Pentium 4 3.46 Extreme Edition and 925XE: 1066MHz FSB Support is Here
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 31, 2004 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Intel D925XECV2: Intel's Enthusiast motherboard
For this review Intel sent us their latest motherboard based on the 925XE chipset. Our own Wesley Fink gives his brief look at the motherboard:
Computer users have always admired the speed and stability of Intel motherboards. When testing other boards the standard for stock performance has been Intel brand motherboards. This has been true for both boards based on Intel chipsets and boards based on new competing chipsets. They are measured against Intel performance, as that performance has been as close to a standard in stock motherboard performance as exists in the computer industry.
However, when a Computer Enthusiast shops for a motherboard Intel is rarely on the list for consideration. The reasons are simple - Intel has not offered the kinds of control most performance enthusiasts want. This list of wants includes controls like adjustable memory timings, a full range of adjustable memory speeds, adjustable memory voltage, CPU FSB adjustments, and CPU voltage adjustments. Intel's philosophy has been to offer the safe and accepted options that would not compromise the specifications of the processor and system. This assured the Intel motherboard was not run out-of-spec, keeping failures and RMA's at an acceptable level.
Performance Enthusiasts often seem to care less about motherboard features, but motherboard makers also know a large segment of computer component buyers do care about features like high-definition audio, flexible IO options, RIAD, and flexible storage options. Intel has done a better job in the recent past in addressing these "wants", but the Performance Enthusiast often felt left out of the Intel marketing plan.
This philosophy has gradually been changing at Intel, as we have seen more talk about catering to the Enthusiast in the last year. However, directions for Intel seem to shift frequently, which leads to talk on the one-side about Enthusiast control options on motherboards at the same time the 10% overclock lock is being implemented. This performance schizophrenia also led to Intel calling some very limited efforts in the past an enthusiast board.
All of this leads to the new Intel 925XE chipset motherboard, the D925XECV2. Those who have not been following the evolving interest in the enthusiast at Intel will be surprised to find many of the things Performance Enthusiasts want are a part of the new Intel 925XE motherboard. They didn't come out of nowhere; they are just a continuation of Intel's renewed efforts to attract Enthusiasts to Intel brand motherboards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
63 Comments
View All Comments
AlexWade - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Now if only I can afford and find one ...MMORPGOD - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
IntelUser2000 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
DDR2 is not a stupid move, its the speed they are at that's stupid. Remember DDR? They first ones ran at 200MHz, which were 50% faster than PC133 and still way faster than the enthusiast 166MHz SDRAMs. DDR's latency were higher, but since their clock is much higher, it wasn't a big problem as DDR2 vs DDR. However, PC1600 DDR still was not a big improvement over PC133, it was when PC2100 came that DDR started to shine.Another thing:
Quote:"With the original 925X chipset we were a bit unhappy to see that the Pentium 4's 800MHz FSB was paired with DDR2-533, creating one of those frustrating asynchronous situations."
I think 800MHz bus with DDR2-533 is actually VERY synchronous. First look it doesn't look like it. However since DDR2s latency is higher, it doesn't act like DDR533, it acts like DDR400. There was a Tomshardware review that was trying to predict the performance of 1066MHz bus.
First config was: 800MHz bus, DDR2-533
Second: 1066MHz bus, DDR2-533
Third: 1066MHz bus, DDR2-667
Guess which one had the biggest performance benefit? The third one, contrary to most people's belief. I think that tells that because of the DDR2's latency, you need DDR2-667 to perfectly match 1066MHz bus. Since Intel chose to stick with DDR2-533, they have created an asynchronous situation, making the performance not so much better. They should have went DDR2-667 with 1066MHz bus.
SLIM - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
One thing I didn't catch from anand's review is that the 3.46ee is rated at 110.7 watts according to [H]; just another reason to go AMD. Makes you wonder what the 3.73ee (which is supposed to launch this quarter) will have for a heatsink...Prometia for everyone:)
Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
I remember reading a week or two ago about "AMD is going to have a tough time keeping up," from the lips of an Intel guy.Was this latest outing with the new P4EE's the proof? Perhaps I lack the foresight to understand what will happen in 6 months time, but in who's world is AMD going to have a hard time keeping up with? Cyrix's?
Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
"ddr2 is a stupid move."Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
not to mention, hi, ddr2 for is a stupid move. high latency, crap bandwidth, not just twice the price since you wouldn't have had to upgrade your ram otherwise if you already had solid ddr1.it reminds me of rambus. and beta max. and sony's discman. what else? ddr2 should have never come out imo. ddr3 is where it's at, hopefully amd will go straight to ddr3 and save it's customers and themselves the hastle of having to buy new ram, new mobos and so forth just to have to do it again with ddr3. i like faster everything as much as everyone else, but amd 64 proves ddr1 is alive and well, and ddr2 is what? exactly? perhaps in a year down the road, or two; it'll be worth something at the end of it's life cycle, just as ddr3 starts poking it's head about.
GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Why don't they just screw any other core and focus on pumping out $1000 EEs? Everyones buying them, might as well. I really would like to know the stats for Intel's sales on their new cpus and chipsets, exact numbers.GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
#17 I was infering this world is off balance with that reality...Gnoad - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
wow. $1000 a pop for a CPU that gets destroyed by processors that cost a quarter as much. Totally asinine.