Intel Demos New P4 'Extreme Edition' 393
typobox43 writes "Louis Burns of Intel displayed a "high-definition video stream running on a 'mystery' desktop processor." This processor turned out to be the new Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.20 GHz, with an extra 2 Megabytes of cache."
Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
At Intel Headquarters!
Witness the unveiling of the next...
Biggest!
Meanest!
Fastest processor you can imagine.
Pen-Pent-Pentium EXXXXXTREME
It's 3.2 gigahertz of binary badness.
Come witness as it peforms calculations at mind-boggling speeds!
Special Guest The Blue Man Group
Tickets start at $20 for adults, discounts for children and seniors
If you miss this, you'd better be dead... or in jail...
And if you're in jail, break out!
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:2)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
Kid: "Pentium chips aren't an extreme sport, Macho Man..."
MM: "PENTIUM CHIPS NOT EXTREEEEEMMMMEEE!?!?! OOHHHH YEEAAAAH!!!!"
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Informative)
No its not. In fact, according to this research, [colorado.edu] the P4 pipeline is not deep enough. That paper concludes that P4 performance could be improved by up to 90% by increasing the pipeline depth to around 50 stages and increasing the cache size.
Do you actually think that Intel didn't know the consequences of increasing the pipeline depth? The Intel engineers didn't just guess on the P4 architecture- it was a very deliberate design decision. Judging by the P4's performance gains, it was a pretty good decision, too.
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:3, Informative)
1) Get rid of 20-stage pipeline, it's too long for anything serious.
No its not. It enables a high clock rate and with good branch prediction and selective replays, it is just fine.
2) As a follow up to 1, try to actually get some work done in a clock cycle.
Read some studies about the available ILP (instruction-level parallelism) in common applications. There really isn't much of it unless instruction windows are made huge which isn't feasible. This is why simulaneous-multithreading (hyperthread
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
*extras Xs may result from occasional floating-point errors.
Wait for the next version after this (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Possible Advertising Campaign? (Score:3, Funny)
maddox influence? (Score:5, Funny)
I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:4, Insightful)
This "extreme" version of the chip has to be aimed at a very niche market, at least for the next couple of years until more processor intensive software catches up.
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:5, Funny)
This "extreme" version of the chip has to be aimed at a very niche market
Yes, it's the 'mine's bigger' market, though I wouldn't call it niche, exactly.
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:2)
Try taxing it with something a computer would do...
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember reading once in a Usenet thread - some guy was trolling and asked 'will my P90, overclocked to 100MHz, be enough to handle the flight combat simulators you guys are discussing?'
The first time I read it it was hilarious because he was either bragging or dreaming, the P90 chip was out in limited supply at the time and was easily 50% faster than the common P60 machine used by the sim-gamers, not to mention the overclocking it. Of course it was going to be fast enough.
The second time I saw it (a few years later) it was hilarious because the bare minimum system for any sim/game was a PII/300 with a 3D graphics card and his P90 was so pitifully underpowered it didn't have a chance.
So we get to enjoy the 'is this CPU enough' question twice, generally, for any given CPU. Just a matter of timing.
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:3, Funny)
Try "nice -n 20 dd bs=1 if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null"
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:2)
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:2)
Of course, other people actually work at work.
Processor-Intensive SW: Engineering Applications (Score:4, Informative)
The processor-intensive software is already here. It is called HSpice, Verilog, fluid-dynamics simulation, etc. The Pentium 4 has done nicely in the engineering workstation market, and the "Extreme Edition" should do even better.
Please check the SPEC web site [spec.org] for a performance evaluation of the Pentium 4's floating-point (FP) performance. In particular, it outperforms the UltraSPARC III even though the latter has a 2-to-1 advantage in the width of its databus -- 64 bits versus 32 bits.
What changed the x86 chips from also-ran losers in FP performance to the kings of the hill? SSE.
The SSE extension to the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) opened up a whole new world of applications for the Pentium III and successors. Older Pentiums were saddled with a FP stack that hurt their performance. The SSE extension established a directly addressable bank of 8 128-bit registers or 32 32-bit registers for FP operations. As a result, the Pentium 4 outperforms the UltraSPARC III on video applications.
At 3.2 GHz, the "Extreme Edition" of the Pentium 4 should help the Pentium 4 to capture even more of the engineering workstation market. Nowadays, the first-choice workstation among engineers in Silicon Valley and Boston's Route 128 is Linux running on a fast Pentium/Athlon, not Solaris lumbering on a slow UltraSPARC III.
Re:Processor-Intensive SW: Engineering Application (Score:3, Informative)
However, I believe the intel compiler uses SSE2 (which can handle 64bit floats) exclusively for float code, since the P4 legacy fpu is just slow. Of course there are compiler switches for the compiler so the code also runs on good old Athlon, Athlon XP, PIII (which lack SSE2, the Athlon also lacks SSE) - and those aren't exactly slow doing float calculations neither.
Re:Databus of Pentium 4 is 32 bits, not 64 bits. (Score:3, Informative)
He already explained it, it's not magic, it's mostly memory bandwidth. The size of that internal bus doesn't mean squat when it's sitting waiting for data from main memory.
Re:Databus of Pentium 4 is 32 bits, not 64 bits. (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't got a clue as to the internal data bus of the USIII, but I would guess that it's either 128-bit or 256-bit wide. Side note: the Power4 uses a MASSIVE 1024-bit wide internal bus, one of the reasons for it's impressive performance.
The only situation where the USIII has 64-bits and the P4 has 32-bits is if you are talking about integer registers or memory pointer width, neither of which are going to play a role in Spec CFP scores.
Apples compared with Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
1GHz is plenty! (Score:3, Insightful)
This CPU is aimed at the gaming/multimedia community. All that extra cache should make Doom3/HL2 speed along a little better. It should also help us that encode DVDs/DivX on the fly. What supprises me is that they didn't finally go to 1GHz FSB. Yeah, I know, that would mean you need DDR500(PC4000). While I'm sure you make have problems taxing your 3.2GHz CPU with MS Word or Counter-Strike, I am left longing for more CPU power with my Dual Athlon MP2100+ when
Re:1GHz is plenty! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no you don't. Apple sells their dual 2ghz box, that has a 1ghz fsb (dual pipe), and 400mhz ram. goto apple.com/powermac for info. It obviously doesn't talk to the ram that fast, but 1g pipe to the chipset doesn't suck either. Oh yea, and up to 8gb of ram so far. its a bit different in other aspects as well.
I am just waiting to score one of the dual 2.0 boxes used (cant afford $3500) but that will take a while. They also bench out better cycle to cycle that intel (similar to amd or better) Its actually the IBM 970 cpus (reduced power 4 cpu) that IBM is said to be releasing soon in entry level servers, with 4 cpus, for $3500, for Linux.
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:2)
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have a 3.2Ghz PC that I bought for home... (Score:3, Insightful)
Faster CPU lengthen useful life of machine (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with one of the other posters that many high end CPUs are sold to the "mine's bigger" crowd, Intel naming surely supports this idea, there are some legitimate advantages to getting a faster CPU even when you don't have a need for the additional computational power. I'm getting along well with a P3 1.2G but towards the end of the
Obligatory Waynes World (Score:5, Funny)
Level Three Cache (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Level Three Cache (Score:2, Interesting)
Multiprocessor? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Multiprocessor? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:probably not (Score:2)
Re:probably not (Score:2)
Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas (Score:5, Funny)
Joe
Tom's Hardware reviewed a similar Xeon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tom's Hardware reviewed a similar Xeon... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I would much rather see them quadruple the size of the Level One Cache. This would improve performance on these processors, but at the same time, without the extra registers that a 64-bit chip would have, these improvements are limited by their usefulness, not to mention they would take up loads more valuable core real estate. I can't wait to see Intel move to a 64-bit chip with a 2 meg level 2 and maybe a 128k level one... we'd start to see chips FLY....
Who said the 2MB cache was L2? (Score:3, Insightful)
The gaming-optimized Pentium 4 contains 2 Mbytes of level-3 cache, and will work with existing "Springdale" and "Canterwood" chipsets, Burns said.
Re:Tom's Hardware reviewed a similar Xeon... (Score:5, Informative)
Average memory access latency per memory access =
(L1_hit_rate * L1_hit_cycle_time) +
(L1_miss_L2_hit_rate * L2_hit_cycle_time) +
(L2_miss_L3_hit_rate * L3_hit_cycle_time) +
(L3_miss_rate * DRAM_latency)
80-95% of your accesses will hit the 8k L1 in typical applications. This is the vast majority of the accesses. The latency of this cache is TINY on a P4. Do the math for a 3.2GHz 3 cycle cache.
Given a curve of cache-size vs. latency and hit rates for all the cache sizes, the optimal hierarchy is a simple optimization problem. I can assure you that this equation has been solved and the optimal heirarchy has been chosen (given the other constraints of obviously die-size and power).
Quadrupling the L1 will double the latency and kill your average access time, making your chip almost certainly slower.
Bigger caches mean longer latencies. It's limited by the basic laws of physics. There's only so much distance you can traverse in a ceratin amount of time and larger caches have longer distances (meaning higher RC delays).
The reason we want larger outer level caches is because the DRAM_latency is enourmous and has an impact on average access time. Hardware prefetching can also help to alleviate this problem - This solution is available on both Athlon and P4 chips and will only get better in the future because it is absolutely critical to hide this DRAM latency.
Ok, now to address the notion that more registers will improve performance...
You won't get as much performance out of more registers as you might think. First of all, when the compiler runs out of registers it spills the excess to the stack -- pushing it out with a store (spill) and reading it back in with a load (fill).
In modern processors (just about every chip out on the market), there is the concept of store buffers. Each store writes it's data to a store buffer. Subsequent loads that require data from stores, get their data by forwarding out of the store buffer. So -- the spilled store writes the buffer and the fill load reads the buffer -- all of this happening much faster than a memory access because it's just reading out a local on-chip buffer, so the load looks more like a fast register read. This architectural trick emulates the effect of having more registers, subject to the size of your store buffer. There are even more advanced architectural tricks you can play to completely eliminate the spill-fill pair from the critical path (look up memory-renaming in the literature).
If you're worried about chip-real estate, you should be very concerned that a 64-bit application's pointers will take up twice as much space effectively making your caches and memory bandwidth appear smaller.
Re:Tom's Hardware reviewed a similar Xeon... (Score:3, Informative)
What is the standard time slice quantum for windows and linux typically? That is to say, what is the typical rate of context switches? If I recall correctly, it's on the order of 100 per second.
That's 1 context switch every 0.01 seconds. Lets suppose now that I have a typical P4 system with 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth. I can fill the entire 2M cache in roughly
0.002/6.4 seconds = 0.0003125 seconds
That's only 3% of the entire time slice quantum! That's assuming the thread
Re:Tom's Hardware reviewed a similar Xeon... (Score:2)
text incase of /.ing (Score:5, Informative)
By Nebojsa Novakovic: Tuesday 16 September 2003, 18:14
WHEN, AT today's IDF opening, Louis Burns demonstrated a high-definition video stream running on a "mystery" desktop processor, everyone must hve thought it was the upcoming Prescott part. Wrong! It was the (also upcoming), previously unheard of, even at The Inq, Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processor Extreme Edition 3.20 GHz , with an extra 2 Megabytes of pron. In Intel's own words, "this new processor will be targeted at high-end gamers and computing power users."
As a matter of fact, 2MB cache will help a lot those users whose apps (including games and such) have a lot of big cache-friendly *wink* pieces of code and data, but probably not the data-streaming intensive stuff. I do expect to see speedups anywhere from 2% to 20% depending on the application, maybe some more if using multithreading/multitasking (large cache can keep in code / date pieces from more threads).
However, this doesn't seem to be a new CPU in reality - after all, Intel is doing very well with its XeonMP 2.8 GHz 2 MB cache CPU, and how much effort does it really take to repackage it for the 3.2 GHz / 800 FSB desktop with less stringent thermal and reliability requirements than the big iron, anyway?
Intel would gain a lot with this move. If, touch wood, there are problems with Prescott, a large-cache Pentium4 part will provide some buffer against large-cache Athlon64 (i.e. rebadged Opteron) parts. At the same time, enormous extra benefits from the economies of scale would further reduce the identical die XeonMP manufacturing cost, helping Intel compete better on the quad-CPU server front as well. Interesting move? I think so. Let's see how the beast performs in real!
Re:text incase of /.ing (Score:2)
2 Megabytes of pron?
More impressed with AMD. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More impressed with AMD. (Score:5, Informative)
See also:
Ars Technia on Caching [arstechnica.com]
Re:More impressed with AMD. (Score:2)
Extreme price... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Extreme price... (Score:2)
Cinema-like video (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh, one of these days I'll have to take a sneak peak at the hardware they run in that mystery little room in my local theater. The monitor is so big, the soundcard is great, and I can see it all for a buck!
I will not buy anything that has X, eXtreme, (Score:5, Funny)
Please send a message to the X-tra stupid Advertising XX-cutives that X in the name is X-tremely dated and not an X-ellent idea.
The new marketing buzzword is 'Shit-Hot', as in "The new Intel Shit-Hot P4!"
Thanks.
Re:I will not buy anything that has X, eXtreme, (Score:2)
Always use the phonetic alphabet... it makes you more 1337.
Re:I will not buy anything that has X, eXtreme, (Score:2)
I sure hope there's an 'X' on the packaging...or maybe racing stripes and a VTEC sticker.
64bit vs 32bit (Score:2, Offtopic)
So, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't what the inquirer saying is that intel could be repackaging the xenon processor as an pentium.....
I thought the xenon was 64 bit, and ran 32 bits under emulation much slower than current pentiums.... So, I think they may be barking up the wrong tree..
Intel just found a way of squeezing more cache on the chip!
Tony.
Buy 3 Led light Keychains from me for a fiver . see here [ebay.co.uk] Thanks.
Re:64bit vs 32bit (Score:2)
No, you're thinking of the Itanuim.
Re:64bit vs 32bit (Score:5, Informative)
AMD Opteron
AMD Athlon64
IBM PPC970
Intel's 64 bit solutions is the Itanium! Anything with the Pentium moniker is 32 bit. The Itanium is the one which suffers 32 bit emulation lag.
So if you want 64 bit, you're stuck with, realistically, a Mac or some brand of Athlon CPU.
Re:64bit vs 32bit (Score:3, Informative)
The Xeon is a Pentium4 in different packaging and with SMP enabled. Actually, SMP is probably enabled with the Pentium4 too, but since there are no such motherboards and you can't
Re:64bit vs 32bit (Score:3, Informative)
The Xeon series has always been Intel's "server" chips. Mostly a different pin out and lots more cache. They're souped up versions of the normal chips.
The Itanium is the 64-bit unit.
Re:64bit vs 32bit (Score:3)
Paper Launch? (Score:5, Insightful)
"He [Burns] said the chip will be available to buy in the 30-60-day timeframe." from this [theinquirer.net] article.
Prescott is going to be late and has been getting bad press for not being backward compatible with current motherboards. Why not make some noise with a product that wont be around for another month?
extra 2 mb's? (Score:2, Interesting)
database searches (Score:3, Interesting)
CNET article with more details (Score:4, Informative)
Some interesting quotes:
"The performance boost is awesome," Burns said Tuesday during a speech at the Intel Developer Forum here.
"It is a Xeon with a different pin-out, or least that's what it looks like to me," said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight 64.
Intel did not disclose the price of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It likely will be as expensive as its counterpart, the 2.8GHz Xeon with 2MB cache. That chip sells for $3,692 in quantities of 1,000.
"It absolutely will be kind of pricey," Brookwood said.
Re:CNET article with more details (Score:2)
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if you can use it with BTX motherboard (Score:3, Funny)
breaking news (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this a ploy for extra money? (Score:2)
The way my system is setup I can support HT so eventually i'll max my system out using a 3.06 with HT. And that will last me another couple years at least.
But right now I feel robbed. Rob
EXTREME? How about stable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:EXTREME? How about stable? (Score:3, Funny)
For example, this new chip is at the far positive end of the price spectrum, and at the far negative end of the "will I really need this in the next three years" spectrum. It, being on the far ends of two spectrums, qualifies as EXXTREME.
(Nevermind that my first online nick had xtreme in it. I was 15, sue me.)
Part 2 of Article up now (Score:5, Informative)
Awwww (Score:4, Funny)
HAAAAADOUKEN
Oh no, not again (Score:3, Funny)
Was looking through a 1984 copy of Personal Computer World and it was saying exactly the same about the new 2MHz 8086 or whatever. Would've thought those crazy marketers'd have learnt by now that in IT there's a new "fastest in the world" every few months.
Still, I suppose some people will be new around here and be impressed by this sort of crap. I know I was, first time (probably in 1981 or thereabouts) I saw a front page "Fastest in the World!" story; second time round I thought hang on, haven't we been here before?
And yes, I know that's before some of you here were born, before any of you point it out and depress me even further.
Am I missing something? (Score:3, Interesting)
Could Intel be planning a compiler that would utilize this cache??
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
pipeline (20 i believe). Thats why higher memory bandwidth and larger caches make such a huge difference on the P4. Where as the Athlons have a much shorter pipeline (12 i believe), the extra memory and cache dont help out as much.
Old IBM XT? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Old IBM XT? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Imagine a beoGKRRRZTTFFFT (Score:2)
I bet you can whistle a 1200 baud modulated signal in your sleep too.
Re:Imagine a beoGKRRRZTTFFFT (Score:2)
MODS: quit modding this crap up (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:2)
Then another kid asked if they had acryllic hard drives, they then proceded to talk for 15 minutes about how cool that would be, and how bitchin acrylic cases are.
Whatever happened to buying a computer because it...it.. _works_
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
I do. I'm a 3D artist, I do rendering. However, as an artist, the processor must be economically feasible as well.
Am I going to go buy one now? No. But if Intel keeps pushing chips with huge caches, and assuming these caches make a difference in LW, it will affect whether or not my next machine is an AMD or an Intel.
For the record, AMD won the last round. I have a dual Athlon at home that runs circles aroun
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, most of those programs are essentially idle at any given moment. But when I'm trying to render a massive 3dmax scene while switching over IRC to ramble libertarianesquely about the failings and dangers of big government, while at the same time opening/reading 3 or 4 web documents... my machine bogs down on me. Now, this machine is a P4-2.9GHz with a gig of RAM on SCSI disks... perhaps the extended speed and cache on the new CPU would make a difference.
At the same time, I could use one of these on my colo box, which is hosting 17 domains with about 3,000 pageloads per hour. Then again, I could always get something other than x86, if I weren't a cheap and ignorant bastard.
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:5, Funny)
3 or (gasp!) 4!!!! instances of IE?!?!?!?
Dude, you are XTREEEEEEEEEEME!
graspee
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Some of these people even believe they need more than 640K of RAM.
Re:I'm so sick of "extreme" this and "Xtreme" that (Score:3, Funny)
I was so disappointed when I cracked the case of my 286 and didn't find an HKK in there somewhere. I had thought that maybe I could replace the one big one with two little ones to reduce net lag.
From the marketing point of view the advantage of "Xtreme" is that you can't prove it isn't in there somewhere. Maybe keeping the Magic Smoke in or something.
The disadvantage is that they can't play games by making you think the go slower button is really a go faster button.
Re:I'm so sick of "extreme" this and "Xtreme" that (Score:5, Interesting)
With that in mind, and seeing past the fnords, LX or LS (think Lexus LS 400, or whatever the latest is), is the most appealing of all: lesbian sex.
I hope I don't come across as crazy or perverted, but advertising will do ANYTHING to sell crap to people.
Re:I'm so sick of "extreme" this and "Xtreme" that (Score:3, Funny)
Entry:
extreme
Synonyms:
acute, consummate, great, greatest, high, highest, intense, maximal, maximum, severe, sovereign, supreme, top, ultimate, utmost, uttermost
Antonyms:
limited, mild, moderate
"P4 Acute" - sounds like a Honda
"P4 Consummate" - sounds like something you'd cook
"P4 Great" - sounds retarded
"P4 High" - sounds like a urinal competition
"P4 Intense" - sounds like a pun
"P4 Maximal" - sounds like a condom
"P4 Sovereign" - sounds like an archaeological discovery
"P4 Severe" - sounds
Re:*sigh* (Score:3)
Re:Speed / Cache is irrelevant *soon* (Score:4, Informative)
No.... we won't. What you are describing is insane. Come on: 3.2GHz x 32 bits? Access/transfer times over a full scale bus with a latency in picoseconds? Um... no.
There is a reason no one has done that yet - made system RAM the same speed as the CPU - and it ain't economics: it is physics. Nature does not take bribes.
Look, it isn't that it is too expensive to make fast RAM. And it isn't the distance - it is the capacitance. The problem with fast RAM is getting that signal off chip to the CPU. And the wires that connect the RAM and CPU are orders of magnitude higher capacitance than the wires on chip. That is a fundamental problem which you won't overcome without a fundamental change in how you move the data around.
Um.. no. Never will that be the case except in situations where using an archaicly small amount of processing power is adequate. Storage technology, as it is formulated now, cannot approach the speed of access, communication, and storage that even a low grade CPU would use for cache.
Maybe - MAYBE when we are using diamond wafers, high-temperature-superconductor-nanotube-quantum-
*soon* is a decade or more away (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's get some things straight first, no hard drive or ram can be 'as fast' as a processor, because that's like saying my coffee cup is as fast as my bicycle, it's meaningless.
A solid-state hard drive has to get all that data addressed, and it has to pump it over some sort of pipe at least several inches long, the addressing will put a buttload of latency in there, and that pipe would bring the bandwidth WAY down.
Now I wouldn't fuck w
Re:Speed / Cache is irrelevant *soon* (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference could be as much as 10x.
A solid state "disk" (SSD) would suffer even higher latencies with all the command overhead and the several bus systems that must be traversed/translated.
We've been promised SSDs for years. The last time I saw SSD units that were of a usable size, and reasonably priced compared
Re:Speed / Cache is irrelevant *soon* (Score:3, Interesting)
The fastest velocity that any human has observed is the speed of light. Some theoretical physicists believe that this is an absolute upper bound on speed
Or in chip dimensions, that's 30 cm/nanosecond. At 10 GHz (0.1 nanosecond cycle time), light can only travel 3 cm in a clock cycle!!! That's approaching the typical dimensions of a chip! That's an absolute upper bound on spee