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.

Stuff that matters.

[DeadScreenSky]

Yay. Benchmarks. Wowee-zowee.

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

*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??

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

[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: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?

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

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...

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

[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?