Intel 925XE chipset reviews out now

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Initial reviews are coming out now.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/intel/925xe/

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=811

Yousuf Khan

--
Sending me email: if you can reply to this newsgroup posting, you will have
to go through an identity challenge-response system. Alternatively, you can
just send me email at ykhan at rogers dot com.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:JvGdnVFS88-jrBjcRVn-uA@rogers.com...
> Initial reviews are coming out now.
>
> http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/intel/925xe/
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=811
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
I didn't ready the reviews you posted but I did read the one at
http://www.anandtech.com, it looks like the last review you posted (of the
OC'd 915?) wasn't so invalid after all. According to the article on
anantech.com the higher FSB and DDRII did very little to help out the P4.
Intel really needs to get it's act together and come out with something good
again.

Carlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Carlo Razzeto wrote:
> I didn't ready the reviews you posted but I did read the one at
> http://www.anandtech.com, it looks like the last review you posted
> (of the OC'd 915?) wasn't so invalid after all. According to the
> article on anantech.com the higher FSB and DDRII did very little to
> help out the P4. Intel really needs to get it's act together and come
> out with something good again.

It was actually an overclocked 875P chipset. No, I didn't think going to the
actually-designed-for-the-job 925XE would actually help them much at all,
however it still wasn't a fair comparison until this chipset came out. DDR2
has a long way to go before it's competive with DDR1, that's for sure. The
overclocked 875-chipset (with DDR1-400) was as fast a DDR2-667 on 925; take
into account price/performance ratio and DDR2 is left in the dust.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:0sOdnQwzWsvdJhjcRVn-qQ@rogers.com...
> Carlo Razzeto wrote:
> > I didn't ready the reviews you posted but I did read the one at
> > http://www.anandtech.com, it looks like the last review you posted
> > (of the OC'd 915?) wasn't so invalid after all. According to the
> > article on anantech.com the higher FSB and DDRII did very little to
> > help out the P4. Intel really needs to get it's act together and come
> > out with something good again.
>
> It was actually an overclocked 875P chipset. No, I didn't think going to
the
> actually-designed-for-the-job 925XE would actually help them much at all,
> however it still wasn't a fair comparison until this chipset came out.
DDR2
> has a long way to go before it's competive with DDR1, that's for sure. The
> overclocked 875-chipset (with DDR1-400) was as fast a DDR2-667 on 925;
take
> into account price/performance ratio and DDR2 is left in the dust.
>

Tom's hardware shows that it runs better with 667 (which clocks to 711 with
the 1.3 multiplier) memory, but still not as good as it should be. I agree
with anand that the P4EE is not a good choice for this architecturally. It
would benefit Prescott much more. Why they didn't build it for Prescott
just yet, who knows!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:JvGdnVFS88-jrBjcRVn-uA@rogers.com...
> Initial reviews are coming out now.
>
> http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/intel/925xe/
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=811
>
> Yousuf Khan

OK, the fan looks nice. I want one. So anyone know where I find out the
difference between a D925XECV2 and a D925XEBC2?

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> Tom's hardware shows that it runs better with 667 (which clocks to 711 with
> the 1.3 multiplier) memory, but still not as good as it should be. I agree
> with anand that the P4EE is not a good choice for this architecturally. It
> would benefit Prescott much more. Why they didn't build it for Prescott
> just yet, who knows!

I'm surprised that Intel even tried to get another P4EE out of the
Northwood (actually Gallatin, since it's really a Xeon) core. It's
obvious that the Northwood tops out at 3.4Ghz. Prescott (probably
actually Nocona) might have gotten them upto 3.8Ghz.

Yousuf Khan