Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 965: The Last of a Dying Breed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 22, 2006 1:51 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overall Performance using SYSMark 2004
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
ICC SYSMark 2004
The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
SYSMark's Office Productivity suite consists of three tests, the first of which is the Communication test. The Communication test consists of the following:
"The user receives an email in Outlook 2002 that contains a collection of documents in a zip file. The user reviews his email and updates his calendar while VirusScan 7.0 scans the system. The corporate web site is viewed in Internet Explorer 6.0. Finally, Internet Explorer is used to look at samples of the web pages and documents created during the scenario."The next test is Document Creation performance:
"The user edits the document using Word 2002. He transcribes an audio file into a document using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6. Once the document has all the necessary pieces in place, the user changes it into a portable format for easy and secure distribution using Acrobat 5.0.5. The user creates a marketing presentation in PowerPoint 2002 and adds elements to a slide show template."The final test in our Office Productivity suite is Data Analysis, which BAPCo describes as:
"The user opens a database using Access 2002 and runs some queries. A collection of documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. The queries' results are imported into a spreadsheet using Excel 2002 and are used to generate graphical charts."
ICC SYSMark 2004
The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:
"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."Next, we have 2D Content Creation performance:
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."The Internet Content Creation suite is rounded up with a Web Publishing performance test:
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
asliarun - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months."What is wrong with reviewing a CPU that isn't in the market today, anyway? Isn't that why you and me visit hardware review sites anyway? In any case, this article is a benchmark/evaluation, NOT a promotion. Ironically, the final recommendation by Anand is NOT to buy the friggin CPU, so i don't see which way this article can be termed a "promotion".
Jeez, give the author some respect.
Ok, you're not a fanboi, and nor am i. Yes, we all know that AMD's performance today is better by a decent margin. However, what's with the flamewars about Conroe benchies not being done in an "ideal" setting, or even with this review? Ok, the Conroe benchmark wasn't totally under the reviewers' control, but give the authors a break, man. Are you telling me that all the reviewers who managed to review Conroe didn't smell anything fishy (if indeed there was something?)? Please think a few times before trashing someone's reputation, especially because they've spent years toiling for it. All it takes us to trash it, on the other hand, is a few clicks.
dev0lution - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
I don't know why they continue to slap an Extreme Edition label on the models lately, unless they mean "the extreme limits of what we can do with this architecture".I would have hoped a processor with a higher clock, 65nm process and twice the cache would bench better and be more power efficient than the FX-60.
mino - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
there are at least 10 cases where 965 shows unreasonably high score compared to 955.The is something fishy here. These score are either fake(surely not) or the margin of error is so huge it makes no sense to publish them.
It's not OK whem from 7% or so frequency bump on the CPU one gets 15% performance bum in Game !!!
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
The F.E.A.R. numbers for the 955 were incorrect, I've fixed the errors. Thanks for the heads up :)Take care,
Anand
mino - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
bum == bumpKeithTalent - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Should I assume the three FEAR charts are at different resolutions even though they all show at 1024x768. Or maybe I am missing something else altogether?AnandThenMan - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
You know, putting Conroe benchmarks in there is pretty lame. Firstly, Controe cannot be purchased by ANYONE. Secondly, this is not a review of Conroe, period.Why not put in some other speculative benches in, like an overclocked X2 etc. I don't care how fast Conroe actually ends up being. Tacking on the Conroe benches at the end smacks of Intel brown nosing. Reviews are about current products we can all actually purchase. Very unprofessional.
Houdani - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
You know, Anand was doing all of us a favor by showing us Intel's latest offering, and then going the extra mile to show us why it would be a poor decision to actually buy one. Anand's point was simply to keep in mind that (to the best of everyone's knowledge) Conroe will very likely shame this PEE965 offering. He used one Intel product to spit upon another Intel product.You call that brown nosing? What an absurd notion.
krwilsonn - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Considering that if Conroe is as great as it is supposed to be, in a few months you will be looking at those same benchmarks and Intel will then have the lead. Since this is likely the case, why not include it? Because it is Intel? Aren't we determining the FASTEST cpu? If that is likely to change in the near future than it is to everyone's benefit to point that out.redbone75 - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
I think the review did what it was supposed to do, and that was compare the latest EE to the best AMD has to offer. While Anand traditionally doesn't include hardware that can't be purchased at present, please remember that the 965 won't be out until April. Would you have preferred we not have this review at all? Furthermore, including comparisons to Conroe were more for the purpose of reminding prospective buyers of the EE what will be on the horizon, not to show Conroe's dominance over all available processors, AMD or otherwise. I'm dying to build a new rig right now, but I know I will suffer an acute case of buyer's remorse once Conroe is available in some few short months and a much better chip is available for the price range I'm looking at.