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."
So is Pentium M just a bunch of failed Pentium processors that didn't fare well in the assembly line? Sort of like Celeron... cough cough.
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.
I've gotten old enough that I no longer thrill at the idea of building my own system. I'm looking for something quiet, very reliable, and inexpensive. Performance comes behind these critiera.
Basically I'm looking for the Dell equivelant in the AMD world, someone who cranks them out in great quantities. I checked out HP etc, wasn't blown away. Also open to a smaller shop if they come with a good recommendation (and without the insanely gaudy cases, no rounded plastic please).
When I browsed through the test, I headed directly to the database section and I was positively surprised, P4M excels in this area.
In my computing I actually find hard disks to be a bottleneck. I use databases all the time and any improvement in that area is a plus.
I bet Gentoo fanboys will lament on processor's performance while compiling, I think it has more to do with the lack of the optimisations yet and what's even more important I don't compile much, I just use the computer.
Overall I find this processor to be a very attractive solution for a typical desktop computer.
It's a great base for a SFF or even smaller computer with more than adequate computing power.
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).
I have no clue why would anyone buy this. I mean Pentium M is great for laptops because of the lower power consumption but there is very little to gain from it on the desktop. It is very overpriced for a standard workstation onfiguration where somone dosent need power. I mean it saves power but not enogh to make it worth the trouble.
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.
That's so not true. I know a lot of 30 year old Athlon lovers who play games and look at porn all day.
Was unfortunately left out. I mean, Athlon 64 makes a fine Pentium 4 competitor when running a legacy 32-bit operating system, but it's so much more. Those cool extra registers you get in 64-bit mode make the thing just scream!
And no, the intel EM64T stuff isn't even competing in the same league, 40-45% slower with 40% more GHz is what I've seen in real-life workloads (heavy numbercrunching). For some other types of loads it does just about as well as the a64/opteron, though.
Revised x86_64 support (possibly in the pentium m core and in the same price range as the new 90nm a64's) and Intel has a chance. That and Microsoft delaying 64-bit Windows for a couple more years.
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.
Though AMD Atlon may be rising as a global giant, Intel's Pentium processors still holds a major share of the market primarily because the large choice of processors it offers, the number of years it has been in business and compatibility with a large number of OS and softwares not to mention hardwares. I believe that Intel is going to stay in business atleast for some more years. What do you think?
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?
My parents and the bulk of the people out there do not need a 64bit 5ghz monster under their desk. And honestly most of thosethat have them probably only use the power 5-10% of the time, if that.
Intel could care less about us, they care about Fortune 500 companies that buy computers by the truck load... and what those companies care about is saving money. 5-20W here and there don't really mean much to you and I, but when you're footing the electric bill for several hundreds or thousands of people then giving everyone barn burners to run Excel starts to look pretty foolish.
You might as well be comparing a Prius and a Ferrari or a jumbo jet and an SR-71.
Use the right tool for the job folks.
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.
You know, 10 years ago I was saying the same thing about the bulk of the people not needing a 32bit 1 gHz monster under their desk. Now this is the minimum that they need.
Don't underestimate Microsoft's ability to make software that brings yesterday's supercomputers to their knees today.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
If Intel were serious, they could be making these right now at 2.4 GHz (I'm sure they'd run fine, and still quite cool) at which point it would be beating every desktop processor in the world. I say that's a hell of a start for an Intel processor line. The most important thing is that with such a low heat output, Intel can eventually clock these things pretty high. The Athlon64 seems to have less headroom.
One clear lesson is that the Pentium4 and everything based on it is done. The P4 gets creamed by the M, it's quite embarassing. I think Intel will just ride out the P4 advertising investment, but we know that their next big thing involves the M cores. And they will be quite fearsome once they start putting multiple M cores into desktop chips, and putting their marketing muscle behind the result.
I'm a huge AMD fan and will remain loyal, but... I think AMD is in a good place now only because they've consistently out-engineered Intel since the first Athlon. Now I'm scared that they won't pull it off in the next generation. Intel seems to have a really promising starting point.
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
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.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.