Intel Pressler XE955 review up

[Viditor]

Sudhian Review

3.46 GHz
1066 FSB
Hyperthreading
$1000

Compared to the $780 X2, it's a very dissapointing chip...
It wins almost none of the benches (except Windows Media 9) and loses some by as much as 22% (gaming). The power draw at idle is higher than the X2 4800+ at full load...

 

[Markfw]

Thats pathetic... But doesn't surprise me.

 

[Tangerines]

I read the Hexus review. Surprisingly, it doesn't look too bad, especially with an overclock of about 4.2 GHz on air, which impressed me. Shame it's so expensive though.

Hopefully all of Intel's new 65nm chips will have the same overclocking potential. That would be great.

 

[Markfw]

By my computation, an X2 would need to be @2913 to be the same OC, but since it is beating it so bad, maybe 2700 would be enough to be tied. Thats is easily doable, and it takes less power and still runs cooler, and costs less too ! Would be an interesting article to OC both and make a real comparision.

Still doesn't impress me. I have to post some quotes also:

Presler is not a cool running processor. In our testing we had to replace the stock cooler with a Zalman CNPS-9500 to keep the test bed bearable. The heatsink that came with the XE955 is a run of the mill aluminum with copper core Intel OEM heatsink. Although we didn?t experience throttling with the stock cooler it was simply too loud. It sounded like a helicopter taking off and ran the processor up to 80C. We didn?t feel too safe with the processor running that hot as we didn?t want a recreation of Chernobyl in our testing area so we grabbed a Zalman CNPS-9500. We tried a CNPS-7000Cu at first but that didn?t improve the temperatures too much.

... and ...

There isn?t much to say about the Extreme Edition 955 or Intel?s Presler architecture. The performance numbers show it all, AMD is still king. Although Vanderpool virtualization technology is quite intriguing and we did get it working using VMware 5.5 and Mac OSX, it simply isn?t enough to earn the Extreme Edition 955 a recommendation. It?s hot, loud, and consumes power to boot. While the hot temperatures may cut down heating costs if you lived in the artic, it is simply too hot in average climate areas and can warm up a medium-sized living room when folding@home is running.

Nonetheless if you must have the fastest Intel processor available, the Extreme Edition 955 is it. However we were disappointed with the performance, power consumption, etc. The few performance wins it had is simply not enough to justify it over a lower cost AMD Athlon 64 X2. If dual core is what you seek, stick with the Athlon 64 X2 as Presler is a miss.

Intel has a lot of catching up to do and we hope Conroe/Merom will put up a tougher challenge?till then?

 

[Viditor]

The question I have is...who in their right mind overclocks a $1000 CPU???

 

[cryogenic666]

hell, who in their right mind BUYS one? One from Intel, no less!

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Xbitlabs review with OCing. Xbitlabs' review seems to favour Intel, it all depends from the benchmarks you choose. Performance of the 4.25 GHz chip with stock cooling is very intriguing, I wonder how much more they could have pushed it with better cooling. Either way, it looks like the chip has quite a bit of headroom, which bodes well for Intel's 65nm process.

 

[ahock]

I have read the all the benchmaks and somehow its good to see something from Intel that beats AMD. Problem is you have to overclock BUT overclocking is impressive. Almost at 1GHz at stock cooling.

Bottomline this is only for rich people and enthusiasts.....

 

[DrMrLordX]

ahock, nobody has shown the Presler at 4.26 ghz beating an x2 at around 2.7 ghz or higher. Hell, some of the dual-core Opterons are hitting 3 ghz and higher, which would spank the OCed EE at a lower price.

My question is, why aren't they benching the EE vs the FX-60? Hmm?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Xbitlabs review with OCing. Xbitlabs' review seems to favour Intel, it all depends from the benchmarks you choose. Performance of the 4.25 GHz chip with stock cooling is very intriguing, I wonder how much more they could have pushed it with better cooling. Either way, it looks like the chip has quite a bit of headroom, which bodes well for Intel's 65nm process.

I agree to an extent...the wierd thing is, while I have a great deal of respect for xbit, their results just don't seem to jibe with some of the other reviews. I'm looking forward to Anand's and Techreport's reviews for some confirmation.
While I usually read xbit's reviews with respect, I also think Sudhian's reviews are quite good as well...and the results seem so different!

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
ahock, nobody has shown the Presler at 4.26 ghz beating an x2 at around 2.7 ghz or higher. Hell, some of the dual-core Opterons are hitting 3 ghz and higher, which would spank the OCed EE at a lower price.

My question is, why aren't they benching the EE vs the FX-60? Hmm?

Because the FX-60 isn't out yet?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Sc4freak

Because the FX-60 isn't out yet?

To be fair, neither is the XE955...

 

[Sc4freak]

But isn't this the official launch?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Xbitlabs review with OCing. Xbitlabs' review seems to favour Intel, it all depends from the benchmarks you choose. Performance of the 4.25 GHz chip with stock cooling is very intriguing, I wonder how much more they could have pushed it with better cooling. Either way, it looks like the chip has quite a bit of headroom, which bodes well for Intel's 65nm process.

They OC the Intel, but run the X2 at stock ? Thats BS. And the X2 still wins sometimes, thats pathetic !

 

[Vegitto]

Nice fanboy circle jerk . I saw some different results, and I'm still not impressed .

I do agree, though, that the XE955 should be compared to the FX-60, as it's been for sale on eBay. I've seen some guys at xtremesystems.org overclock those babies, and DAMN!

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Xbitlabs review with OCing. Xbitlabs' review seems to favour Intel, it all depends from the benchmarks you choose. Performance of the 4.25 GHz chip with stock cooling is very intriguing, I wonder how much more they could have pushed it with better cooling. Either way, it looks like the chip has quite a bit of headroom, which bodes well for Intel's 65nm process.

They OC the Intel, but run the X2 at stock ? Thats BS. And the X2 still wins sometimes, thats pathetic !

A) The objective of overclocking in that review obviously was not to compare how well an overclocked 955XE could do compared to an overclocked X2.

B) There's no point to comparing an overclocked 4800+ to an overclocked 955XE as no one is going to be cross-shopping them. The reviewers themselves mention that the XE's competition is the upcoming FX-60.

C) The review clearly shows that the chip does have headroom, and quite a bit of it at that. A 25% on stock cooling is very nice, and the chip doesn't show any signs of throttling.

D) There's no need to get your panties in a wad just because one website didn't say that AMD is the best company that has ever existed and that Intel is the scum of the Earth

 

[theMan]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Xbitlabs review with OCing. Xbitlabs' review seems to favour Intel, it all depends from the benchmarks you choose. Performance of the 4.25 GHz chip with stock cooling is very intriguing, I wonder how much more they could have pushed it with better cooling. Either way, it looks like the chip has quite a bit of headroom, which bodes well for Intel's 65nm process.

well, the xbitlabs review favored intel because they had an overclocked cpu against all stock cpu's.

 

[coldpower27]

Well, it can be when it's officially launched. For the moment Athlon 64x2 4800+ is their highest Dual Core.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Xbitlabs review with OCing. Xbitlabs' review seems to favour Intel, it all depends from the benchmarks you choose. Performance of the 4.25 GHz chip with stock cooling is very intriguing, I wonder how much more they could have pushed it with better cooling. Either way, it looks like the chip has quite a bit of headroom, which bodes well for Intel's 65nm process.

They OC the Intel, but run the X2 at stock ? Thats BS. And the X2 still wins sometimes, thats pathetic !

A) The objective of overclocking in that review obviously was not to compare how well an overclocked 955XE could do compared to an overclocked X2.

B) There's no point to comparing an overclocked 4800+ to an overclocked 955XE as no one is going to be cross-shopping them. The reviewers themselves mention that the XE's competition is the upcoming FX-60.

C) The review clearly shows that the chip does have headroom, and quite a bit of it at that. A 25% on stock cooling is very nice, and the chip doesn't show any signs of throttling.

D) There's no need to get your panties in a wad just because one website didn't say that AMD is the best company that has ever existed and that Intel is the scum of the Earth

a) my point exactly, how moronic.
b) WTF are you talking about cross-shipping ? But yes, the FX60 is its competition.
c) the 25% is about the same % headroom the X2 has, and its a year old.
d) No, if you read my posts, you will see that I respect Intel, and Yonah is a step in the right direction, but they still haven't pulled themselves "out of the gutter" and come up with a decent desktop chip yet. I miffed because the review is so slanted, nothing to do with Intel vs AMD as companies.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
a) my point exactly, how moronic.
b) WTF are you talking about cross-shipping ? But yes, the FX60 is its competition.
c) the 25% is about the same % headroom the X2 has, and its a year old.
d) No, if you read my posts, you will see that I respect Intel, and Yonah is a step in the right direction, but they still haven't pulled themselves "out of the gutter" and come up with a decent desktop chip yet. I miffed because the review is so slanted, nothing to do with Intel vs AMD as companies.

A) You said it was BS that they had a review in which there was an overclocked 955XE and a non-overclocked X2, how was it your point that they weren't being compared again?

B) Cross-shopping, not cross-shipping. As in someone in the market for a 955XE won't be comparing it to a 4800+ but to an FX-60

C) Are the 4800+ chips really getting a 25% OC on stock cooling? I haven't been following CPUs too closely lately but you're telling me a run of the mill 4800+ will hit 3 GHz on stock cooling? I'd be very interested in seeing that since I'm looking to upgrade my machine soon.

D)I still don't see how it's so slanted, the non-overclocked 955XE wins a bunch of the (non-gaming) benchmarks they run against both the FX-57 and the X2 4800+ which are its current competition. Things will likely change once the FX-60 is launched but until then the 955XE is a very viable solution for someone that wants a high-end CPU for content creation and editing (look at the Premiere, Photoshop, and 3ds benchmarks). Moreover, their conclusion is exactly what I just said, it's not like they just made things up.

 

[PetNorth]

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/9198

 

[PetNorth]

Xbit-Labs review summary Pentium EE 955 & Pentium D 950 Vs. X2 4800+


Of course, sinthetic benchmarks ignored.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Sc4freak


Because the FX-60 isn't out yet?

Ahem

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1758952&enterthread=y

Think before you speak.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Vegitto
Nice fanboy circle jerk . I saw some different results, and I'm still not impressed .

I do agree, though, that the XE955 should be compared to the FX-60, as it's been for sale on eBay. I've seen some guys at xtremesystems.org overclock those babies, and DAMN!

Damn right. The 4800+ does very well against the new EE, but cmon guys, if you're gonna benchmark this paper-launched Intel chip, why not grab a FX-60(they ARE available!) and bench it too? Geez.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Viditor
The question I have is...who in their right mind overclocks a $1000 CPU???

I do.