Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 965: The Last of a Dying Breed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 22, 2006 1:51 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Test
We've started upgrading bits and pieces of our CPU test bed, so the numbers in this review are not comparable to those in previous reviews. Our previous 120GB 7200.7 Seagate PATA hard drive has been replaced with a 300GB 7200.9 Seagate SATA drive. And we're using a single Radeon X1900 XTX in our testbeds as well.
While the Intel motherboard that we've been using remains the same (albeit with a BIOS update to recognize the EE 965 processor), we've switched to the ASUS A8N32-SLI based on the nForce4 SLI x16 chipset for the AMD processors.
We've started upgrading bits and pieces of our CPU test bed, so the numbers in this review are not comparable to those in previous reviews. Our previous 120GB 7200.7 Seagate PATA hard drive has been replaced with a 300GB 7200.9 Seagate SATA drive. And we're using a single Radeon X1900 XTX in our testbeds as well.
While the Intel motherboard that we've been using remains the same (albeit with a BIOS update to recognize the EE 965 processor), we've switched to the ASUS A8N32-SLI based on the nForce4 SLI x16 chipset for the AMD processors.
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 (2.6GHz/1MBx2) Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (3.73GHz/2MBx2) Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 955 (3.46GHz/2MBx2) |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Intel BadAxe 975X |
| Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce4 SLI x16 Intel 975X |
| Chipset Drivers: | nForce4 x16 6.85 Intel 7.2.2.1006 |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA |
| Memory: | OCZ PC3500 DDR 2-2-2-7 DDR2-667 4-4-4-15 |
| Video Card: | ATI Radeon X1900 XTX |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 6.3 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
AnandThenMan - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"Would you have preferred we not have this review at all?"What are you suggesting? That the review can't be published unless Conroe benches are in there as well? Let's be very clear here. Anandtech is publishing Intel sanctioned benches as the gospel truth. Anandtech is publishing benchmarks on an un-released product, running on unknown hardware, unknown settings, under restricted testing conditions, and passing them off without question at all.
If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate.
It is very, very dissapointed to see Anandtech pull this crap. Conroe could very well live up the the hype and more. That is not the point. Integrity of testings means you control the testing environment, you control the hardware, and you control the software. And if you DON'T, then you SPECULATE and make it very clear that the results are speculation. You don't announce, "Intel takes back the performance crown" based on tests Intel let you perform. Very poor job.
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link
You're overreacting. Any reader knows that the original Conroe tests couldn't be 100% verified, since Anand made that very clear. So then you read this review, and you keep that in mind. Big whoop.Thanks, Anand, for showing the Conroe numbers. It's information that any sane builder would want to see, even though the numbers haven't been independently confirmed.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate."It would be a bit pointless for the companies to supply the hardware, but not allow anyone to see it and put restrictions on the benchmarks run. It would be far more sensible if the companies simply ran the benchmarks on future products themselves, and provided Anand with the figures to publish :)
Zebo - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Anand is doing intel's dirty work. It's called osborne effect - leak an upcoming products when you have nothing to undercut competitors sales. Brillaint move by intel - and Anand is being played like fiddle.Zebo - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
How do you know there was'nt a 3.6 Ghz conroe in there?cornfedone - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
SOS, DD.They ain't got a clue.
ksherman - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
not sure if it is real or not, but it goes down in my bookas one sweet word: "obsolescence" (found in the closing paragraph)Chadder007 - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Who in their right mind would purchase this processor??? ....on yeah, the one that buys the new $10,000 Dell. :kekekeke:jojo4u - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
EIST was introduced in the 6xx series and not in the 5xxJ as the article suggests.Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
You are correct, I've made the appropriate change to the article :)Take care,
Anand