P4 3.2GHz Reviews

Nathan writes "The Intel 3.2GHz Pentium4 has passed its NDA with reviews coming out over the net, including this one at MBReview, This one at HardAvenue, This one at TweakTown and this review at HotHW." Yay. Benchmarks. Wowee-zowee.

Comments

Mock!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I also reserve the right to mock you for paying $300 for an extra 200MHz." -- Scott Wasson, TechReport.

Re:Mock!

[djocyko]

That's funny, because just this morning, I got an extra 300Mhz for free (I turned my clock up from 100 to 133Mhz...)

And, no, that's not called overclocking. It's called not underclocking ;-)

(Interesting thing: my old harddrive would not be recognized with the clock up at full speed. Well, that one crashed - yay IBM! - and with the new one, I just remembered I could get an extra 300Mhz this morning =)

Re:Mock!

[Surak]

Not every CPU intensive application can be done on a cluster. It depends on if the work can be distributed or not. Not every problem can be broken down into discrete little chunks that can be done on separate nodes in a cluster. It doesn't always work out that way.

Stuff that matters.

[DeadScreenSky]

Yay. Benchmarks. Wowee-zowee.

If it isn't important, if it doesn't matter, then don't post it.

Re:Stuff that matters.

[sczimme]

If it isn't important [to you], if it doesn't matter [to you], then don't read it.

See? Easy-peasy.

And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

$760 for it... A bit much for that "little extra," isn't it? You could build a fairly powerful AMD (or even Celeron) machine with that money... twice.

*doesn't click link*

[Alpha_Nerd]

Let me guess... It's a few percent faster than the 3.0ghz, and costs more.

Do I win a prize??

Who is Intel trying to impress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Intel trying to get laid by the best of the PC market by showing how fast it can swing by?

What happened to the days when CPU's would take their time, and get the jobs done the right way.

It's not like it can make your PC scream any faster or louder, or can it?

Meh

[ickoonite]

Whilst I would extend my sincerest thanks to dear Intel for yet more predictable inching up of the top speed for x86, I would like to point out that a far more interesting processor revolution is to take place today at 17:00 UTC, in the form of the PowerPC 970.

64bit for the consumer and the world's most beautiful OS or a meagre increase for a 32bit chip with Microsoft Windows. I know what I'll pick...

iqu

Re:Meh

[MuckSavage]

You wouldn't think they'd just let apple go and introduce something that might possible kick their ass, without trying to steal some thunder, do you? ;)

Re:Meh

[AKnightCowboy]

64bit for the consumer and the world's most beautiful OS or a meagre increase for a 32bit chip with Microsoft Windows. I know what I'll pick...

And the other 95% of computer users will pick the cheaper 32-bit Intel chip running Windows. What's your point? You're willing to pay an enormous premium for very little gain? The average consumer isn't going to see a difference between a 32-bit CPU and a 64-bit CPU other than one is going to be more expensive and perhaps run a bit faster. In 6 months the 32-bit CPU will trounce it yet again.

We've been going over this for over 10 years now. If 64-bit CPUs were some kind of panacea then the DEC Alpha would have become the dominate desktop chipset. Now it's just pleasant history. Mac users will continue to buy Macs no matter what CPU is in them if history repeats itself. They're even willing to lose almost all binary compatibility in the switch if necessary. Heck, if I remember correctly they've done it twice so far going from Motorola 68k chips to PowerPC and then from OS 9 to OS X. Most people aren't willing to make such a sacrifice in the name of platform advocacy which is why Windows still runs old DOS programs.

Re:Meh

[ickoonite]

Now this is really pure FUD, I'm afraid, but it does make me laugh.

Yeah, it's true that the masses will probably stick to what is cheaper. It's what they're always gonna do, and that's fine, because most people just want Office and maybe the occasional game. Apple will never really penetrate that market.

But this is Slashdot. We demand more from our machines here. We want high speed UNIX boxen and game stations that we can frag at 150 fps on, and if we're lucky, both at the same time.

The bit about binary compatibility shows that you know nothing about Macs. The PPC 970 _is_ backwards compatible with all the old software - everything will run! And the best thing is, as has always been the case with Macs, backwards compatibility is unrivalled. Macs of today still feature Motorola 68k emulation so that they can run software written for those chips, for OS 9 and for OS X.

Windows XP (the equivalent of OS X in terms of consumer accessibility and reliability), on the other hand, has terrible backwards compatibility, and I find that many, many, many old DOS or even Windows programs will not run...

I rest my case.

iqu

Re:Meh

[Surlyboi]

Then, shouldn't you amend your .sig to "Guns don't
kill consumers, consumers kill consumers"?

Re:Meh

[stubear]

I have. Read the line about integer performance and you'll see why Apple will still be playing catchup with Intel and AMD. Most people are going to be doing integer and not floating point calculations when they are running their systems. Those that do benefit from floating point are likely not "Switch" candidates anyway. Either way, it's difficult at best to just drop one system and replace it for another when it comes to FP calculations as you not only need to purchase new hardware, you have to purchase new software and even with Adobe allowing crossgrade licensing, it's going to be a big hit to the wallet.

Re:Meh

[IamTheRealMike]

Macs of today still feature Motorola 68k emulation so that they can run software written for those chips, for OS 9 and for OS X...... Windows XP (the equivalent of OS X in terms of consumer accessibility and reliability), on the other hand, has terrible backwards compatibility

Well, iirc Classic mode is basically running the complete OS 9 in a VM. But by this logic, Windows is perfectly backwards compatable because you can run any previous version inside VMware.

So, to measure how backwards compatable an OS is, running complete old versions inside a VM is to me cheating. You should test how well old apps run in the same environment as modern apps. By this measure, Windows scores pretty well.

Re:Meh

[IamTheRealMike]

There are limits, even for Doom III. I'd bet a couple of beers that it won't be realistically able to use more than 4gig of RAM.

Someone somewhere else on this thread sarcastically suggested that I was simply assuming 64bit to be twice the speed of 32bit.

Well, at one point you said "64 bit processors can process twice as much data as 32 bit processors", or words to that affect. Which is a pretty meaningless statement without a time reference.

However, 64bit quite clearly is the future, and whether x86 or PPC is your architecture, it's where we're going.

Sure. Eventually. In much the same way that ipv6 is the future.

surely the ability to fetch 64bits of data at a time rather than just 32bits is going to speed things up?

I'm pretty sure that the rate CPUs read from memory is actually limited by things like memory bandwidth and speed. I think most CPUs already fetch memory speculatively in chunks of 128bits or more, so I doubt that'd make much difference.

You also have to remember that the size of the pointer type doubles. That can actually decrease efficiency - as pointed out in the article linked to in a sibling post, a lot of computation involves linked list traversal. The increased pointer size would cause greater amounts of data to need to be processed.

It is quite clear from your posting history that you do not like Macs

Well this is the interesting thing. I don't have much against Macs themselves, other than a general dislike of proprietary platforms (but the same is true of Windows or Solaris for instance). It's more the attitude of some (unfortunately the most vocal) Mac users that annoys me. A lot of, well, to be frank inaccurate things are said about Apple and their products, and it's a big turnoff.

It's especially annoying when people work themselves into a frenzy then treat a corporation and its product almost like a religion. So that's where a lot of my "anti-Mac" viewpoint comes from, not in fact the technology or even the company themselves (though apple have done their fair share of shady things) - just the blind loyalty of its users.

Re:Overclocked

[IamTheRealMike]

Well you can't compare a CPU against a computer. A more interesting comparison would be the new IBM chips against these ones. Still, CPU benchmarks of that type are interesting in an academic fashion only, they can always be contested (for not using the right optimizations etc).

I dunno why people focus so much on CPU benchmarks. Why can't I have a faster BIOS? I want a machine that passes control to the OS bootloader in under a second. Instead, if anything, it takes longer and longer with every machine I try - a second or two staring at the NVidia copyright notice, a few more seconds staring at the bios, quick memory check, autodetect devices. Some system info, some beeps, some whirrs, some clicks, then finally the OS starts loading. Of course that takes ages as well.

If we are capable of making such insanely fast pieces of electronics, why the hell is the rest so slow?

*From inside intel*

[OmniVector]

The pentium 4 architecture (heck the x86) is getting long in the tooth. I foresee intel's next market move :)

Intel Employee #1: We can't make our design any better! Intel Employee #2: Surely you jest. Intel Employee #1: No, but I have an idea. Intel Employee #2: What? I'm clueless! Intel Employee #1: Lets up the clock speed! Intel Employee #2: Touche!

(note this is not meant to be a flame, just a little humor)

German Reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Find some German Reviews at www.hardtecs4u.com, www.computerbase.de, www.hartware.de und www.hardware-mag.de.

Looks, as there is no chance for an AMD 3200+ Systeme to win a round. Hope it will change with the athlon 64 ;)

Buying other items with small performance increase

[del_ctrl_alt]

I have been thinking what other products (cars, appliances, electronics) that boast such small performance increases for such greater expense?

Picture this....

Salesman: and this toaster makes toast .5 seconds faster

Me: great, how much?

Salesman: its double the price of the standard model

Me: Hmmmm

Where's the Pentium 5?

[Zog The Undeniable]

I'm getting bored of "P4"...at least "Pentium 5" would be etymologically correct again!

(Yes, fellow pedants, I am aware that "Pentium" was used for the chip following the 486, as Intel couldn't copyright a number and stop their competitors using the term "586".)

Seriously though, how long have successive generations of Pentium technology lasted? Is it just me, or was the PIII the primary product line for longer than the PII, and when will the P4 break the PIII's record?

Boring?

[grub]

Yay. Benchmarks. Wowee-zowee.

If it's that boring, why include it on the main page as a story?

Re:Overclocked

[MuckSavage]

Because the general sheep public don't understand or care about that stuff. They just see the ever widening "GHZ" label and buy away every time intel releases a new chip.

My Review

[SamBeckett]

Compared to the older pentiums the new pentium IV performs all the same instructions in exactly the same way. You may sense a small speed increase; however you are not likely to notice it (unless you are upgrading from a 486DX2-66).

Integer performance has increased by (New Speed-OldSpeed)/OldSpeed * (OldBenchmark Score) - OldBenchMarkScore, as has floating point. However, the electricity bill also rose by the same percentage.

Pros: No one ever got fired for buying Intel!
Cons: It costs more than a used car!

Re:Buying other items with small performance incre

[onion2k]

If you run a toast shop, and you're making 5000 slices of toast a day...

Purchasing Cycles

[Detritus]

There are many organizations that do not have a budget or process for replacing obsolete/outdated equipment. Like rain in the desert, money for new equipment comes in infrequent deluges. When money is available, you buy the top-of-the-line computer. You may be using it for the next ten years.

Re:Purchasing Cycles

[fruey]

When money is available, you buy the top-of-the-line computer. You may be using it for the next ten years.

That is short sighted. Paying an extra $300 just for a little more speed, in the long run, just means that the budget to upgrade is higher than it could have been, so it will happen more infrequently, without other external economic influences of course.

Re:Purchasing Cycles

[the gnat]

when money is available, you buy the top-of-the-line computer. You may be using it for the next ten years.

This is the rationale I hear for buying expensive hardware from Sun or SGI (and I agree, for the most part). I've never heard it used to justify buying Intel's latest offering - PCs are retired quicker than any other platform. If you really need to make a crappy PC workstation last for ten years, you're better off buying a cheaper box, like a 2.4Ghz P4 (which isn't slow by any means), and use all the money you save to purchase spare boxes or parts. You'll definitely need them if you want to keep the system going for ten years.

I know from experience that there are few things more annoying than trying to squeeze the last bit of life out of PCs that have been obsolete and off warranty for two years. . . sometimes, when the moon is out, I can still hear those IBM Pentium 90s calling my name.

Does anyone really care anymore?

[Carrot007]

Come on beyond a few people this sort of speed really isn't necessary is it!

For most people when processors hit 750 mhz that was enough for them. And then MS released XP but that only raised the stakes a slight bit. 1.2 ghz is enough for 90% of people out there!

Yet some people still crave speed, I have an aunt who does nowt more than send a few emails a month and play minesweeper and (much to my annoyance as I may use it for maybe 5% of my tasks) she has a faster cpu than me!

On a side note, what's happeneing with AMD these days? they seem to really be losing it at the high end, it terms of both value and performance. there 3200 seems only about as good as a p4 2800 of so.

Still they still are the better choice at the same end of the pricing scale below the curve of insanity!

Personally I'd much prefer some nice advances in some other area, cpu's are dull these days and I doubt 64 bit will convince me otherwise.

Other reviews

[markhagan]

Extreme Overclocking: they actually overclocked the engineering sample. ha! kind of a pricy risk if you ask me. More reviews here, here and here.

Nothing fancy, move along

[zensonic]

1. Up the MHZ by 6.67%
   
2. Benchmarks gets (*suprise*) ~5-6% faster
   
3. ....
   
4. profit.
   

Nothing newsworthy in that really.

So what's the real news?

[Martin Kallisti]

I find it irrelevant whether the speed of an existing type of processor has increased by less than ten percent, although looking at the price compared to the 200MHz lower clocked variant, maybe this would fit under "It's funny, laugh".

However, this processor does seems very suitable for overclocking (4GHz, yikes!). Did anyone manage to come close to that with the 3GHz model, or has Intel increased the therapeutical window of their processors slightly? ;)

Re:Buying other items with small performance incre

[del_ctrl_alt]

yes of course, but the toast shop making that volume of toast would not be buying toasters built for home use. They would have a toaster farm probably running 'open toast' insted of winToast

Powerbook

[Anonymous Coward]

My Ti Powerbook G4 running at 800MHz runs just fine and it gets 6 hours of battery life. When are PC users going to realize that you don't need any more performance than that? Power savings is more important these days.

Where are the real benchmarks

[luckybob83]

Something is missing, oh yea, the Intel vs AMD benchmarks, WTF, how can you compare your own CPU's to each other, I wanna see how they hold up to AMD

Re:Buying other items with small performance incre

[JanneM]

If you need that kind of toast-making performance, you're luch more likely to either build a toaster-farm with dozens (or maybe even hundreds) of inexpensive run-of-the mill toasters, or splurge for a big, heavy-duty continuous-feed made-to-order beltway toaster.

Sort of like getting either a cluster of cheap middle-performing x86 boxes, or a big-iron type machine from Sun or IBM, come to think about it.

I mean, how many apps really critically need that 2% parformance increase, but do not benefit from a dual or quad-cpu machine, a cluster, or a big non-x86 Unix machine?

Re:Editor on crack?

[awtbfb]

or the expanded dictionary entry:

1. Exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish. Otherwise known as "Slashdot effect"

2. Steve Ballmer on stage.

3. Al Gore attempting humor.

Antonym: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

Brief benchmark rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I have a small rant concerning benchmarks. I'm in the sciences and often look at graphs of data. I am getting SO TIRED of benchmark results being posted with y-axes that go from 2500 to 2600 showing the relative "improvement" of newer, faster cpu's when they ought to be scaled from 0 to X "mips", "flops" or whatevers so that you can see at a glance that the changes are or are not significant.

Better yet are plots showing how much they have "improved" relative to simple clock speed increases (if at all!) and normalized "mips/dollar" for cost evaluation....

Other sources

[corvi42]

For those who care, there is also a comparison of AMD 3200+ to P4 3.2 GHz at tomshardware: here

One example of 64bit gaming benefits

[fegu]

Modern chess engines represent the board as several 64bit bitboards, one for the white queen, one for the black queen, one for the white pawns etc.

This as opposed to the good old days with a 64 byte array containing 1 for the white queen, 2 for the white pawns etc.

Bitboards really benefit from 64bit registers and 64bit (integer) arithmetic.

Re:Overclocked

[d^2b]

Want a faster BIOS? Perhaps you want LinuxBIOS From the link

It does a minimal amount of hardware initialization before jumping to the kernel start and lets Linux do the rest. As a result, it is much faster (current record 3 seconds)

And yes, apparently it boots Windows 2000 too.

babelfish translation of this /. post

[Multiple Sanchez]

Posted by Hemos on 8:42 23 June 2003
from the cut-and-paste dept.
Nathan writes "Someone else asked us to redirect traffic to their site. We told them of course."

No Tom's?

[MasTRE]

While those reviews are more than adequate, I am surprised that Tom's Hardware review is not mentioned. While I would not mention it blindly just because THG was one of the first sites to offer in-depth reviews, after reading it I gained more insight than from the other "here are the benchmarks, mam" sites. Here's the synopsis:

"Intel launches the last P4, with 3.2 GHz for FSB800 and Dual DDR400. Its rival AMD fights back with the Athlon XP 3200+ and Dual DDR400. With the Pentium 5 and Athlon 64 waiting in the wings, it's a historic duel." [tomshardware.com]

Re:Athlon still better.

[56ksucks]

I have to agree. They're comparing a 2.2GHz AMD chip with a 3.2Ghz P4 and the AMD chip is holding it's own against a CPU that is an entire 1GHz faster in terms of clock speed. If they would A.) Compared the AMD chip with a 2.2 GHz P4 or B.) Compared the 3.2GHz P4 to a 3.2GHz Athlon, if one existed, then AMD would be far ahead. Which is why we recognise the Athlon as the supperior CPU.

Re:Processor design needs to change.

[TeknoHog]

I agree that x86 is not the best way of computing. However, there are many factors that contribute to power consumption.

• There are current leaks in transistors that account for a lot of wasted power, but can be solved by new manufacturing techniques. IIRC Intel has already developed some of these. Nanotubes and other fancy tech will probably be even better.
• Wide and shallow pipelines probably need lots of transistors as well. Graphics processors are much more parallelized than CPUs, look (listen?) how much cooling they need. On the other hand look what VIA has done with x86 processors, they can be passively cooled.
• MHz is only one factor in power consumption, just like it is only one factor in performance. And I'm looking forward for some clockless designs.

FutureMark's lost reputation

[Fjord]

I agree that this article wasn't that interesting, but I did find the following passing interesting

Next up, weâ(TM)ll be taking a look at FutureMark's 3DMark2001SE. With the recent debacle surrounding NVIDIA and FutureMark, I have chosen to exclude 3DMark2003 from our benchmarking suite for those of you wondering why you arenâ(TM)t seeing any results for it. (from here)

We've all read how NVIDIA fiddled with the results and how FutureMark became complacent with it. Now here's the result.