 |
|
|
|
In the Forums... |
Posted: October 31st, 2004
It is a processor war between the elite striving to conclude which is more prestigious than the other, that is how one could describe the challenge between AMD's and Intel's top dog for desktop platforms. Given Intel's strict positioning of its latest newcomer against the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 it is in our opinion that the latter should be included in what attempts to be a respectable conclusion. As the benchmark results display it is not a simple task choosing the winner, not until one determines the outcomes, potential prowess and then of course end user value. Starting with the outcomes we can account Intel winning 12 benchmarks whereas fellow AMD 9 out of the total of 21 featured within our review, in some the distance is a little greater however in others marginal. Within the 12 won by Intel 7 are lead by the Extreme Edition 3.46GHz, from the 9 triumphed by AMD all are victorious thanks to the Athlon 64 FX-55. At least when viewed in the performance stakes Intel's Extreme Edition 3.46GHz is neither far better nor far worse than AMD's current best, it is in fact a somewhat even race with Intel claiming only an overall victory on the numbers of wins. AMD's strongest feature is games performance topping Intel in all but the Quake3 test. Intel on the other hand takes a stance in audio/video encoding and a range of synthetic tests. So how well does Intel's new Extreme Edition really fare? Judging the prowess locked within these processors is something bound to also cause problems, both are mature designs that have lived to deliver appeal over several years. The Extreme Edition shares much similarity with other Netburst designs whereas the Athlon with the previous K7. What separates them from a overall glance is clock speed - a full 860MHz - but even that isn't enough as although their architectural designs differ they essentially provide the same level of performance - one up one down, and vice versa. What we can observe is the Extreme Edition at 3.46GHz more often than not providing fellow Athlon FX-55 a run for its merit, not significantly but certainly distinguishable as a fact of life. This minor win for Intel doesn't imply it is automatically of greater prowess for every type of application but what it does suggest is its higher somewhat probability of scoring better within these diverse scenarios. When it comes down to price most would be forgiven for thinking AMD is the considerably cheaper alternative, they are - just - though to a inconsiderable degree. At the time of writing AMD's FX-55 is generally available for on average $900 putting is merely $100 less expensive than Intel's Extreme Edition 3.46GHz $999 price tag. Price was always a solid characteristic of the Extreme Edition series, does it justify the usual at most 10-15% extra oomph over the standard Pentium 4 or relatively equally competent Athlon 65 FX-55? Should you be a professional where time prominently means money the answer would be yes, for a casual gamer or other computer user it could be regarded as expensive and overkill - in other words no. In the end price takes a backseat as we remind ourselves that this item is of luxury status, most who will buy are also those who can pay. For anyone currently shopping for a new elite version processor or planning to the message should be as follows; Intel's new flagship Extreme Edition 3.46GHz is a very fast option that will no doubt put a smile on those who appreciate belonging to a niche club of extremists - the world of true computer enthusiasts. This latest release refines an already full of flair processor series thanks primarily to a rise in FSB to 1066MHz - establishing Intel's offering as highly competitive with AMD's finest in a large and varied number of test cases. If you see yourself as an Intel devotee or for some reason prefer them over AMD and of course most important of all have deep pockets there is no reason against recommending it as a viable CPU for your next platform. The combination of such processor and a 925XE chipset motherboard will make it a vastly rapid platform. For those who don't sign in as members of the Intel fan club or such the AMD Athlon FX-55 remains a very viable alternative only slightly losing in more than half the benchmarks and with the lack of need for DDR2 and PCI Express graphics it's cheaper if building a system from ground up. If to summarize Intel’s latest efforts they have delivered a refined product bound to both satisfy and appeal to the true power user and of course put pressure on archrival AMD - competition is always a good thing, especially for the consumer. Pros:
- Very fast processor Cons
- Requires new 925XE chipset motherboard
|
||
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|