Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1748 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 17 - 04:23pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / The next Pentium 4 processor, Prescott arrives
 

  3.2 prescott 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
ROY G Feb 02, 2004, 05:45am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 15 - Views: 1202
The pcmark and sissoft benchie from the 3.2 prescott was a little higher than the 3.06 northwood , But would not the jump from the 3.06 to 3.2 be about the same if it were on a northwood ???


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Raystonn Majere Feb 02, 2004, 06:02am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
The Prescott's enhancements are designed to allow it to scale to higher clockspeeds, and do so more efficiently. They were not designed to boost performance at the same clockspeed. This is why you are not paying extra for Prescotts at identical clockspeeds to Northwoods.

-Raystonn

Col Feb 02, 2004, 08:13am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
I have to say, I was a little bemused that he compared a 3.2 with a 3.06. The 3.06 is the old 533Mhz version, All other sites reviewed like for like processors or a whole range!

____________________________________
System Config

Asus A8V Deluxe
AMD X2 4600
1 GB Crucial Ballistix
X800 PRO
2 x 200 GB SATA WD HD
Pioneer DVR 108 DVD RW
Audigy 2 ZS
Lian Li PC60
430 Watt Antec PSU
Samsung 172x TFT
Sander Sassen Feb 02, 2004, 11:50am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Feb 02, 2004, 11:59am EST

 
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Col,

That was done intentionally, why bother comparing it head to head with high-end processors when those CPUs are not commonly found in systems of people that are about to upgrade or buy a whole new system. By comparing it to an older system one can much more accurately determine just how fast or slow this processor is. The 3.06GHz has been out for about a year, and many people have a system at home based on this CPU. As our benchmarks show the 3.06GHz is barely slower than Intel's latest sibling. Ergo conclusio, if it's about as fast as a 3.06GHz running at a 533MHz it is slower or on par with faster CPUs.

Kind regards,

Sander Sassen
Editor in Chief - Hardware Analysis
ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com
tony Santoro Feb 02, 2004, 03:41pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
what the hell, why the hell would they benchmark it against a p4 3.0 or whatever, where the hell are the prescott vs athlonFX and 64 benchmarks WTF!!!!!!!!

James Marlin Feb 03, 2004, 03:23pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Is it just me, or does Intel's mantra of "clock speed is king" seem to be creating more problems for them, at this point in the game, then it's worth?

It seems that everything Intel's done to this new revision of the core has one purpose, making it easier to scale up the processor speed.
They may be the first to hit a 5ghz cpu, but I bet they'll be the first to a 100 stage pipeline too. LOL

It's just too bad that the average computer buyer uses clock speed as a major yard stick for their buying decision, it plays right into Intel's hands.
Ok, I'm a bit of a AMD "fan boy", that's why I get cheesed at AMD having to use the stupid "performance rating", just to show that a "slower" cpu can perform as well as a "faster" one.

In my mind when marketing takes over R&D there's a problem, and IMHO this new Prescott proves it.

Athlon XP M 2500+ (12x200FSB=2.4 ghz, PR 3500+), Soltek SL-75RN2-L, 1gig 3200DDR Ram, ATI X800GTO, NEC MultiSync FE991sb, Creative Audigy OEM, Logitech 5.1 speakers, 40gig HD booting XP, 200gig@50%games, Lite-On DVD burner, LG 52x32x52x
Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Feb 04, 2004, 01:53am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
to those who Own Northwood, Stick with it as the Prescott Sux, In other words wait until Intel has gotten all the bugs out and fixed stuff.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Feb 04, 2004, 01:54am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
seems that the Northwood is a True Performer, considering the Prescott is a shame.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
tony Santoro Feb 04, 2004, 05:32pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
ummm hello wtf where are the amd vs prescott benchmarks wtf

Wildwood Feb 18, 2004, 02:26am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Sander-
Very good read. Have you, or anyone else, come across any information as to why the Prescott's run so hot? They seem to be hotter than AMD's Palomino's.


Dan Mepham Feb 21, 2004, 08:43pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Josh - Why is indeed the question. No one seems overly willing to discuss it. The processor draws much more power than one would expect, even given the larger caches (not very power-intensive), and additional logic. It only makes sense to conclude, then, that there's some sort of efficiency or current leakage issue with the processor. Intel seems to insist that it can be fixed as the process technology improves. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Dan Mepham
Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Mar 10, 2004, 01:28am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
why not just switch back to traditional silicon instead of strained silicon, i mean the current northwoods kick ass and run cooler than the prescott, personally only thing i like is the enhanced L2 cache that is 1024KB(1MB)but that L1 Cache needs to be more like 512KB(1/2MB)-1024KB(1MB).

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
Patrick Eberhart Mar 12, 2004, 11:33pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Mar 13, 2004, 12:03am EST

 
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
You guys have heard of Virtual Memory and Multiple CPU's, what about a Virtual CPU?

The 80386 used a 32bit bus to interface with system memory. The big deal with the 80386, however, was that it could run multiple copies of real mode. This meant that the 80386 could run several virtual 8088s. The 80386 used paging to remap memory so that each virtual 8088 got recognized about 60 times a second. This is how we got multitasking and in Windows 95 the chop length dropped to 20 ns.

The Pentium - Back to the Future - using Multiple CPU's

After adding a cache and offering some other refinements the 80486 gave way to an idea the Prescott could expand on today under pressure of its thermal limitations. The Pentium improved upon the 80486 by running two 80486s in parallel. Typically two instructions could be executed at once. The advantage was obvious but required software that would take advantage of it.There were separate 8K caches, for instructions and data, split into banks, which could be accessed alternately. For all you Itanium and Athlon 64 fans it also had a 64-bit bus to allow both 32-bit CPU's to run in parallel.

The Prescott Deluxe?

Nope, its not a vacuum cleaner. With all that space .09 provides on the die... well I think you see where I'm headed... Why not quad CPU's?

Dave Lapointe Mar 17, 2004, 03:41pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Mar 17, 2004, 11:11pm EST

 
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Well Dan,
I think you have a few issues with your article. First, benchmark testing of a performance equal AMD CPU would of been very useful to all readers. I don't think I need to explain why. Second, at the very least you need to add an update, probably to the "somethings rotten" page, regarding the serious heat issues of the prescott. I've read about it else where but I don't archive links so I can't tell you where. The articles are out there though and should be referenced in yours. Third, and most importantly to me as its total speculation, is the "aside" remarks at the bottom of page 5."As an aside, these 90nm Celerons may be of some interest to overclockers. A 2.53 GHz (533 MHz FSB) Celeron using the 90nm process will be introduced in Q2 2004, and depending on its price and the maturity of the process at that point, may prove to be a capable overclocker." What are you thinking? Is the 90nm process going to make a hero out of a chump? The celeron sucks and anybody with a little knowledge knows it. It's a "value",lol, based cpu that is primarily used by the OEM market to fool the uninformed buyer with clock speed and omitting FSB and Cache factors. Current celerons are 400FSB and 128k cache. 90nm celerons will be 533FSB & 256K cache. WOW! NOT! 533FSB is good, 256k is not. Is the 90nm tech really going to help this thing o'clock? Probably not much better than current .13 micron technology(only my opinion and open to discussion). You can get a P4b 2.53Ghz,533FSB,512kcache for $134. How much do you think the celeron 90nm will debut at? I'd love to see a benchmark showdown between the two. Which will prevail, 512k .13micron or 256k 90nm? How do you think the new celeron will stack up against the P4 2.4c,800FSB,512k? The P4c 2.4 sells for $155 and I bet the 90nm celeron comes close or costs more. The whole P4c nothwoods are known, serious o'clockers and the 2.4 can easily get into 3Ghz land, I know of one at 3.5 using a divider. The 2.6 sells for $160,2.8 for $167,3.0 for $189. I think you get my point. Lets not forget the 800FSB and 512k cache vs 533FSB & 256k! If i want to spend less than what a P4 costs and get a hell of a lot more than a celeron(and I bet the new one too) then I'm heading directly to AMD to find a "value" cpu.
All in all I find your article a good read but your "aside" is assanine and absurd. When the 90nm 2.53celeron arrives, benchmark it against the AMD's, P4b 2.53, and the P4c's. Then do a price comparison and I believe we'll all see that while the cost, body, and performance of a whore may change, nobody knowingly wants to marry one. lol All this "aside", I guess I'll stick to my 4c2.8@3.3">P4c2.8@3.3 o'clocked and rock solid.

P.S. The prices I quoted can be found here.
http://www.pricewatch.com/

Wildwood Mar 17, 2004, 10:46pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Umm...Dave. Roy didn't write the article. Dan Mepham did. But you do make some valid points. And I gave credit to the wrong guy as well. Sorry Dan.

Dave Lapointe Mar 17, 2004, 11:13pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: 3.2 prescott
Thanks Josh, I edited my post.


Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.