Slashdot Mirror
More Analysis Of Pentium M Desktops
Hack Jandy writes "The Pentium 4 has gotten enough attention lately as a slow, over heated monstrosity; but does Intel's Pentium M fare any better? Intel's decision to introduce the Pentium M as a desktop processor (East Fork) may not be all it's cracked up to be. Sudhian has an in-depth article, and Anand has benchmarks (on Linux!). I will stick with my Athlon 64, thank you very much."
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dot hangaming&page=1
and it shows how differently it performs compared to things like compiling a kernel in linux. According to the review, it competes almost as fast or sometimes as fast as the A64 in some games.
It's still an impressive cpu and better than tha bacon-cooker (prescott).
That the Pentium-M isn't optimised at all for what they were benchmarking (apart from some stuff compiled with a non-commercial intel C compiler).
While I'll be one of the first to put my boot into intel and their behind-the-market sloppy overpriced inefficient CPUs, it would be at least fair to do it on a reasonably even playing field.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Meanwhile, my brand new Athlon 64 laptop:
a) Doesn't have any drivers available online
b) Refuses to install both 32- and 64-bit versions of Fedora 1-2, SuSe, and Mandrake (locks up before setup completes)
c) Locks up on Windows 'shutdown'
Better slow that retarded...
Then turn it off in the BIOS and quit complaining?
I had this same problem too, and I could not turn it off in the BIOS. My 1 Ghz chip ran at 500Mhz most of the time, even when plugged in.
If you look at the front side bus speeds of the Pentium M, they're low. Very low, in fact, at 400MHz. Certainly not in the 800MHz -1066MHz range that's required for a lot of operations. A 1.5GHz P-M is about the equivalent of a 2.4GHz P4 Northwood UNLESS it comes to data-intensive operations requiring FSB access, and then it gets constricted.
Let's reserve judgment on the P-M's future unless and until Intel builds a higher FSB speed or unless the biggest priority is low overall system power.
My Athlon64 rig is solid as a rock and the more articles I encounter like this, the more I believe I switched over from Intel at the right time. I think AMD has pulled ahead permanently this time. Like most ./ers, I put together my own 'rig', allowing me to select the most highly rated, well-known and supported components at an affordable price. I have no need for underpowered systems with a bunch of useless software bundles - I prefer to put my money where I know it counts.
I'm not a 14 yr old gamer, either. I earn a living designing software. The Athlon64 is about the best price/performaner (esp. considering the 'free' upgrade when moving to a 64-bit OS) that's come along in a very long time.
It seems to me that midrange AMD is far better than midrange Intel for games -- so this is probably why the impression "AMD rules for games" is out there. Buncha kids with no money think it is.
But my 3.2 P4 Northwood running at 3.52 with 6800GT seems plenty competitive -- with everything except the FX 55, which is *extraordinarily expensive*.
It seems that AMD is better at the low end and the extreme high end, but the "ordinary" high end (3500+ and 3.2 P4), Intel and AMD are about the same. Plus with things like MPEG encoding and compiling, which is also important to me, P4 beats even the AMD FX.
So AMD is only better than Intel at the extreme high end and the low end. But the low end isn't worth playing at, unless you ain't got no money.
So in short it seems to me that in the real world a 3.2@3.52 P4 is plenty great for games.
Or would an AMD 3500+ give me a "smoother feeling" experience?
I've been using a Pentium M Dell Inspiron 8600 for the past week (configuring it for a friend)
I've had nothing but luck with it, it's warm at worst and the fan comes on for 90 seconds every 25 minutes when it's sitting on a soft pillow (practically covering ALL vents in the machine)
It browses very fast, it's responsive and it plays back movies fine
Absoloutely no qualms here, an Athlon 64 would be far hotter, far noiser and (potentially) less stable.
(intel chipset / cpu in a laptop is just the only way to go... I wish it was different but it's not)
I don't know where you get your info, but i've had a 64 since march and it's been rock solid. The major problems with stability people have with a 64 is:
1. Amperage too low on 12V rail. This is becomming more common with all systems. A number of Mobo makers are now taking the CPUs power out of the 12V rail, and since the memory controller is integrated into the CPU, well you see the issue. It's a simple fix, get a decent PSU with at least 20+ amps on the 12V rail.
2. Memory. A common problem with ALL machines. This is also an easy fix: BUY DECENT MEMORY. You don't need corsair, but get a respected name. People also claim that you can't run at any timings faster than 3-3-3, but that ISN'T the case. I'm typing this with a Gig of PC 3200 running 2-3-3. Haven't tried to oc it because I have no need, but tighter timings might be possible.
As far as overclocking goes, no you won't get massive numbers, but with the basic understanding that you're dealing with more than just FSB and multiplyer, you can get a decent overclock.
Intel fan boys need to calm down. Netburst hasn't been what intel needed. AMD gave them plenty of warning that they were going to release a pretty advanced chip. Intel decided that GHZ are what matter, and that everyone would want an Itanium for 64 bit computing. wrong on both accounts. It's good to know that they are going back to more reliable tech, but when I have a cool running, stable machine that can go toe to toe with an Intel Extreme Edition (I hate extreme marketing) and cost me a fraction of the price, I'm happy.
John 3:16 - The easiest way to a BETTER YOU.
My ideal laptop for college was an Apple G4, but school insisted on Windows for it's 'stability, reliability, and security'.... yea, that's a joke in itself.
Decided to get an IBM Thinkpad with a Pentium IV Mobile.
Everyone with laptops running P4's seen to have issues with heat, and power consumption. Despite my oversided screen, dual HD's, and CD-RW... I'm actually doing all right.
It cost more to get a laptop with a real mobile chip, rather than just a P4 as some companies offer... but I think it saved me a lot of trouble.
I was positively surprised, P4M excels in this area.
It is not P4M. Aside from the FSB and the latest SSE version, Pentium M is not even remotely based on the Pentium 4 core.
From www.macromedia.com: Macromedia Flash can use the fscommand action to control the playback and appearance of standalone projectors, as well as launch external applications. The fscommand action takes two parameters: a command and an argument. In some cases, an argument is not required.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what my sig is...
he's probably talking about a64/opteron versus Nocona (EM64T, meaning Intel's equivalent of amd64) so that would be apples to apples. Dell had been selling Noconas for quite a while now, so it's fairly "real world". And x86-64 is not just about more that 4G addressable space - read the OP again.
yeah, and for number crunching windows (64bit or not) is irrelevant, so again, what was it you were addressing from the parent post?
First of all, you will only find P4 "Mobile" in P4 laptops. Non mobile versions draw too much juice and have heat dissipation of at least 100W.
:0)
Second of all, Pentium-M blows the doors off P4 "Mobile" while at the same time running much cooler and consuming much less power.
Third, I type this from a 20" iMac G5. Envy me.
I had this same problem too, and I could not turn it off in the BIOS. My 1 Ghz chip ran at 500Mhz most of the time, even when plugged in.
/proc/cpuinfo will only reflect how things looked when you booted, but it doesn't mean your CPU speed isn't changing. see cpufreq (/proc/cpurfreq)
The info returned by
That'd be CentreCom. I know that CPL isn't bad either. But check The Age's Green Guide - there's heaps of other cheap stores out there (though can't comment on their service).
gcc 3.3.x? Then pentium3.
More recent gcc (3.4.x) has explicit support for centrino, with cpu-type pentium-m
The pentium M is NOT a P4 at heart, it's an intel i686 core (same as PIII) with added instructions and a different bus to the northbridge. It has the same feature set of a P4 but that doesn't make it a P4.
GCC-3.4.3 has a "-march=pentium-m" option, btw.
If you're stuck with an older gcc, try:
"march=pentium3 -msse2"
which should get you as close as can be to optimal scheduling.
Using "march=pentium4" will probably yield slower code than using just "pentium3" because the scheduling for these CPUs is so different.
I spend too much time doing this shit.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
I believe that the Windows drivers allow you to do the same thing, if you want.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
a) Uses standard hardware so drivers are no problem to find online (or from the reseller or on the included install discs). One exception being the Radeon 9600m, which I can still easily find drivers for.
b) Has compiled both 32-bit and 64-bit Gentoo from stage 1 and never crashed (though even with an Athlon64 it takes forever)
c) Doesn't lock up on Windows shutdown, suspend, hibernate, or when transcoding xvid three days in a row.
Have you considered that maybe--possibly, your laptop might be damaged, or that the one you chose was horribly crap and that it is your fault, not AMDs? I mean, my god, even eMachine's Athlon64 laptops work fine in my experience!
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
The Pentium-M is a kickass desktop processor, it just has not the brand GHz on its package. Still one of the fastest there is, excellent power management (which is a big plus on a desktop where you dont want to hear fans all the time and where you idle 99% of the time anyway)
The main problem is the price, it is just much to pricey compared to an AMD64, I probably will go the AMD 64 route in the middle of next year because they also have a good power management. The main selling point for AMD64 for me is its Coool&Quiet technology, I could not care less about the 64bit features, which are totally useless currently for the stuff I do. (wake me up once the emulators start to use the higher number of general purpose registers)
So there is this decision between a Pentium-M and AMD 64 bot excellent desktop processors and in the end AMD will win again due to its lower price tag.
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=180 0
...also notice how a P4M gives about the same type of performance of a normal P4: actually it's pretty on par with equivalent speed athlon cpu's.
Gives more detail on the why & how
yeah, virtuallky useless.
you want to make other shit up?
I have 35 pentium M based dells right here and when on battery they are a tad slower but are still extremely useful and most users do not even notice it.
If you wanted performance, why did you buy a notebook with an el-cheapo processor? I got the dells for less than $525.00 each, pentium M processors are the value line and are only in the cheap laptops.
Wah, my laptop does not have a geforce FX 6800 video card with 512 meg of ram.... wah.....
get a clue and stop makeing up lies.
It seems to me that Anandtech didn't run the Linux benchmarks in 64-bit mode for the AMD processors. Given that they are giving an indication of processor performance, they should allow AMD to use that extra gear. It's there to be used!
Stop the brainwash
My experience with Pentium M is that it clocks down BIG time if you don't plug in the power cord. So much so that the laptop is virtually useless. YMMV.
;P), like compiling a lot of software, and working with some encryption formats. All-in-all, my 1.5 year old Penium M is still a fairly usefull system, that even plays most games competantly, if not with all the pretty features turned on. :(
Luckily, this is 100% configurable.
Even if you don't want to turn it off completely, you can set up your system to be less aggressive in down-clocking your CPU.
In windows 2k/XP, open the 'power' control panel, and change the setting from whatever it's set at(I'm guessing "Max Battery" to something less drastic, like Portable/Laptop, or Home/Office Desk(Yes, home/office desk will still allow it to downlock, but it will clock it back up when you start using it more.). "Always on" and "Minimal power management" both disable down-clocking, I believe. And the on-demand CPU frequency scaling does wonders for battery life. I've never felt that my laptop was hampered by being unplugged, but any time I stop using a lot cpu, it down-clocks to save battery.
Under linux, you just need to have a decent kernel and cpufreqd or speedfreqd(And I was just compiling 2.6.9 last night, it seems that it includes a kernel driver that will dynamically change the clock speed dependant on CPU load, so cpufreqd/speedfreqd are not strictly necessary if that is enabled.
I've also done some benchmarks/useage comparisons, and my Pentium M laptop is signifigantly faster than my desktop at several things(Nothing disk-bound though.
I have two systems at work. Both Dells. One is a desktop 2.6GHz P4 machine, the other is a 1.7GHz Pentium M laptop. Memory and hard drive the same. I do hardware design and spend a lot of time compiling RTL designs for FPGAs (which can take hours, even on the fastest machines). I find my Pentium M laptop is roughly 20% faster than the P4 desktop... I've always attributed this to the fact that the Pentium M comes with more cache than most P4 systems (1M/2M instead of a typical 512K). That's just my experience with it. I've had no problem with the freqency throttling, it always speeds back up without any noticable lag.
[Pentium 4 scheduling in GCC]
I think it does have at least something rudimentary in that department
This was a bug.