its power consumption.

Actually, a small niggle that I have with the charts - it would be helpful if you highlighted the processor being tested in bold on the benchmarks so that it stands out more. Call me lazy, but it's quite difficult to pick out immediately where it sits in relation to its competitors.
Fr4nk 22nd March 2006, 19:24 Quote
Nice review guys, typical with the netburst tech
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman012

Actually, a small niggle that I have with the charts - it would be helpful if you highlighted the processor being tested in bold on the benchmarks so that it stands out more. Call me lazy, but it's quite difficult to pick out immediately where it sits in relation to its competitors.
I'd also have to agree, I found it quite hard to justify what cpu was what.
Temo Vryce 22nd March 2006, 19:25 Quote
I love seeing independent test like these. I know that they are unbiased and AMD still kicks but. This test almost had me thinking that I might have to purchase an INTEL for my next major system upgrade, but AMD is still king of the pile. Keep up the great work guys.
LAGMonkey 22nd March 2006, 21:53 Quote
Nice review....but not to nit pick but at the bottom of page 5 when your talking about F.E.A.R.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIT-tech
The group bunches together when the game starts to become GPU limited at higher resolutions with the three Athlon 64 FX processors returning an average of 64 frames per second. The Pentium Extreme Edition 965 performed the same as its older brother, along with the majority of the other processors tested here with an average of 63 fps.

shouldnt that be CPU?
speedfreek 22nd March 2006, 22:14 Quote
Im unimpressed, I didnt expect to see anything decent until cornroll or whatever its called comes out. When does it come out?

What temps is that chip running at?
Tim S 22nd March 2006, 22:15 Quote
nope, should be GPU limited (GPU limited = higher resolutions and more strain placed on the graphics subsystem - i.e. resolutions closer to what you're likely to use without being completely graphics limited) ;)
LAGMonkey 22nd March 2006, 22:34 Quote
Oh cool, ta for clearing that on up :) I must have just gotten confused.
dream caster 23rd March 2006, 04:56 Quote
Quote:
from article
read on to see the first benchmark with an Intel beating an Athlon in ages...
A very catchy but rather untrue sentence.
geek1017 23rd March 2006, 08:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dream caster
A very catchy but rather untrue sentence.

keep chasing that dream
Stephen Brooks 24th March 2006, 02:00 Quote
Why, on the last page, is the FX-55 beating the FX-60?
geek1017 24th March 2006, 03:14 Quote
single core vs dual core
you'll also notice the 3700 or 4000 beating the X2 chips at some tasks or the single core P4 beating the dual core.
Tim S 24th March 2006, 08:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedfreek
Im unimpressed, I didnt expect to see anything decent until cornroll or whatever its called comes out. When does it come out?

What temps is that chip running at?
it runs at about 53 deg C ful load, compared to 65+ on the 955 ;)
Stephen Brooks 24th March 2006, 12:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by geek1017
single core vs dual core
you'll also notice the 3700 or 4000 beating the X2 chips at some tasks or the single core P4 beating the dual core.
At the same clock speed? The FX-60 is just two FX-55s stuck together. I could understand the FX-57 beating the FX-60, but not the 55 beating the 60!

In fact that pattern is repeated throughout FEAR and Far Cry. Whoever programmed the "multi-threading" in those games deserves a wooden spoon of some sort
Tim S 24th March 2006, 12:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Brooks
At the same clock speed? The FX-60 is just two FX-55s stuck together. I could understand the FX-57 beating the FX-60, but not the 55 beating the 60!

In fact that pattern is repeated throughout FEAR and Far Cry. Whoever programmed the "multi-threading" in those games deserves a wooden spoon of some sort

Certainly where multi-threading is concerned in Far Cry, I don't think there is any... F.E.A.R. should show performance benefits with dual cores though... :(
timothyw9 25th March 2006, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RotoSequence
An Intel actually won in part of the gaming benchmark suite?

Nice review as usual bigz; too bad netburst is being killed off now; Intel's new efforts to tweak the silicon and use minimal power for the clock speeds theyre getting could really have given netburst one last good run against the Athlon 64 - at let us enthusiasts go nuts with the overclocking ;) :D


well you have to go on and anyway the netburst core is limiting due to it's long pipeline

how long has the pentium brand been Around?
Bindibadgi 25th March 2006, 14:27 Quote
Since 1992 when the Pentium 60 was released. Pent being the 5th revision of x86 technology (586) after 486 SX, DX, DX2, DX4 (obviously). But Pentium became a brand name rather than a revision name, so Intel kept it through 686, 786, 886 (hence, athlon K8's are 886 = 8th generation x86 tech) etc. AMD still used K5/K6 to denote revisions in socket 7 but they dropped it for brand names of Athlon and Duron during K7 when they first went to slot then socket A.
RotoSequence 25th March 2006, 16:42 Quote
Timothy9w, at the same time, the long pipeline allows high clock speeds and tremendous performance in applications that execute in long, continuous instructions. This doesnt work out too well in most games, which is why A64s have better performance. However, Quake is one of those games thats coded to take advantage of longer pipelines to some degree. Now that Intel has 65nm tech that allows lower temperature silicon, they can pack on the MHz again just as theyre killing the architecture off - much like how they killed off the Pentium 3 which still had plenty left in it (as demonstrated by the Pentium M).
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums