Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott, 3.4GHz Northwood and 3.4GHz Northwood Extreme Editio

[DR]

The enthusiast may be under the false impression that Intel really, really cares about having the fastest consumer-level CPUs. Intel's near-$30-billion turnover in 2003 dwarfs its arch-rival's, AMD's, by a factor of close to 10, and Intel has an x86 CPU market share in excess of 80%. That's an enviable position to be in. 2003 also saw an unstinting rise in technological stocks. Intel, naturally, gained back some of the market capitalisation that it lost, like everyone else for that matter, when the frenzied stock bubble burst in 2001. In short, Intel is doing good.

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD02OTY=

[Logan[TeamX]]

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD02OTY=

I just want to know why the 3.4GHz P4 EE was not compared against the FX-51, a chip that would have easily held its own against it.

Comparing a 2.2GHz single-channel desktop chip against a dual-channel server chip is hardly fair, and I have to say I have even more respect for AMD in how they stood up. Throw a FX-51 into the fray and really watch the fur fly!

TR did a comparo with a FX-51 in there, and it handed the 3.4EE its butt, and so did the 3400+ 2.2GHz.

Not bashing your article, but I just feel you left out one of the best contenders against the 3.4EE. Notice how I didn't bring up the lame duck Prescott?

[unrealrocks]

Why didn't COD run on the prescott, you didn'y actually explain?

What was the Prescotts final score?

Why was the DFI LanParty used, aren't there any more powerful boards that the Prescott offically support? (I know the ABit MAX3 was atken off the list)

Did you really run the COD Custom test at 8006x00

Did you perform any overclocking on it?

[Tarinder]

I just want to know why the 3.4GHz P4 EE was not compared against the FX-51, a chip that would have easily held its own against it.

Comparing a 2.2GHz single-channel desktop chip against a dual-channel server chip is hardly fair, and I have to say I have even more respect for AMD in how they stood up. Throw a FX-51 into the fray and really watch the fur fly!

TR did a comparo with a FX-51 in there, and it handed the 3.4EE its butt, and so did the 3400+ 2.2GHz.

Not bashing your article, but I just feel you left out one of the best contenders against the 3.4EE. Notice how I didn't bring up the lame duck Prescott?

The AMD FX-51 should have been included in the round-up. We only received the Pentium 4 3.4GHz Extreme Edition on Thursday of last week. There wasn't enough time to source the FX-51 in time. Unfortunately, we never had a permanent sample. We'll be loooking into getting one ASAP.

[Tarinder]

Why didn't COD run on the prescott, you didn'y actually explain?

What was the Prescotts final score?

Why was the DFI LanParty used, aren't there any more powerful boards that the Prescott offically support? (I know the ABit MAX3 was atken off the list)

Did you really run the COD Custom test at 8006x00

Did you perform any overclocking on it?

Intel decided to take back our sample Prescott 2 weeks before the NDA date. We normally hold on to CPUs until after launch day. I've added Call of Duty to the newer graphics card benchmarks, so thought it could also be modified for use with CPU tests. The Prescott was taken back before the benchmark was added, much to my personal annoyance.

You can download the demo file here:

http://img.hexus.net/hex.dm_1

The DFI board was used because its newer BIOS allows for PAT-like performance. A well-tuned Canterwood would benchmark maybe one percent faster than the DFI Springdale board. The DFI board worked, was fast enough, and allowed for multiplier adjustment.

Again, our very limited time with the Prescott dictated that overclocked benchmarks weren't included. As mentioned, it hit around 3.7GHz with default voltage, albeit with an alarmingly high temperature.

[DR]

We are due for another CPU to land very soon, where we will do more numbers