Intel to Release Processor for PC Gaming

[SK TastesLike KFC]

Intel Corp. will release a new processor targeted at gamers and PC enthusiasts that will be available within the next month or two, an executive said on Tuesday. The new Pentium® 4 Extreme Edition will run at 3.2 gigahertz and come with an additional 2 megabytes of cache.......... Read more here:

<a href="http://www.cyberathlete.com/league/">http://www.cyberathlete.com/league</a>

and here:

<a href="http://intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030916corp_b.htm?iid=Homepage+Highlight_030916b&">http://intel.com/pressroom</a>

[|Robot|Bender]

Intel Corp. will release a new processor targeted at gamers and PC enthusiasts that will be available within the next month or two, an executive said on Tuesday. The new Pentium® 4 Extreme Edition will run at 3.2 gigahertz and come with an additional 2 megabytes of cache.......... Read more here:

<a href="http://www.cyberathlete.com/league/">http://www.cyberathlete.com/league</a>

and here:

<a href="http://intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030916corp_b.htm?iid=Homepage+Highlight_030916b&">http://intel.com/pressroom</a>


SOUNDS LIKE A BIG PHAT RIP OFF TO ME...
2mb more? Cmon.....make it a 1GB cache count and then we will have something to dance about...

[ElectricHead]

GMC Corp. will release a new car targeted at bus riders and driving enthusiasts that will be available within the next month or two, an executive said on Tuesday. The new Chevy® 4 Extreme Edition will run on a gasoline internal-combustion engine and come with an additional 2 wheels to grip the road.......... Read more here:

www.scaredofhammer.com

www.gmc.com/pressroom/morecrap





EH

[-F7]

2MB is a lot on a CPU cache!

Hell, most Athlon XP's only have a 256 KB cache with the most common denominations across Intel and AMD CPUs being 256KB or 512KB.

[Creeper]

Ya but.. L3 cache? Combined with statements that "Desktop users dont' need 64bit processing" = Intel Scared.

[-F7]

Doh...didn't see that L3... :smirk: Would help if I read the article :p

[Inkswitch]

The new chip is codenamed "Desperon".

[ElectricHead]

The new chip is codenamed "Desperon".
:lol: :lol: :lol:


EH

[Creeper]

Fanboy or not, any proc that can kick the crap out of any other proc, despite a 1Ghz clockspeed disadvantage, rocks in my book.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1856&p=5


(oh.. and if 'taking gamers more seriously' means adding mostly useless L3 cache, and doubling the price.. then god help us if they start taking ordinary users more seriously)

[ElectricHead]

For everyones info, you cant blame ole Moorlan.
Hes just repeating the company line; after all, he works for Intel.


Instead of blaming him for his misguided statements, ask him, being an Intel employee, what kind of chip HE runs in his rig.

You might be suprised :D



EH

[Inkswitch]

For everyones info, you cant blame ole Moorlan.
Hes just repeating the company line; after all, he works for Intel.


Instead of blaming him for his misguided statements, ask him, being an Intel employee, what kind of chip HE runs in his rig.

You might be suprised :D



EH

Heehee! Got you there, Moorlan.

Face it. The Desperon is a desperate attempt to compete with AMD's new chip.

[Paladin]

Oh and as for the 64-bit hype. Get off it. AMD didn't make the first 64 bit processor and until the server-side support (both HW & SW) is in place ther's not much use for a 64-bit processor. Unless you are making it for use by Developers, which Intel did about 2 years ago. And I'm sure that when the appropriate time comes for a 64 bit desktop processor, Intel will roll one out. It might even look a lot like the server processors they are making, go figure!


I suspect if AMD manages to roll out a descent number of Athlon64's this year, we'll start seeing them supported by the gaming companies...initially with 64 bit linux dedicted server software, but it'll get there. Two of the keys will be how reasonably the new processors are priced for adoption by the home server market and how quickly Linux 64 server software follows. And I would not be at all surprised if AMD gets together with at least one manufacturer to create a bunch of linux based public servers to show off what the processors can do. NVidia rolled out a whole stable of Battlefield 1942 servers. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see AMD do something similar, perhaps with Battlefield Vietnam.

I do agree that it will probably be after the release of the next full-up new version of Windows (i.e. not Windows XP 64, the XP family replacement) before we'll start seeing gaming companies releasing 64 bit versions of their software for Windows, although if they plan for it from the beginning, it should largely be just a matter of releasing 64-bit optimized executables...all the data files should be able to be identical I would think.

[Budly]

Interesting side-by-side testing of all the new processors over at Tom's. Fairly suprising results. The big question will be street pricing.

[Turkish]

I suspect if AMD manages to roll out a descent number of Athlon64's this year, we'll start seeing them supported by the gaming companies...initially with 64 bit linux dedicted server software, but it'll get there. Two of the keys will be how reasonably the new processors are priced for adoption by the home server market and how quickly Linux 64 server software follows. And I would not be at all surprised if AMD gets together with at least one manufacturer to create a bunch of linux based public servers to show off what the processors can do. NVidia rolled out a whole stable of Battlefield 1942 servers. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see AMD do something similar, perhaps with Battlefield Vietnam.

I do agree that it will probably be after the release of the next full-up new version of Windows (i.e. not Windows XP 64, the XP family replacement) before we'll start seeing gaming companies releasing 64 bit versions of their software for Windows, although if they plan for it from the beginning, it should largely be just a matter of releasing 64-bit optimized executables...all the data files should be able to be identical I would think.

Yeah first off the AthlonFX 51's will be around $733 and the Athlon64's will be around $450.

Also Intel's P4EE (w/ the 3mb of L3 cache) will also be around the $740-750 price tag.

I see that the 64-bit revolution that was suppose to happen in fiscal year 04 ain't gonna happen on a global (or at least an average jane like myself) scale anytime soon.

Also with that I was trying to see if you could run Normal (32-bit) WinXP with the AthlonFX or A64 cpus. If not I'd have to then wait for the 64-bit version of WinXP or the upcoming Longhorn release in 05 (if it will be a 32/63-bit OS or not remains to be seen).

edit: Looks like you could install WinXP (32bit) with no problems.

[Creeper]

Ya, as the WinXP 64 is still rather beta, most of the benchmarking has been done on normal WinXP thus far.

Speaking of benchmarking.. whether or not there is a 'need' for 64-bit procs, and whether or not there is 64-bit software.. these suckers kick out the framerates, which is all I'm particularly interested in anyway. :p

[ElectricHead]

Ya, as the WinXP 64 is still rather beta, most of the benchmarking has been done on normal WinXP thus far.

Speaking of benchmarking.. whether or not there is a 'need' for 64-bit procs, and whether or not there is 64-bit software.. these suckers kick out the framerates, which is all I'm particularly interested in anyway. :p


Yes they do. At only 2.2Gigs.
I am going to wait for the A64 FX that DOESNT need ECC memory.
Add to that VapoChill deluxe cooling system and ZOOOOM!

[Creeper]

In the mean time, the A64FX benchmarks pretty well when overclocked to 2.8Ghz..

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000268