Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Core 2 Extreme 40% faster than Pentium EE 965?

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the chip-drag-strips dept.

282

Marc writes "As far as I know, this is the first time that Intel has talked about what we can expect from its new gaming CPU, Core 2 Extreme. For once, there is no word on power consumption on this new chip, but Intel talks about raw speed and a 40% gain over the current 3.73 GHz Extreme Edition 965 - which would be rather impressive and could indicate a problem for AMD. In this interview with TG Daily, Intel also claims that a Core 2 Extreme-based enthusiast PC will leave the pixel power of a Playstation 3 in the dust. Gamers, this appears to become the most exciting year for you in a long time!"

cancel ×

282 comments

Comparing apples and oranges (5, Insightful)

Harry Balls (799916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313324)

The demo system Intel is showing at E3 features a Core 2 Extreme processor, which, judging from past pricing strategy, will cost slightly over $1000, as well as a Quad-SLI graphics card (i.e. probably two dual Nvidia graphics cards at around $1000 each).
Now, when you build such a high-end system you probably wouldn't skimp on the case ($200), motherboard ($200 & up), memory ($300 & up), power supply ($100 & up) and peripherals, either, so let's allow another grand for these things and you wind up with a $4000 PC.
Put in a Blue-Ray drive (expected to cost around $1000 initially) and you just hit 5 grand.

I'm not a Sony fanboy, not by a long shot, but comparing a 5 grand PC to a 1/2 grand PS/3 does seem a tad unfair, now doesn't it?
And yes, a quad-SLI system with a Core 2 Extreme *is* expected to blow the doors off a PS/3. No surprise here.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (2, Insightful)

LittLe3Lue (819978) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313437)

From the article:

"You'll [often] see 50 processes running on a PC today. So what we're finding is, all those background tasks can really be bothersome to someone when they're trying to game, because it interrupts them. So they'll turn all that off. The busiest gamers will get everything out of the Start Menu, every single thing off of their control bar, so they don't get interrupted. Well, dual-core helps that a lot. "

LOL noob.
I find that deleting stuff from my start menu gives me +10 fps.
I cant wait till Core 2 so that I can put stuff in my start menu again.

Seriously though, the benchmarks I saw run wil these CPUs to date have been outstanding. I cant wait for the final versions to show up. Go Intel!

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313654)

Okay ... I admit I'm not that familiar with the internals of Windows, and I also understand that (at least here on /.), Windows is widely seen as a product of programmers who were deprived of oxygen during critical stages of fetal development. But in what universe does having icons in your Start menu translate to having more running processes?

That's like the people who think their computer is slow because they have too many icons on the desktop...

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313697)

It was a joke.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (0, Flamebait)

Drakin030 (949484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313847)

Windows is widely seen as a product of programmers who were deprived of oxygen during critical stages of fetal development
No its not that its just the majority of people on this site dont have the brain power to use windows. Yeah I know its a troll. But the truth hurts somteimes.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313770)

Perhaps he means the startup menu, which is a subitem in the start menu. A lot of cruft gets deposited there if you're not careful. And that's not even going into the services menu and futzing around in there. What the hell do svchost and csrss do anyway, and why did the need such letter-frugal names?

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313456)

"..but comparing a 5 grand PC to a 1/2 grand PS/3 does seem a tad unfair, now doesn't it"

You've got it spot on. It is unfair now, but in 3 or 4 years time, you're going to be stuck with that same PS3 console in your lounge while the PC in your bedroom has evolved and moved on. More importantly, that PC has also got a lot cheaper, while Sony et al are still keeping the price disproportionately high to make money on their consoles.

However, it is nice to see Intel getting their act together with their processors. My work machine is a Core Duo 1.83 I've had for a month or so and I certainly can't fault it. Whether it could be comparable to a Cell-based games machine is debatable, but however I look at it, multi-core processing for the consumer is a major leap forward.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313487)

To be fair, PS3's do cost a lot more than they sell for. They are a loss leader. I'm not saying you should buy that $900 number, but they are sold for at least some loss. And don't forget that computers can do more things and are upgradeable. but I 100% agree with you that console gaming is cheaper, and that this is an unfair comparison.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313581)

And don't forget that computers can do more things and are upgradeable.


yes ... because if you're willing to spend $5000 on your computer, your more than willing to just replace the Quad-SLI card the next year, along with the CPU, and perhaps the motherboard and memory (perhaps the Core-3 slot isn't compatible and you want 4 cores on each die).

So you're saving what? The case and powersupply? (assuming the PowerSupply still puts out enough power for your system and you don't have to upgrade).

Yes, a computer can do more and can be upgraded, but the people willing to shell out for all the bells and whistles are probably going to consider everything but the harddrives disposable (or obsolete when the new "latest and greatest" comes around). I exclude the hard drives only because I think they'll have a slightly longer longevity, after all, no one wants to have to keep re-installing apps. Of course, if critical apps and data are kept on a different machine and this one is reserved just as a "Gaming Rig", then they could easily swap HDs also (since all they'll need to install is the OS and the new games they buy, right?). ... of course that could make the computer a glorified game system. :)

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313742)

What I meant was that a PS 3 is gonna be exactly the same in 5 or 6 years (and neither MS or Sony intend to make a new console sooner). I could upgrade my computer 3 years from now (well, first I need a gaming rig). So if $5000 PCs beat the PS 3 now, a $1500 PC will beat a PS 3 pretty soon.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313668)

I'm not a Sony fanboy, not by a long shot, but comparing a 5 grand PC to a 1/2 grand PS/3 does seem a tad unfair, now doesn't it?
First, $5K is your estimate, not Intel's. (Come on, $2K for graphics cards!? $1K for a Blu-Ray drive when you can't even buy PC software OR movies for Blu-Ray!?)

Second, not everybody is terribly concerned about "performance per dollar"... they just want the best performance they can reasonably afford. I know my bike-racing brother's $4K ride is not 1/2 the weight of a $2K bike, and so does he, but it doesn't seem to bother him (and yes, he does win a lot of races!) Intel is just putting Sony in their place, which is their right if they have the goods to back it up.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313890)

The point is there comparing a 500$ system with a 1000$ CPU. Now the system and CPU or worthless by them selves so they give the system a game and a TV and give the CPU a MB, Graphics card, Case, Monitor, Power Supply, RAM, Network Card, HDD etc...

1 Vs. 1 the PS2's cell will CRUSH this Intel chip in raw FLOPS. But they can't run the same games etc... So they compare the graphics subsystem on the two systems. Now if you're Intel you're not going to build the rest of the system for 500$ your going to buy the best parts out there AND over clock them so they can say they won. However they could win that benchmark with a normal P4.

Basically, spending more than 300$ on a gaming system's CPU is stupid unless your spending more than 3x that on the graphics card(s), 2x that on the RAM, 2x that on the RAID array of HDD etc. I know gamers who spend over a grand a year on graphics cards and use 200$ CPU's which they upgrade every 18 month's or so.

Make that $5000 PC a $2000 PC ... (2, Insightful)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313689)

The demo system Intel is showing at E3 features a Core 2 Extreme processor, which, judging from past pricing strategy, will cost slightly over $1000, as well as a Quad-SLI graphics card (i.e. probably two dual Nvidia graphics cards at around $1000 each). Now, when you build such a high-end system you probably wouldn't skimp on the case ($200), motherboard ($200 & up), memory ($300 & up), power supply ($100 & up) and peripherals, either, so let's allow another grand for these things and you wind up with a $4000 PC. Put in a Blue-Ray drive (expected to cost around $1000 initially) and you just hit 5 grand.

Let's not, I don't want Blue-Ray. I don't want $1000 video cards, you can compete against PS3 with far less. You are effectively creating a gold plated PC that no one really goes shopping for, a tactic once commonly employed by Mac advocates. It was a bogus tactic then, it still is now. Peripherals, are well peripheral. You components are inflated. You can do the job with a $2500 PC and that is with name brand components, Antec case/PS, Intel mobo, Plextor, etc, and of course that $1000 CPU. And of course using today's prices. If you wait for when PS3 ships you could probably do just about as well with a $300-$500 Intel dual core, so we're really talking about a $2000 contempolrary PC.

The PS3 still costs a lot less, but now it is a reasonable comparison. Now folks can argue about practical issues, like will they get $1500's worth of value out of the computer with respect to non-gaming activities.

An exciting year... (0)

rev_media (973772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313327)

They always say "this will be XX% faster than the last chip". I'm waiting to see some real numbers...

Re:An exciting year... (5, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313380)

I'm not impressed even by their marketing numbers. When I bought my 386 it was way more than 2x the speed of my 286. My 486 was at least twice as fast as the 386, ditto the Pentium, K6 and Athlon.

40% faster? Who cares. Especially for games.

Re:An exciting year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313433)

40% faster? Who cares. Especially for games.


Yeah, those gamers, never care about frame rates.

Re:An exciting year... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313485)

Go ask a gamer sometime whether he'd rather have a 40% faster processor or a new $1000 video card. Go ahead.

Re:An exciting year... (1)

Psiven (302490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313772)

The thing is that 40% faster processor is going to be $500 tops. If you're processor limited, it's going to be a better value to upgrade the cpu.

Physics and AI are all done on the CPU and they are taking more and more a toll these days. At the end of the day, if a new cpu is going to give me more frames per second, than its going to have value.

Re:An exciting year... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313892)

Let's see... the current P4 EE ++ super-great processor is listed at $1299.95 (Canadian) at the local discount place. So presumably this new processor, that's 40% faster, will be released at the same or greater price point. So actually MORE than $1000, but it's a nice round figure.

Physics and AI do happen on the processor (well, people are interested in doing the physics on the video card too), but show me an example of a game that is CPU limited on Intel's current top of the line processor (and thus would benefit from the extra 40% they're hyping).

Re:An exciting year... (2, Insightful)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313553)

When I bought my 386 it was way more than 2x the speed of my 286.

Depends on your software and your hardware.

Did you have a 386DX40 or a 386SX16? I had a 386SX and my friend had a 286, Wolf3D.EXE was the same speed on both computers :(

Re:An exciting year... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313658)

Definitely a DX. If I remember correctly, the SXs were DXs that were screwed up in manufacturing.

Re:An exciting year... (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313827)

I think the 386SX only had a 16bit memory bus (although still 32bit internally). Similar to the way the 8088 was an 8086 (16bit) with an 8bit bus. The 486SX was the one that was "screwed up" in the factory by having its math coprocessor disabled (available in the 486DX).

-matthew

Re:An exciting year... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313844)

Nope. It was a matter of bus width, the 386SX was basically still using a 16-bit bus to the outside world. (Or rather 24-some bits address and 16 bit data.) The 486SX, on the other hand, was a 486DX with a non-functioning FPU.

However, if we look at instructions per cycle, those transitions were less impressive, especially the Athlon that got thrown in there. There was some added efficiency, but MOST of the gain was from the basic fact that a process shrink (and a core adjusted to make use of it) allowed higher frequencies. The frequencies are certainly possible today, but the added performance is too low to make sense at the enormous cost in power (and its closest friend, Joulian heat).

Re:An exciting year... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313725)

When I bought my 386 it was way more than 2x the speed of my 286. My 486 was at least twice as fast as the 386, ditto the Pentium, K6 and Athlon.
Those were the days, but they're over. CPU progress has been much slower for the past few years.

Re:An exciting year... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313755)

Also expectations, apparently.

Back in the old days (did I just say that?) we'd look at a 20% performance improvement, realize we probably couldn't tell the difference without a stopwatch anyway, and wait for the next 200% improvement. Now 40% is the "best year ever?" Wow.

Re:An exciting year... (1)

1000StonedMonkeys (593519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313551)

The closest to real numbers that I know of is a black box test that Anandtech [anandtech.com] did a little while ago. The chip they had was supposedly the high end but not extreme Core 2.

x86? (-1, Flamebait)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313331)

The x86 instruction set is so inefficent compared to RISC processors like the PPC. Are they finally droping it to get preformance? or will they just throw more heat at the problem. That only works in plumbing.

Re:x86? (5, Interesting)

Rezonant (775417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313362)

Because the ugly x86 instruction set acts as a form of compression, x86 code is more dense and fits more easily into the instruction cache than RISC code. The overhead of translating x86 to internal RISC is basically fixed and is therefore getting smaller each process shrink. It's already negligble. For this reason, the ugly x86 instruction encodings are now an advantage! x86 also gained an additional 8 registers and a cleanup with AMD64.

So why not apply real compression (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313503)

A tiny huffman module seems like it could do wonders for code compression and also take negligible silicon these days.
I remember some papers on that from the guys at Colussa (the guys that Microsoft bought to be their CLR) that seemed impractical at the time, but now.... hmmm... double your cache for free.

Re:x86? (2, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313528)

I used to think this, too, but Macintosh Universal Binaries regularly see the Intel side both have bigger code and use more RAM (gcc codegen for both sides). I don't know why this is, but I'm wondering if the suggested instruction ordering, alignment, and such to optimize for Intel's latest processors eliminates the old advantage.

What are we optimizing for? (1)

Inoshiro (71693) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313750)

Code size? Memory usage? Execution speed?

These all affect each other. The binaries are different between different arches, duh! The fact is that you invalidate fewer cache lines with smaller x86 instructions, and those Intel-based Macs are way faster than the PowerPC ones.

World of Warcraft on my friend's 15" MacBook Pro blows the doors off my 12" Powerbook G4 of the previous generation. We're talking 20fps average vs. 50!

Re:x86? (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313837)

I'm not a compiler guy, but IIRC PPC Mac OS X binaries are compiled with -Os (ie: optimized for size), or that was what people said. Is Apple using the same options for Intel, or are they even using the Intel compiler instead of gcc?

I've this personal conspiration theory that when Jobs realized that IBM was not going to care anymore about laptops and Apple in general CPUs anymore (the real reason why Jobs switched to Intel - read the second paragraph of this interview [com.com] ) he planned a swtich which would harm IBM and PPC as much as he could, and misoptimizing PPC binaries would be an option.

(of course this is just conspiration, Apple may have been using -Os precisely to get more performance)

Re:x86? (4, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313476)

x86 isn't less efficient. In some cases its even more efficient- you need less cache on common instructions. And some very complex things can be done in silicon with 1 instruction, saving overhead of multiple instuctions. FOr example, memcpy and memcmp are single instructions.

x86 is more complex. Its much harder to write a decoder for, and more difficult to debug the hardware. That adds cost (and a lot of extra transistors in the decode phase). But its a matter of complexity and cost, not efficiency.

Re:x86? (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313811)

Just because X86 can do something in 1 instruction does NOT mean it can do it in one clock cycle, though. X86 instructions can take a variable number of clock cycles to complete, which makes for a very convoluted architecture. This is why those instructions are quickly translated into something more manageable internally.

To say that the binaries should be more compact though, is correct. cache is cheap though - this is why loop unrolling is generally considered an optimization, not a hindrance these days.

Re:x86? (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313885)

True, 1 instruction does not mean 1 clock cycle. However, 1 instruction means only 1 thing coming through the decoder into the micro-op cache, and more predictability in collisions. These are speed gains for the 1 instruction implementation.

Now older style CISC chips (we're talking really old here- early 80s style) didn't allow multiple cycle ops and the length of the cycle was defined by the longest instruction. RISC was a speedup then, because the instructions that did more tended to take longer. Thats probably where the idea of RISC=faster comes from.

Uhuuulll! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313332)

I wonder how many FPS i'll get on space invaders

PC vs Console (0, Troll)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313335)

There are still reasons why one would prefer a console to a PC. A console will be optimized for group gaming. Having a good time. A PC is optimized for typing, alone, and in the dark, in a barren Linux console session, with ASCII porn streaming down your screen.

Besides, once you separate your gaming machine (PS3) from your PC, you can optimize your upgrades for what you actually use the machine for.
You can use a lower-end video card that's well supported in Linux, but not great for games. And you don't really have to worry about upgrading the PS3 at all.

Of course they say that (3, Insightful)

Rydia (556444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313339)

Although one must wonder why AMD would be scared of a 5.2 gHz rather than a 3.7 when CPUs that fast are never, ever the system's bottleneck. Seems like a lot of posturing.

Re:Of course they say that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313483)

Thats the stupidest thing I have read in a long time.

This whole thing is really dated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313582)

It's like guys buying gas-guzzling cars and laughing at those who drive economic compacts...they can't even see that the joke's on them.

The vast majority of users do not need the higher clock speeds, but they could sure stand to save some money on power bills, especially if you have a room full of computers. My departmental budget loses a big chunk to power costs (and cooling, which is related), so we have no plans to 'upgrade' to faster, power-gobbling, heat-blasting CPUs, since we have no foreseeable need to.

Honestly folks, if you're not an insane gamer, or crunching numbers for the Next Big CGI extravaganza, don't waste your cash.

Re:Of course they say that (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313585)

5.2 gHz WTF are you talking about?

The Core 2 [wikipedia.org] Extreme processor is clocked at 3.34 GHz with a 1.34 GT/s FSB.

Re:Of course they say that (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313657)

Perhaps he means equivalent to...?

3.34 * 1.40 = 5.18

Re:Of course they say that (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313680)

Oops that should have been:
3.7 * 1.40 = 5.18

But this seems reminiscent of the Intel vs AMD argument - its clock isn't 40% faster, but it's performance could be.

Re:Of course they say that (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313694)

its performance.

Me? Tired?

Re:Of course they say that (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313705)

I have those days as well :)

Re:Of course they say that (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313712)

CPUs that fast are never, ever the system's bottleneck.
Even a routine task like compiling a program is cpu-bound. I recently upgraded my laptop from a 4200 RPM to a 7200 RPM drive. It can copy big files almost twice as fast, yet compiling is barely faster at all, because over 95% of the elapsed time is simply user CPU time. Same with video editing and compressing large files; they are very often NOT I/O bound.

Re:Of course they say that (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313740)

Compiling a program might be routine for you and I, but it's not for most people.

Games are usually video bound. Everything else normal people use their computers for tends to be user-bound.

Re:Of course they say that (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313867)

But those routine tasks can easily be parallelized. One or more multicore CPU could do the trick probably way cheaper.

Re:Of course they say that (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313908)

Compiling separate independent source file to objs, yes. Linking and optimization over module borders, no. (Easy to parallelize.) The basic premise was anyway that the CPUs were not the bottleneck, when in fact they are.

Re:Of course they say that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313766)

Yes, AMD was really great when they were the fastest, but now that they're not the fastest, nobody really needed a faster CPU anyway. You get an A in Fanboy Logic.

Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313344)

I'm sick of hearing about power consumption and yadda yadda yadda. I buy processors based on performance, not on how many watts it eats up. Sure, it's nice to have a cpu that draws less power but why should that have to be one of the main marketing points unless the cpu is for a laptop? I'd rather have all cpus rated by megaherts again.

Re:Good (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313365)

Power = heat.

-:sigma.SB

Re:Good (1)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313425)

Power = heat.

AC = cool

Re:Good (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313539)

It all makes since now, I should use alternating current in the summer, and switch to direct current items in the winter!

Re:Good (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313544)

Power = heat.

AC = cool

Freon loops in your computer case = Evil Bad and Wrong

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313592)

Try leaving your refrigerator door open sometime, and find out if it makes the house hotter or colder :P

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

m_TheRedHead (593571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313603)

Because you are only buying 1 or 2 cpu's. When you are trying to stuff 20,000 into one room, you really start to care how much electricity and cooling it takes to run them.

Sony's Market (0)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313357)

So the high performance crowd will be wanting a PC by the time the PS3 comes out. The group gamers will want a Wii, and the "hard-core" console gamers probably already have an XBox 360. Who then is Sony hoping to sell the PS3 to? (not counting people with too much money)

Re:Sony's Market (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313413)

It doesn't matter what Sony or intel come out with, neither company is likely to convert PC gamers to console gamers or console gamers to PC gamers.

Then again, what do I know? I fall into the "has too much money/buys them all" camp.

Re:Sony's Market (2, Insightful)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313486)

Bull... I believe the wii controller and the ps3 controller look quite promising for fps games. It's not quite mouse keyboard, but it might have some real potential.

I'll be a convert soon. Sick of throwing money at my PC.

Re:Sony's Market (3, Informative)

br0ck (237309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313696)

You'd have to pry my mouse and keyboard out of my cold, dead hands.. but on the other hand, this Red Steel trailer [gametrailers.com] does make the first person gameplay with the Wii controller look pretty damn fun. (Then again, having to freeze time to tag each location to shoot the pistol is a cool effect, but it just makes me think how with a mouse you'd have those 6 shots off before the Wii controller had even tagged one of those guys)

Re:Sony's Market (1)

coruscus (929305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313836)

I guess it's easy to have a lot of money when you can save on rent from living in your mom's basement.

Re:Sony's Market (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313491)

Morons. They account for roughly 99.9% of the US market.

Re:Sony's Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313497)

"and the "hard-core" console gamers probably already have an XBox 360."

Oh please. I am so sick of people throwing around the term "hard-core gamer" as if they actually knew what the hell it meant.

Actual hard-core gamers haven't bought a console since the Dreamcast. Hard-core gamers import 2D Japanese fighting games that you've probably never heard of. Hard-core gamers can recite the entire Ys chronology. Hard-core gamers spend a good chunk of their time practicing for Street Fighter tournaments.

In other words, a hard-core gamer is about the last person you'd find with an XBox. You couldn't pay a hard-core gamer to play Halo, they wouldn't touch it would a 39.5 foot pole. They're too busy with Third Strike, and if you don't know what Third Strike is, you obviously don't know what a hard-core gamer is.

Real hard-core gamers are gravitating toward the Wii for the massive back-catalog of 16-bit era games alone.

Re:Sony's Market (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313632)

Who then is Sony hoping to sell the PS3 to?

Blu-Ray fanboiz.

Re:Sony's Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313729)

So the high performance crowd will be wanting a PC by the time the PS3 comes out. The group gamers will want a Wii, and the "hard-core" console gamers probably already have an XBox 360. Who then is Sony hoping to sell the PS3 to?

You are looking at video game systems as if they were just lists of specification sheets.

They aren't. They are devices for playing video games on. All the gigaflops and microchips in the world mean nothing without games.

The advantage of the PS3 is that it has games available for it that are not available for the PC.

The XBox 360, on the other hand... well, kind of doesn't have much of any games available for it that are not also available for the PC.

Sony is hoping to sell the PS3 to people who are interested in playing Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Virtua Fighter 5, Warhawk (if it turns out to be any good) or Heavenly Sword (if it turns out to be any good).

It is possible someone may buy a $5000 PC, and then also, for gravy, buy a $500 PS3 to play games on that aren't available on the PC. (Similarly, it is possible they could buy a $5000 PC and then also a $400 XBox to play Halo 3 when it comes out; but, given Microsoft's track record with Halos 1 and 2, they could also probably just wait two years and buy the PC version.)

By the way, you use the terms "hard core", "high performance" and "people with too much money" as if all of these terms describe different groups. Why is that?

Re:Sony's Market (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313738)

No one buys a console because of the power of the hardware, they buy it for the games that are on it. Therefore the PS3 will be sold to those who play games that will be exclusive to the PS3.

Summary Hype? (4, Insightful)

Zephiria (941257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313364)

I've read over the article albeit briefly and I find myself thinking that the quote in the summary is total hype for a chip, sure a PS3 will cost about 600, but I seem to recall those EE chips being as much if not more and given that this chip is newer then the P4ee's no doubt it will cost even more. And that's not counting the cost of video cards etc.

old axiom... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313386)

2 is always smaller than 3 - even for larger values of 2.

oh boy!!! (5, Funny)

lavaface (685630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313395)

Gamers, this appears to become the most exciting year for you in a long time!"

. . . until next year. : )

Re:oh boy!!! (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313543)

since last year? ;)

"in the dust" claims . . . (4, Informative)

tubbtubb (781286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313416)

The article summary states:
"Intel also claims that a Core 2 Extreme-based enthusiast PC will leave the pixel power of a Playstation 3 in the dust.

but then I also see in the article:
"[I don't know off the top of my head] the number of polygons it can draw versus a Cell, but I think it's going to be higher, because there's a lot more bandwidth on the quad system than on the Cell system."

That doesn't sound like much of a claim to me.

Re:"in the dust" claims . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313613)

Speaking of pixel power one should maybe know that in case of the Playstation 3 the RSX must be taken into account. And even without it I would doubt that those 7 SGEs have lower polygon thoughput than the Core 2 as it is highly optimized towards such tasks.

So (-1, Troll)

afidel (530433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313427)

Intel took a processor that their Isreali design team took a lot of effort to make as efficient as possible and turned it into a power hog because Netburst doesn't scale, great......

Re:So (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313546)


Please post the link to the data that supports your claim of "power hog".

Re:So (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313681)

link [digitaltrends.com]
Some Core 2 Duo C processors will apparently sport an E designation, indicating consumption between 55 and 75 watts.

75W is comparable to an Athlon 64 FX, for a processor that was designed to be miserly that's a pretty terrible direction to be heading in.

Re:So (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313728)

I don't get your complaint. It outperforms AMD for the same power. Sure, it's nothing compared to the 4W 486 days when we played Doom, but seems like the right direction to me.

How does their mobile part's power compare to AMDs?

Re:So (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313880)

Yeah, but if you just would take two Banias cores, overclock and overvoltage them enough to reach the same frequency, you would still have LESS processing power and a comparable total heat dissipation. The architecture has been widened as well. I'm certainly looking forward to getting a Merom machine sometime next year, unless AMD manages to turn the mobile market around completely.

Only 40% increase? (5, Funny)

joebok (457904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313430)

I would expect in actuality we would be seeing something like a 60-70% increase in speed. A company like Intel would probably estimate conservatively so as to not over-hype a new product.

Re:Only 40% increase? (4, Funny)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313619)

not over-hype a new product

You're new to this planet, aren't you?

Re:Only 40% increase? (2, Interesting)

TCM (130219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313838)

I know you joke, but the 40% are possibly even real. Conroe aka Core 2 is _seriously_ kicking ass. Check overclocking forums where people are pushing non-EE engineering samples beyond 3GHz on air cooling and break world records in most benchmarks, which were previously held by insane nitro-cooled P4 or Opteron setups.

Conroe will be fun.

Anyone else starting to feel.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313442)

..that using the word extreme should be illegal?

Re:Anyone else starting to feel.. (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313550)

At least Intel knows that it starts with an E, not an X.

Re:Anyone else starting to feel.. (1, Funny)

datafr0g (831498) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313571)

Any word that reminds me of Vanilla Ice should be illegal.

Re:Anyone else starting to feel.. (1)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313759)

Anyone else starting to feel ... that using the word extreme should be illegal?
Its should be extremely illegal.

Re:Anyone else starting to feel.. (1)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313776)

I should really take more time to proofread my 5 word witticisms.

Re:Anyone else starting to feel.. (1)

creepynut (933825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313907)

You must be new here.

Re:Anyone else starting to feel.. (1)

UltraAyla (828879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313761)

making it illegal would be pretty extreme, don't you think?

Moore's Law (1)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313557)

Moore's Law appears to be alive after all.
First the Pentium D 805 running at 4.1 GHz and now this.

We are alive yet!

Sweet vaporware goodness! (5, Insightful)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313562)

Since there are no benchmarks for either of them, isn't that a bit soon to say that? "Our unreleased product is 40% faster than your unreleased product?" Come on now!

There's a bit more design elements going into a PS3 than just the raw pixel pushing. I still don't see many FPS games on a PC that can do let 4 players play on the same computer screen.

Re:Sweet vaporware goodness! (1, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313679)

The Core 2 Extreme is the Conroe Extreme Edition we previously saw truncing a FX-60 overclocked pretty high. I mean, it's not out yet, but there's enough demonstrations and information to say that it's gonna exist, probably in about 6-8 weeks. This isn't vaporware, it's very-very-dense-fog-ware.

Re:Sweet vaporware goodness! (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313703)

There's a bit more design elements going into a PS3 than just the raw pixel pushing. I still don't see many FPS games on a PC that can do let 4 players play on the same computer screen.

How many PC gamers WANT to do that? Especially on a 17" monitor.

-matthew

Re:Sweet vaporware goodness! (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313758)

They made the comparison, not me. I have a gaming PC connected to my 50" DLP, the same TV I'll have the PS3 connected to should it come down in price a notch. I also want to make sure BlueRay doesn't end up shutting appliances off in your house that play un-DRMed stuff, while slapping your friends around for being in the room with music on without paying.

Power of a Playstation 3? (0)

John Gagon (974158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313609)

Is that the standard? What about the X-box? (or the next X box by the time this gets out into market)

just explain one thing to me ... (4, Insightful)

paulbd (118132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313661)

given the investment that anyone makes in a computer system designed for gaming, how it is a "most exciting year" to be faced with the possibility of yet another set of continuing reasons to spend more money on yet more gear? wouldn't a really exciting year in gaming have nothing to do with new hardware and everything to do with cool, inspired and inspiring new games?

Re:just explain one thing to me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313762)

"cool, inspired and inspiring new games"

huh? I havent seen one of those for about 5 years.

Re:just explain one thing to me ... (2, Insightful)

zestymonkey (78271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15313771)

This is one of the most enlightened things I've read here in a long time. Taking it one step further, how about inspired games that don't require brand new hardware?

Nomen ludi (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313684)

I'm glad the names for processors are getting a little more exciting.

'Core 2 Extreme' is a techy name, and will date rather quickly, but better than the mundane 486, pentium III, pentium M etc. I always liked 'Athlon', there is something inoffensively sporting about it.

Now all I need is a few more nouns.
Words like 'pulsar','shard','gyroscope','peregrine'....
Car companies take care to have an imaginative and memorable name for their new product, I'd like to see more tech companies doing the same thing.

well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15313707)

it isn't quite what you thought is it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...