Slashdot Mirror

It's hard to find info on this hardware.
Performance is so poor that you just run the OS and cringe instead of benchmarking it.
Via C7
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/c7_luke/c7_luke-6.htm

Unichrome IGP
http://freestone-group.com/video-card-stability-test/benchmark-results.html#VIA

AMD Athlon X2 CPUs revision E6 and later support 4GB fine (with PAE).
You'll need PAE on anyway to use DEP.

I'm running here with 4GB RAM in 32-bit mode and all of it is accessible.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=234365

I am actually more impressed with the 3rd result, obtained using a PII originally clocked at 333 Mhz.

It managed to reach 7640.28 Mhz. Reference here : http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php .
Direct link to results here: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352

Actually, I don't see the result you're talking about on the records list, despite it being higher than the third that's on the list now. Plus the page says something about "not verified". Perhaps they've removed it as a probably forged result?

I am actually more impressed with the 3rd result, obtained using a PII originally clocked at 333 Mhz.

It managed to reach 7640.28 Mhz. Reference here : http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php .
Direct link to results here: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352

Actually, I don't see the result you're talking about on the records list, despite it being higher than the third that's on the list now. Plus the page says something about "not verified". Perhaps they've removed it as a probably forged result?

I am actually more impressed with the 3rd result, obtained using a PII originally clocked at 333 Mhz.

It managed to reach 7640.28 Mhz. Reference here : http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php .
Direct link to results here: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352

I am actually more impressed with the 3rd result, obtained using a PII originally clocked at 333 Mhz.

It managed to reach 7640.28 Mhz. Reference here : http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php .
Direct link to results here: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352

What I'm more curious about is how the frak they managed to get a FSB of 1,5 GHZ on a Pentium II 333 MHZ
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352

Yes, the most important difference between the Turion and the Sonoma platform is the optimized chipset. The most important optimization Intel made was dropping DDR for DDR2 on these mobile platforms.

Why is it such an improvement? Because DDR2 offers two obvious power improvements over DDR1:

1. The voltage is lower (1.8v versus 2.5v). Since power consumption is proportional to the voltage squared in CMOS devices, this should reduce power consumption by almost 50% (ignoring leakage).

2. The internal design of DDR2 adds more buffers (4 versus 2 for DDR1), so the memory inside runs at half the speed of an equivilantly-clocked DDR1 chip. This means that, with the exception of external control logic, DDR2 667 chips are running as fast as DDR1 333 chips. Thus, you can get higher throughput (at the expense of increased latency) with very little operating frequency, which means little increase in power consumption due to frequency. The Pentium M hides that high latency well with that huge low-latency L2 cache.

Here is a link discussing the two technologies in detail.

Personally, I'm looking forward to this year, because AMD knows they need a low-power dual-core solution for the mobile platform, and they know they need to reduce power consumption even further on the desktop to stay one step ahead of Conroe. DDR2 will help them deliver that.

From the original article on X86-Secret.com, it sounds like the new chips will not be using the Pentium branding at all. It's just Intel Core Solo and Intel Core Duo from now on.

Exactly. The only news here is Intel essentially admitting their mistake with the marketing driven P4. For those who are surprised by these results see previous stories on the subject. See this Doom3 and Far Cry benchmark from the link in the first slashdot article and this extremetech article and this French benchmark. And these are not the only sources. The fact is that on a modern platform the Pentium M is quite competitive with not only a P4 at nearly twice the clock speed, but also with Athlon64 chips at nearly half the power of even a 90 nm Winchester Athlon64 with a max TDP of either 21 or 29 Watts for the older and newer chips respectively.

That's not to say that it is competitive in every domain, but for gaming it is tough to beat. And, yes, many modern games do scale with CPU power.

A couple of more links
here and here.

At the moment AMD is kicking Intel's arse in the performance sector. The pentium M (Banias) is the only remaining tech that Intel really has. Lots of chickens have come home to roost now that Intel's super-ultra-mega clockspeed boosted chip has reached the end of the line.

For the sake of a continuing healthy, competive market even the most die hard AMD fans had better hope that Intel gets back on track and allows some engineers to actually make some product decisions for a change. The Banias core seems to be their only hope.

I have found all of these recent benchmarks to be rather amazing. It's tough for anything to beat an overclocked Pentium M in games even with the huge disadvantages of an aging platform without all the latest goodies. Intel should be embarrassed. Deeply. Their Pentium 4 is a disgrace.

It is clear that for anyone who cares at all about power consumption, heat, or noise, nothing can touch a Pentium M, not even a Cool n' Quiet enabled 90nm Winchester Athlon64. If Aopen releases a desktop motherboard with the upcoming alviso (PCI-E, DDR2 etc) chipset, things could get very interesting indeed.

If you can read French, there's an article on x86-secret where they opened a laptop, installed a big cooler, and overclocked a 2.0 Ghz Dothan to 2.4 Ghz. It remained stable during 2 hours of BurnP6 and stayed under 30 degrees C. The 2.4 Ghz Dothan beat the 3.4 Ghz P4 in all their benchmarks, and is comparable to the Athon 64 3400+.

I beg to disagree, if those guys can be trusted. Sure, a better FSB would clearly help, but look at what they achieve with a single-channel FSB100.

Here

(yeah, yeah, it's in French. Machine translate it for the text, and after all the pictures and chart don't need much of an explanation, do they?)

The guys from the french review site x86-secret decided to not only do the same type of thing, but make a bunch of videos available too! They mostly consist of old hardware (even though there is some new stuff) + fireworks = BOOM!!
http://explosive-reviews.x86-secret.com/
And because I'm nice, and it's not my bandwith, I'm currently mirroring them:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~pnelson/explosive-revie ws.x86-secret.com/