Thoughts and HEXUS.right2reply
The Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 is a showcase of just how effective a couple of Cedar Mill cores and lots of cache can be when allied to a relatively high clockspeed. The '965 takes the '955 Edition as a base and extends performance by running a higher multiplier. 3.73GHz, running on two cores which are endowed with Hyper-Threading, is enough to make it the fastest Intel desktop CPU to date, when evaluated over a series of single- and multi-threaded applications. The speedbump is hardly surprising, though, as our sample '955, multiplier-unlocked, managed to run at 4GHz with default voltage and reference air cooling.The underlying architecture is especially impressive in multi-threaded apps that focus on media processing and software-based 3D tasks. The same architecture falls short in FPU- and gaming-related apps but that is the nature of the Prescott-derived beast, isn't it? Nothing much can be done until a new core is unveiled. As is Intel's regular strategy, the '965 will effectively banish the '955 to obscurity. The asking price for this CPU, £700, is directly in line with AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60. Both CPUs vye for the same kind of consumers, the ones who needs cutting-edge components in their machine at all times. Price, really, is a secondary issue. Intel knows that it will sell only a few Extreme Edition CPUs. Rather, they're released to promote high-end performance that's available from a certain core, with lower models in the 900-series range making up the bulk of dual-core sales.
Here's the question that really needs answering after sifting through the tech and graphs - should you buy an AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 or Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965, assuming that money is absolutely no object? Applications will become more multi-threaded as time goes on, so multi-core CPUs are the way to go. Right now our advice would be to consider Intel's offering if media processing and general multi-threaded applications make up the bulk of your computing requirements. On the other hand, gamers and those whose workloads tend to be FPU-intensive would do better to invest in the FX-60; there's no clear winner when judged over a wide range of benchmarks at default processor speeds. What's more, Intel's '965 overclocks a touch better, in percentage terms, than AMD's 'FX-60, making the overall purchasing decision that much more difficult.
The above buying decision is based upon what's available right now. Both the Athlon 64 and Presler architectures (in Prescott form) have been around a while, and Intel's Presler 965 should be the last in a long line of Pentium 4-based CPUs. The word on the street is that Intel's replacement, currently known to the world as Conroe, will hit the market in late Q2 2006. Initial reports indicate performance that's ahead of AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60's, even in gaming. Until officially released, though, that's all conjecture on this reviewer's part.
Got £700 and you absolutely want to spend it all on a CPU? Define what your workload priorities are and choose whether the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 or AMD Athlon FX-60 is better-suited to your needs. Each excels in different areas and each is a decent processor. What we'd do is save a chunk of cash by investing in a slower, cheaper 900-series CPU for now, and waiting to see what Conroe delivers. That's just us. Feel free to ignore the advice if you're fortunate enough to be in the money-no-object category.
