Pentium 4 755: Intel Socket 775 Repair — iFixit

Intel Sockets: LGA 775, LGA 1156, LGA 1366, And LGA 1155 — Upgrading And Repairing PCs 21st Edition: Processor Features

Skip to main content

Tom’s Hardware is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s why you can trust us.

Intel Sockets: LGA 775, LGA 1156, LGA 1366, And LGA 1155

Socket LGA 775

Socket LGA 775 (also called Socket T) is used by the Core 2 Duo/Quad processors, the most recent versions of the Intel Pentium 4 Prescott processor and the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition processors. Some versions of the Celeron and Celeron D also use Socket LGA 775. Socket LGA 775, unlike earlier Intel processor sockets, uses a land grid array format, so the pins are on the socket, rather than the processor.

LGA uses gold pads (called lands) on the bottom of the processor to replace the pins used in PGA packages. It allows for much greater clamping forces via a load plate with a locking lever, with greater stability and improved thermal transfer (better cooling). The first LGA processors were the Pentium II and Celeron processors in 1997; in those processors, an LGA chip was soldered on the Slot-1 cartridge. LGA is a recycled version of what was previously called leadless chip carrier (LCC) packaging. This was used way back on the 286 processor in 1984, and it had gold lands around the edge only. (There were far fewer pins back then.) In other ways, LGA is simply a modified version of ball grid array (BGA), with gold lands replacing the solder balls, making it more suitable for socketed (rather than soldered) applications. Socket LGA 775 is shown in the figure below.

Socket LGA775 (Socket T)

The release lever on the left raises the load plate out of the way to permit the processor to be placed over the contacts.

Socket LGA 1156

Socket LGA 1156 (also known as Socket H) was introduced in September 2009 and was designed to support Intel Core ix-series processors featuring an integrated chipset northbridge, including a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller and optional integrated graphics. Socket LGA 1156 uses a land grid array format, so the pins are on the socket, rather than the processor. Socket LGA 1156 is shown in the figure below.

Socket LGA1156 (Socket H)

Because the processor includes the chipset northbridge, Socket LGA 1156 is designed to interface between a processor and a Platform Controller Hub (PCH), which is the new name used for the southbridge component in supporting 5x series chipsets. The LGA 1156 interface includes the following:

• PCI Express x16 v2.0—For connection to either a single PCIe x16 slot, or two PCIe x8 slots supporting video cards.
  
• DMI (Direct Media Interface)—For data transfer between the processor and the PCH. DMI in this case is essentially a modified PCI Express x4 v2.0 connection, with a bandwidth of 2 GB/s.
  
• DDR3 dual-channel—For direct connection between the memory controller integrated into the processor and DDR3 SDRAM modules in a dual-channel configuration.
  
• FDI (Flexible Display Interface)—For the transfer of digital display data between the (optional) processor integrated graphics and the PCH.

When processors with integrated graphics are used, the Flexible Display Interface carries digital display data from the GPU in the processor to the display interface circuitry in the PCH. Depending on the motherboard, the display interface can support DisplayPort, High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), Digital Visual Interface (DVI), or Video Graphics Array (VGA) connectors.

Socket LGA 1366

Socket LGA 1366 (also known as Socket B) was introduced in November 2008 to support high-end Intel Core i7-series processors, including an integrated triple-channel DDR3 memory controller, but which also requires an external chipset northbridge, in this case called an I/O Hub (IOH). Socket LGA 1366 uses a land grid array format, so the pins are on the socket, rather than the processor. Socket LGA 1366 is shown in the figure below.

Socket LGA1366 (Socket B)

Socket LGA 1366 is designed to interface between a processor and an IOH, which is the new name used for the northbridge component in supporting 5x-series chipsets. The LGA 1366 interface includes the following:

• QPI (Quick Path Interconnect)—For data transfer between the processor and the IOH. QPI transfers two bytes per cycle at either 4.8 or 6.4 GT/s, resulting in a bandwidth of 9.6 or 12.8 GB/s.
• DDR3 triple-channel—For direct connection between the memory controller integrated into the processor and DDR3 SDRAM modules in a triple-channel configuration.

LGA 1366 is designed for high-end PC, workstation, or server use. It supports configurations with multiple processors.

Socket LGA 1155

Socket LGA 1155 (also known as Socket h3) was introduced in January 2011 to support Intel’s Sandy Bridge (second-generation) Core ix-series processors, which now include Turbo Boost overclocking. Socket LGA 1155 uses a land grid array format, so the pins are on the socket, rather than the processor. Socket LGA 1155 uses the same cover plate as Socket 1156, but is not interchangeable with it. Socket LGA 1155 is also used by Intel’s Ivy Bridge (third-generation) Core ix-series processors. LGA 1155 supports up to 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes and eight PCIe 2.0 lanes.

Socket LGA 1155 is shown in the figure below.

Socket LGA1155 (Socket h3) before installing a processor.

Socket LGA 2011

Socket LGA 2011 was introduced in November 2011 to support high-performance versions of Intel’s Sandy Bridge (second-generation) Core ix-series processors (Sandy Bridge-E), which now include Turbo Boost overclocking. LGA 2011 supports 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, quad-channel memory addressing, and fully-unlocked processor multipliers.

Socket LGA 2011 uses a land grid array format, so the pins are on the socket, rather than the processor. Socket LGA 2011 is shown in the figure below.

Socket LGA2011 before installing a processor.

Current page:
Intel Sockets: LGA 775, LGA 1156, LGA 1366, And LGA 1155

Prev Page Processor Socket And Slot Types

Next Page AMD Sockets: AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3 And F/FM1/FM2

Topics

CPUs

Processors

Tom’s Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site .

©
Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street,
New York,
NY 10036.

Intel CPU Socket LGA 775 Processors/Chipsets/Motherboards

• Partition Wizard

• Partition Manager

• Intel CPU Socket LGA 775 Processors/Chipsets/Motherboards

By Helen | Follow |
Last Updated April 06, 2022

Following contents are about what is LGA 117, its paired processors, chipsets and motherboards. In order to learn more knowledge about CPU socket, simply visit MiniTool partition master site.

What Is LGA 775?

LGA 775 is a kind of CPU socket for Intel desktops. It is also known as Socket T or socket 775.

The “LGA” refers to Land Grid Array. It is a type of surface-mount packaging for integrated circuits (ICs) that is notable for having the pins on the socket if a socket is used, rather than the IC. An LGA can be electrically connected to a PCB (printed circuit board, usually refers to computer motherboard) either by directly soldering to the board, or by using a socket, such as a CPU socket.

While “775” indicates the number of contacts (pins) the socket has. Therefore, LGA 775 refers to a CPU socket that has 775 pins and a land grid array mounting surface.

Unlike its predecessor Socket 478 or other earlier common CPU sockets, instead of having socket holes, LGA 775 owns 775 protruding pins that can touch contact points on the bottom of the CPUs.

Socket LGA 775 had an extremely long-serving time that it serves for 7 years until the last CPU supporting it halted producing in 2011. Thus, you can figure out that this socket was first launched in 2004. It was inherited by LGA 1366 in 2008 and LAG 1156 in 2009 respectively with the former was designed for high-end desktops (HEDT).

LGA 775 CPU List

All processors below can physically fit the LGA 775 socket, so they can be called LGA 775 processors.

• Pentium 4 series
• Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
• Pentium D series
• Pentium Dual-core series
• Pentium Extreme Edition series
• Celeron 400 series
• Celeron D series
• Celeron Dual-core series
• Core 2 Duo series
• Core Extreme series
• Core 2 Quad series
• Xeon 3000 series

The top 3 of the best LGA 775 CPUs are Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400, Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Intel Pentium E6300.

LGA 775 Chipsets

The following chipsets are compatible with socket LGA 775.

• Intel Pentium 4 chipsets: i8, i9, etc.
• Intel Core 2 chipsets: Lakeport, Broadwater, Bearlake & Eaglelake
• Sis chipsets
• VIA chipsets: PT series, PM series & P4M series
• NVIDIA chipsets: nForce series, GeForce 9300 & GeForce 9400

LGA 775 was the last Intel desktop socket whose chipset is produced by third-party companies. And, Nvidia was the last third-party company that manufactures chipsets for LGA 775. All chipsets for the later processor socket are designed and manufactured by Intel itself.

LGA 775 Cooler

As for socket LGA 775, the distance between the screw-holes for the heat sink is 72 mm, which isn’t interchangeable with heatsinks for other sockets whose distance is 75 mm like the LGA 115x series.

LGA 775 Motherboards

Next, it will introduce some popular motherboards of LGA775 socket.

#1 ASUS P5Q LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard

This motherboard has 4 DIMM sockets that are designed to support up to 16 GB of DDR2 1200/1066/800/667 MHz. It supports Pentium Dual-core, Celeron Dual-Core, Core 2 Extreme, Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo processors, and 1600/1333/1066/800 MHz system bus. This LGA 775 system board is of ATX size, has 6 x SATA of 3 Gb/s ports, 1 x UltraDMA 133/100/66, as well as one PCI Express x16, two PCI-E x1 and three PCI ports.

#2 ASRock G41C-GS Micro ATX Motherboard

This type of mainboard is equipped with Intel G41 and Intel ICH7 chipsets; one PCI-e x16, one PCIe x1 and two PCI ports; as well as four USB 2.0 ports, one VGA port, one RJ45 and one serial port. It supports dual channel DDR3 1333 (OC) plus DDR2 800 memory up to 8 GB. This mobo transfer data with four SATA II of 3 GB/s and one ATA 100 (supporting 2 IDE).

#3 MSI G31TM-P21 LGA 775 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard

The processor types supported by this MSI micro ATX motherboard are Pentium, Celeron, Core 2 Quad, and Core 2 Duo. The number of memory slots it has is 2 x 240-pin; memory standard is DDR2; maximum memory support is 4 GB (dual-channel supported). The chipset of this system board is Intel G31.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Linkedin
• Reddit

About The Author

User Comments :

Intel’s Pentium 4 600 series processors

A LITTLE OVER A YEAR ago, while media attention was affixed firmly on the Superbowl, Intel discreetly let slip a brand-new, vastly rearchitected CPU core that, by all rights, should have been called the Pentium 5. The “Prescott” CPU core, as we now know, became somewhat infamous for its particular combination of tepid performance and gluttonous appetite for power (and corresponding prodigious heat production). This was the processor that was supposed to make it to 4GHz and never did, the CPU that convinced Intel that the future was in dual-core designs and “platformization. ” It may not have been a resounding success or a complete failure, but it was certainly consequential, despite its quiet introduction.

Today, in the dead of early Sunday morning, Intel is meekly unveiling another new Pentium 4 processor core, and it may be just as consequential. The Pentium 4 600 series is a new tier of performance-oriented Pentium 4 processors that will be sold alongside the existing P4 500 series. Based on the Prescott design, the 600-series core adds key features intended to pep up Prescott’s performance and curb its power consumption. Not only that, but these are 64-bit CPUs. With the introduction of a 64-bit version of Windows approaching, Intel has finally turned on Prescott’s dormant support for the 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set pioneered by AMD.

Recent lottery winners will also be pleased to learn of the emergence of a new Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor. Based on the same new CPU core as the 600 series, this puppy runs at 3.73GHz on a 1066MHz front-side bus, and it has 64-bit support, as well.

Can this new variation of the Prescott core help Intel recapture its supremacy in desktop processor performance? We’ve had Intel’s new CPUs on the test bench for over a week now, and we have some answers.

What’s new
Intel’s new CPU core packs fistful of enhancements over the original Prescott core. I’m gonna bust out the bullet points in order to give you the highlights.

• 2MB of L2 cache — In terms of performance, this is the number-one change. The 600 series and the new Extreme Edition both pack a robust 2MB of L2 cache now, twice as much as older P4s. The extra on-board cache memory will boost performance in situations where the CPU can avoid accessing slower main memory in order to complete a task. The benefits of extra cache RAM aren’t universal, though. Some programs cycle through quite a bit more data than 2MB, and won’t benefit from additional cache. Others already fit nicely into a smaller cache, and therefore aren’t helped by more of the same. We’ll explore this dynamic in our performance tests, of course.

  The addition of another meg of L2 cache raises the new core’s transistor count to roughly 169 million, well above the 125 million transistors in the original Prescott core. Thanks to Intel’s 90-nanometer manufacturing process, the chip isn’t incredibly large by today’s standards. Die size is up from 122mm² to 135mm². Larger chips generally tend to consume more power and generate more heat, all other things being equal. In this case, though, other things are not entirely equal.

• Enhanced power management — The 600 series finally brings Intel’s Enhanced SpeedStep technology to the desktop. Previously used in Intel’s mobile processors, SpeedStep dynamically scales CPU clock speed and voltage in response to load. The new core also includes the enhanced halt state from the Pentium 4 500J-series processors we reviewed not long ago. I’ll explain more about how these new power management features interact shortly.
• 64-bit extensions — Intel has dubbed its 64-bit extensions EM64T, for Extended Memory 64 Technology, but they are really just a functional clone of AMD’s AMD64 extensions, first implemented in the Opteron processor a couple of years ago. With these extensions and the right software, including a 64-bit operating system and applications compiled to use 64-bit extensions, the Pentium 4 gains the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM (without any workarounds). AMD64 and EM64T also include some additional registers, or local slots on the chip for storing data, that should provide a bit of a performance boost in 64-bit applications. The move to 64-bit computing won’t bring revolutionary new heights of CPU performance overnight, but it will prevent us all from bumping our heads on the 4GB memory address space limitation in the next few years.
• Execute Disable Bit support — Like the 500J series processors, the new Intel core includes support for the Execute Disable Bit, also called the No Execute (NX) bit by AMD. Operating systems can use this “no execute” capability to help minimize the risks of certain types of security threats, such as buffer overflow exploits.

Notably missing from the features list of the 600 series is support for faster 1066MHz front-side bus speeds. Instead, the P4 600s will roll on an 800MHz bus, as did their predecessors. The 1066MHz bus is reserved for the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processors.

Speaking of which, the Pentium 4 3.73GHz Extreme Edition is quite a change from the 3.46GHz model. This new Extreme Edition is based on the same Prescott-derived CPU core as the 600 series, while previous Extremes were based on the pre-Prescott “Gallatin” core. That means the new Extreme Edition now has a longer, 31-stage main pipeline and lower clock-for-clock performance. The old EE’s L3 cache is gone by the wayside, replaced by the beefy 2MB of L2 cache in this new core. The new EE can also do the 64-bit dance, but it doesn’t have the fancy power management or enhanced halt state that the 600 series does. The EE 3.73GHz ought to outperform the 600 series thanks to its 1066MHz bus and higher clock speed, but whether it can outperform the EE 3.46GHz is another question.

The original Prescott die (left) versus the new die with 2MB of L2 cache (right)

Model number mania!
Since making the move to CPU model numbers, AMD has been abusing the convention by playing mix ‘n’ match with clock speeds, cache sizes, and the number of memory channels on a processor. It’s possible to buy no less than four different varieties of Athlon 64 3200+, for example. This kind of marketing shell game may be confusing to the public, but it’s an important esteem-building exercise for the marketing majors inhabiting an engineering-driven company.

Don’t think Intel’s marketing types aren’t salivating to crank up the model number madness themselves. In fact, rather than replace it, the Pentium 4 600 series will coexist with the 500 series for the time being.

But I’m oversimplifying. You see, the 500 series is already being replaced by the 500J series, which includes Execute Disable Bit and C1E halt state support, but not EM64T or SpeedStep.

So the 600 series will coexist with the 500J series, you see.

What about pricing, you ask? Well, in order to make it plain as day, I’ve laid out the list prices for the various AMD and Intel desktop processors in a table. Here’s how it looks.

Pentium 4 Model	Clock speed (GHz)	List Price	Pentium 4 Model	Clock speed (GHz)	List price	Athlon 64 Model	List price
520J	2. 8	$163				3000+	$149
530J	3.0	$178				3200+	$194
540J	3.2	$217	630	3.0	$224	3400+	$223
550J	3. 4	$278	640	3.2	$273	3500+	$272
560J	3.6	$417	650	3.4	$401	3800+	$424
570J	3.8	$637	660	3.6	$605	4000+	$643

There you have it. Now, when a confused, non-techie friend asks you which Pentium 4 processor he should buy, you have the information to answer confidently, “I have no idea.” You may optionally lapse into extended explanations of clock speed versus cache size, EM64T versus 32 bits, C1E halt state versus SpeedStep, and all the rest, but Intel has already done the hard work for you by pricing the two product lines nearly on top of each other.

To be fair, I think the obvious choice for those in the know will be the 600 series, given its EM64T support. Intel has said that it plans to extend EM64T capability across its desktop line, from the top all the way down to the Celeron D, eventually. That’s apparently not going to happen until later this year, though. Other considerations in the 500-vs.-600-series debate, including performance and power management, are quite a bit more complicated than one might expect.

Sorting out the various types of power management
One of the potentially most compelling features of the new P4 600 series is its support for Enhanced SpeedStep power management. By ramping down the processor’s clock speed and voltage when there’s little work to be done, SpeedStep should help alleviate the Pentium 4’s power and heat problems. It should also allow for much quieter Pentium 4 systems, at least at idle. However, SpeedStep alone is only part of the picture. The newer Pentium 4 processors use the same transistors on the chip in order to implement three different power and heat management functions that are distinct, but fundamentally similar. All three functions dynamically adjust the processor’s clock speed and voltage. They are:

• C1E enhanced halt state — Introduced in the Pentium 4 500J-series processors, the C1E halt state replaces the old C1 halt state used on the Pentium 4 and most other x86 CPUs. The C1 halt state is invoked when the operating system’s idle process issues a HLT command. (Windows does this constantly when not under a full load.) Entering halt state, which is a lower-power state, will cut a CPU’s power consumption and heat production. Intel’s new C1E halt state is also invoked by the HLT command, but it turns down the entire CPU’s clock frequency (via multiplier control) and voltage in order to work its mojo. This more robust halt state requires significantly less power than the old C1 implementation.

  C1E halt cranks the CPU bus multiplier down to its lowest possible level on the 600-series processors, which is 14X, so a P4 660 processor with the C1E halt state active actually runs at 2.8GHz. I believe that C1E halt is also a binary condition invoked by the HLT command; it’s either on or it’s off.

• Enhanced SpeedStep — SpeedStep also modulates the CPU clock speed and voltage according to load, but it is invoked via another mechanism. The operating system must be aware of SpeedStep, as must the system BIOS, and then the OS can request frequency changes via ACPI. SpeedStep is more granular than C1E halt, because it offers multiple rungs up and down the ladder between the maximum and minimum CPU multiplier and voltage levels.

  Intel cites its mobile products when talking about SpeedStep, which is apt but not entirely helpful because it conjures up images of the Pentium M processor, a very different beast. The Pentium 4 doesn’t contain most of the heroic power-saving measures of the Pentium M.

• TM2 thermal throttling — Since the beginning, all Pentium 4 processors have included a facility for throttling themselves back in the event that they should begin to overheat. This facility, called Thermal Monitoring 1 or TM1, essentially tells the Pentium 4 to take half its clock cycles off, cooling the CPU and reducing power by about 50%. Externally, the chip still runs at its rated frequency, but internally, it runs at half that. This throttling mechanism is effective, but it has several disadvantages. As Michael Schuette has noted, the rest of the system doesn’t know what to do with an internally throttling Pentium 4, and the memory subsystem can be thrown into a retry loop that causes it to heat up. For the same reason, TM1 throttling can really harm performance.

  TM2 throttling instead steps down CPU voltage and clock speed via the same mechanism as C1E and SpeedStep, effectively cooling the CPU by roughly 40% without affecting performance as severely TM1 throttling does. TM2 shouldn’t throw the memory subsystem into a retry loop, either. Like TM1 throttling, TM2 becomes active when the CPU decides it’s getting too hot.

Obviously, the practical difference between TM2 throttling and the other two functions is easily discernible. The practical difference between C1E halt and SpeedStep, however, is more difficult to pinpoint and is literally quite marginal. SpeedStep will adjust clock frequency and voltage more gradually during transitions between idle and busy times, but C1E would seem to accomplish more or less the same thing a little less gracefully. SpeedStep may opportunistically grab a little more power savings here and here on a partially loaded system, but I wouldn’t expect dramatic differences. C1E’s great advantage is that it’s transparent to the operating system and requires no special support other than the already widely used HLT command.

Oddly, although these two functions use the same transistors, Intel has elected to endow the Pentium 500J series with C1E halt but not SpeedStep, while the 600 series gets both. This is apparently a product segmentation decision.

As I noted, this CPU core’s lowest possible CPU bus multiplier is 14X, which explains why the new Extreme Edition 3.73GHz lacks C1E halt, SpeedStep, and TM2 support. Thanks to its 1066MHz front-side bus speed, the new EE runs at a 14X multiplier by default, and thus has no ability to turn down its clock speed. I have to think that, were Intel fully committed to making the P4 Extreme Edition a compelling product, they would have added some lower multipliers to the chip. Doing so probably wasn’t worth the extra effort for such a low-volume product, though.

Ok, here’s the plan
Now, let’s move on to our test results. We’ll start with 32-bit benchmarks to test the performance impact of the larger L2 cache, and then we’ll move to power consumption, where we can see the influence of the power management features in these new processors. Finally, in a follow-up article, we’ll take a look at 64-bit performance with Windows XP Professional x64.

In order to compare the 32-bit performance of the new Pentium 4 processors to the widest possible range of competitors, including the Pentium M, I’ve reused some test results from my previous articles. I hope you’ll forgive the use of an AGP motherboard on the Athlon 64 system, but there wasn’t time to retest everything. Generally, the move to PCI Express doesn’t change performance much in current applications. If you’d like to see how the Athlon 64 4000+ performs on a couple of new PCI Express chipsets, please have a look at this article. The results are largely comparable to the ones you’ll see here.

Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least twice, and the results were averaged.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor	Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz (S939) Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (90nm) Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz	Pentium M 755 2.0GHz	Pentium 4 540 3.2GHz Pentium 4 550 3.4GHz Pentium 4 560 3.6GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz	Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.46GHz
				Pentium 4  640 3.2GHz Pentium 4 650 3.4GHz Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz
		Pentium M 755 at 2.4GHz	Pentium 4 570J 3. 8GHz
				Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz
System bus	1GHz HyperTransport	400MHz (100MHz quad-pumped)	800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped)	1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped)
				800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped)
		533MHz (133MHz quad-pumped)
				1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard	Asus A8V Deluxe	DFI 855GME-MGF	Abit AA8 DuraMax	Intel D925XECV2
BIOS revision	1008 beta 1	55GMDC06	1. 4	CV92510A.86A.0338
				CV92510A.86A.0394.EB
			1.7
				CV92510A.86A.0394.EB
North bridge	K8T800 Pro	855GME	925X MCH	925XE MCH
South bridge	VT8237	6300ESB ICH	ICH6R	ICH6R
Chipset drivers	4-in-1 v.1.11 beta (9/7/04)	INF Update 6. 0.1.1002 IAA for RAID 4.5.0.6515	INF Update 6.0.1.1002 IAA for RAID 4.5.0.6515	INF Update 6.0.1.1002 IAA for RAID 4.5.0.6515
Memory size	1GB (2 DIMMs)	1GB (2 DIMMs)	1GB (2 DIMMs)	1GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type	OCZ PC3200 EL DDR SDRAM at 400MHz	OCZ PC3200 EL DDR SDRAM at 333MHz	OCZ PC2 5300 DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz	OCZ PC2 5300 DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz
CAS latency (CL)	2	2	3	3
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)	2	2	3	3
RAS precharge (tRP)	2	2	3	3
Cycle time (tRAS)	5	5	10	10
Hard drive	Maxtor MaXLine III 250GB SATA 150
Audio	Integrated VT8237/ALC850 with 3. 64 drivers	Integrated 6300ESB/ALC655 with 5.10.0.5750 drivers	Integrated ICH6R/ALC880 with 5.10.0.5022 drivers	Integrated ICH6R/ALC880 with 5.10.0.5032 drivers
InGraphics	GeForce 6800 GT 256MB AGP with ForceWare 66.81 drivers	GeForce 6800 GT 256MB AGP with ForceWare 66.81 drivers	GeForce 6800 GT 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 66.81 drivers	GeForce 6800 GT 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 66.81 drivers
OS	Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates	Service Pack 2, DirectX 9. 0c

All tests on the Pentium 4 systems were run with Hyper-Threading enabled.

Thanks to OCZ for providing us with memory for our testing. If you’re looking to tweak out your system to the max and maybe overclock it a little, OCZ’s RAM is definitely worth considering.

Also, all of our test systems were powered by OCZ PowerStream power supply units. The PowerStream was one of our Editor’s Choice winners in our latest PSU round-up.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1152×864 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

• Cachemem 2.65MMX
• SiSoft Sandra 2004 SP2.b
• Compiled binary of C Linpack port from Ace’s Hardware
• DOOM 3 1.1 with trdelta1 demo
• Far Cry 1.2 with tr3-pier demo
• Unreal Tournament 2004 v3323 with trdemo1
• 3DMark05 v110
• Sphinx 3. 3
• LAME 3.96.1 (build from mitiok.cjb.net)
• Xmpeg 5.0.3 with DivX Video 5.21
• Cinebench 2003
• POV-Ray for Windows 3.6
• picCOLOR v4.0 build 479
• WorldBench 5.0

The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

Memory performance
The first few tests are synthetic memory tests. They aren’t a good indication of real-world application performance, but they can illustrate the impact of larger L2 cache on the memory subsystem.

The 600 series lands about where we’d expect overall, though it is a little bit slow in Sandra, possibly because of the extra overhead imposed by the larger L2 cache. In cachemem, which is not so aggressive about doing buffering and the like to get the absolute maximum throughput, the new 2MB L2 chips shine. The P4 does its own speculative prefetching of data into its L2 cache, and with a larger cache, it’s able to achieve quite a bit more throughput.

Linpack’s calculations are performed almost entirely in the L2 cache of the new chips. Notice how the Pentium 4 560’s performance matches that of the 660 until we get to just under 1024K, and then it begins to drop off. The 660 just keeps on truckin’.

The larger cache doesn’t do much for memory access latency, unfortunately.

Memory performance (continued)
Here’s a slightly indulgent look at memory access latencies in more detail. If the following intimidates you, just skip to the next page with the gaming results. Remember, though, to flip back here if the boss is looking over your shoulder.

I’ve colored the data series below according to how they correspond to different parts of the memory subsystem. Yellow is L1 cache, light orange is L2 cache, and orange is main memory. The red series, if present, represents L3 cache. Of course, caches sometimes overlap, so the colors are just an interesting visual guide.

I’ve whittled down the entrants here to one or two representatives from each CPU type in order to keep things manageable. Compare the first two graphs to see the difference between 1MB and 2MB of L2 cache.

The new P4 chips certainly have lots of cache, but the Athlon 64 still gets out to main memory very quickly courtesy of its onboard memory controller.

Gaming performance

Doom 3
We’ll begin the real-world tests with Doom 3. We tested performance by playing back a custom-recorded demo that should be fairly representative of most of the single-player gameplay in Doom 3.

The extra cache raises performance by a few frames per second in Doom 3, but that’s it. The Pentium 4 needed more of a boost in order to become competitive.

Far Cry
Our Far Cry demo takes place on the Pier level, in one of those massive, open outdoor areas so common in this game. Vegetation is dense, and view distances can be very long.

Far Cry barely notices the extra cache at all.

Unreal Tournament 2004
Our UT2004 demo shows yours truly putting the smack down on some bots in an Onslaught game.

UT2004 doesn’t seem to care much for the additional cache, either, and the new Prescott-based Extreme Edition has trouble catching up to the old one here.

However, could the picture change during actual gameplay? Some folks from Intel suggested to us that we should consider testing gameplay performance with the FRAPS frame rate capture program instead of relying on an in-game benchmarking function. The suggestion makes some sense, because timedemo playback tools don’t always use every aspect of the game engine, such as physics, A.I., and user input routines.

I tried using FRAPS with a couple of games, including Doom 3 and Rome: Total War, but frame rate caps in those games prevented us from being able to show meaningful performance differences between different processors. UT2004, which is very much a CPU-bound game, was a different story. The results below are averaged from five different 150-second gaming sessions played on the same Onslaught map as in our timedemo above, ONS-Torlan. I was playing against computer-controlled bots, so UT2004’s A.I. was working overtime.

Playing the game yields results similar to demo playback. The 600 series is no faster than the 500 series, and the new EE is slower than the old one. More notably, the Athlon 64 3500+ is quite a bit faster than any of the P4s.

Before we move on, we tried one more thing with UT2004. We tested CPU performance using its software renderer, just to see what would happen.

Not even the software renderer is able to use the extra cache to any advantage. That’s just cold.

3DMark05

Finally, we have a benchmark that seems to appreciate the additional cache! 3DMark puts it to good use, bolstering the P4 660 and EE 3.73GHz to the top ranks of its overall CPU index.

WorldBench overall performance
WorldBench uses scripting to step through a series of tasks in common Windows applications. Also like those benchmarks, WorldBench produces an overall score for comparison. More impressively, WorldBench spits out individual results for its component application tests, allowing us to compare performance in each. We’ll look at the overall score, and then we’ll show individual application results alongside the results from some of our own application tests.

There’s not much daylight between the different processors in the overall WorldBench score, but the 600 series’ extra cache seems to be worth a point or two.

Audio editing and encoding

LAME MP3 encoding
We used LAME to encode a 101MB 16-bit, 44KHz audio file into a very high-quality MP3. The exact command-line options we used were:

lame –alt-preset extreme file.wav file.mp3

MusicMatch Jukebox

The music encoding apps don’t appear to appreciate more cache, but the P4 is still competitive in LAME encoding, regardless.

Video encoding and editing

XMPEG DivX video encoding
We used the default settings for the DivX codec to encode a 3000-frame sequence from a DVD-formatted MPEG2 source file.

Windows Media Encoder

Adobe Premiere

VideoWave Movie Creator

All of the video encoding applications benefit from 2MB of L2 cache, surprisingly enough, and the Pentium 4 600 series looks even stronger overall than the 500 series does.

Image processing

Adobe Photoshop

ACDSee PowerPack

picCOLOR
We thank Dr. Reinert Muller with the FIBUS Institute for pointing us toward his picCOLOR benchmark. This image analysis and processing tool is partially multithreaded, and it shows us the results of a number of simple image manipulation calculations. We’re using a new build of picCOLOR this time out; it removes the video tests, which are highly dependent on the chipset and video card, from the calculation of the overall score.

ACDSee could care less about the larger L2 cache, but both Photoshop and picCOLOR see marginal performance gains.

Multitasking and office applications

MS Office

WorldBench’s Office test involves switching between the various components of the Office suite, which are all running at once. This test is a nice showcase for the Pentium 4’s Hyper-Threading capabilities (although some of the tests we’ve already seen are also multithreaded). The 600 series is a little quicker than the 500 series, as well, in this test.

Mozilla

More cache is better, but Mozilla still prefers the Pentium M and Athlon 64.

Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder

This multitasking test allows the Pentium 4 600s to get a little revenge. When you combine web browsing with video encoding, the P4 looks relatively stronger.

Other applications

Sphinx speech recognition
Ricky Houghton first brought us the Sphinx benchmark through his association with speech recognition efforts at Carnegie Mellon University. Sphinx is a high-quality speech recognition routine. We use two different versions, built with two different compilers, in an attempt to ensure we’re getting the best possible performance.

We have a new champ in Sphinx, perhaps thanks the to new core’s large cache and aggressive prefetching.

WinZip

Oddly, the P4 600s end up slower, somehow, in WinZip.

Nero

The P4 systems roll in Nero, and the new core handles itself especially nicely here.

3D modeling and rendering

Cinebench 2003
Cinebench is based on Maxon’s Cinema 4D modeling, rendering, and animation app. This revision of Cinebench measures performance in a number of ways, including 3D rendering, software shading, and OpenGL shading with and without hardware acceleration. Cinema 4D’s renderer is multithreaded, so it takes advantage of Hyper-Threading, as you can see in the results.

The 2MB L2 cache helps slightly in the shading tests, but not at all in the Cinebench renderer, where the Pentium 4 was already quite fast.

3ds max
We have used 3ds max in the past for CPU testing, but most of those tests have consisted of rendering only. WorldBench’s 3ds max tests replicate an entire modeling and animation work session, stressing the graphics card as well as the CPU and the rest of the system.

What a difference an API can make. The larger L2 cache of the 600 series makes the P4 more competitive in OpenGL, but not in DirectX, where the cache shows little benefit.

POV-Ray
POV-Ray is the granddaddy of PC ray-tracing renderers, and it’s not multithreaded in the least, because it’s designed to be a cross-platform application. POV-Ray also relies heavily on x87 FPU instructions to do its work, and it contains only minor SSE optimizations.

POV Ray is all about the MHz and none about the cache size. That’s why the Athlon 64 3800+ matches the performance of the 4000+ (both run at the same speed), and it’s also why the P4 600 chips aren’t any faster than the 500s.

Power consumption
In order to test the power management features of the P4 600 series, we decided to throw out all of our old results and start over with fresh test systems. There were a number of reasons for this decision, including the fact that our prior Athlon 64 motherboard didn’t properly support Cool’n’Quiet, AMD’s power management technology. Below you’ll find the test configurations we used for power consumption testing.

Processor	Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz (S939)* Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (90nm) Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz	Pentium M 755 2.0GHz	Pentium 4 540 3.2GHz* Pentium 4 550 3.4GHz* Pentium 4 560 3.6GHz Pentium 4 540J 3.2GHz* Pentium 4 550J 3.4GHz* Pentium 4 560J 3.6GHz* Pentium 4 570J 3.8GHz Pentium 4  640 3.2GHz* Pentium 4 650 3.4GHz* Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz
		Pentium M 755 at 2.4GHz*	Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.46GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz
System bus	1GHz HyperTransport	400MHz (100MHz quad-pumped)	800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped)
		533MHz (133MHz quad-pumped)	1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard	DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR	DFI 855GME-MGF	Intel D925XECV2
BIOS revision	2/9/2005 beta	55GMDC06	CV92510A. 86A.0394.EB
North bridge	nForce4 SLI	855GME	925XE MCH
South bridge		6300ESB ICH	ICH6R
Chipset drivers	SMBus driver 4.45	INF Update 6.3.0.1007	INF Update 6.3.0.1007
Memory size	1GB (2 DIMMs)	1GB (2 DIMMs)	1GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type	OCZ PC3200 EL DDR SDRAM at 400MHz	OCZ PC3200 EL DDR SDRAM at 333MHz	OCZ PC2 5300 DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz
CAS latency (CL)	2	2	3
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)	2	2	3
RAS precharge (tRP)	2	2	3
Cycle time (tRAS)	5	5	10
Hard drive	Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150
Audio	Integrated nForce/ALC850 with Realtek 5. 10.0.5780 drivers	Integrated 6300ESB/ALC655 with Realtek 5.10.0.5780 drivers	Integrated ICH6R/ALC880 with Realtek 5.10.0.5034 drivers
InGraphics	GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 66.93 drivers	GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB AGP with ForceWare 66.93 drivers	GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 66.93 drivers
OS	Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates	Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0c

Please note that some of the CPUs in the spec table above and on the graphs below are marked with an asterisk. That’s because they are not true-blue versions of the chips in question. They are, instead, CPUs rated for higher speed grades that have been underclocked to match the model in question. For instance, Intel only supplied us with a Pentium 4 660 review sample, so we reduced its CPU multiplier to simulate a 650 and 640. I mention this fact because every chip is different, and generally, the ones that are chosen to run at higher speed grades exhibit better power and heat characteristics, as well.

That said, clock speed and voltage are still major determinants of overall power consumption, so we decided to include these “simulated” CPU models in our results. In all cases, we allowed the motherboard to determine the appropriate CPU voltage levels. That’s handled dynamically with SpeedStep and Cool’n’Quiet, anyway.

Speaking of simulation, because the DFI desktop motherboard for the Pentium M doesn’t support SpeedStep, we used the RMClock utility to simulate SpeedStep in our testing. The comparison won’t be exact, because RMClock uses its own algorithm to scale clock frequencies, but we did set the RMClock profile to match the Pentium M 755’s minimum clock speed of 600MHz and minimum voltage of 0.988V.

We measured the power consumption of our entire test systems, except for the monitor, at the wall outlet using a Watts Up PRO watt meter. The test rigs were all equipped with OCZ PowerStream 520W power supply units. The idle results were measured at the Windows desktop, and we used Cinebench 2003’s rendering test to load up the CPUs. For P4s, we used the multithreaded version of the test to take advantage of Hyper-Threading.

Finally, the graphs below have results for “power management” and “no power management.” That deserves some explanation. By “power management,” we mean SpeedStep or Cool’n’Quiet. In the case of the Pentium 4 600-series and 500J-series processors, the C1E halt state is always available, even in the “no power management” tests.

The first thing one notices about power consumption at idle is that there’s practically no difference between the Pentium 4 600-series chips with SpeedStep enabled or disabled. That’s because the C1E halt state accomplishes essentially the same thing. Either way, though, the 600-series and 500J-series CPUs both consume quite a bit less power at idle than the Prescott chips that don’t support C1E or SpeedStep, like the P4 560 or the new Extreme Edition 3.73GHz.

Because current Athlon 64 processors don’t have anything comparable to the C1E halt state, they pull more juice at idle than the newer Pentium 4 chips. With Cool’n’Quiet enabled, though, all of the Athlon 64 processors consume even less power than the C1E and SpeedStep-enabled P4s. There’s no doubt, though, that Intel has made great strides.

Under load, SpeedStep and Cool’n’Quiet don’t have any significant impact, but we do see that the P4 600 series manages to consume less power than the older Prescott-based processors we’re testing. I wouldn’t attribute that difference to the presence of the C1E halt state, in part because Cinebench is a very full CPU load, and in part because the P4 500 and 500J models consume roughly comparable amounts of power at the same clock speed. The 600-series processors, and even the new P4 3.73GHz Extreme Edition, are relatively more efficient under load—despite the fact that they’re packing another 1MB of L2 cache.

I asked Intel what to make of these results, but unfortunately, they weren’t able to give me an answer before this article went online. I hate to speculate about why the newer P4s with 2MB of L2 cache aren’t drawing as much power as the older models with 1MB of L2. Is it just better properties of newer chips, or has the new CPU core been otherwise tweaked? Perhaps we’ll get some answers from Intel before too long.

Whatever the reason, the new P4 core does require relatively less power under load than the older chips that we tested. These things do vary from chip to chip, so I don’t want to make too much of these results from just a few processors. Indications are certainly good, though. That said, the 90nm version of the Athlon 64 3500+ still pulls about 60W less under load than the P4 650 does, and the Pentium M is even more efficient.

Conclusions
All told, the Pentium 4 600 series represents good progress for Intel. Power consumption is down, performance is up a bit, and some of the new features are important developments, like 64-bit support and SpeedStep. Unfortunately, the jump from 1MB of L2 cache to 2MB doesn’t seem to offer big returns in most desktop applications, but it doesn’t hurt, either. I haven’t yet tested 64-bit performance, so I won’t comment on that, although it’s nice to know the capability is in the chip. (We’ll look at 64-bit performance shortly in a follow-up article.)

Having said that, I am a little bit conflicted about what to think. The truth is that all of the new capabilities in this processor—dynamic power management, NX bit protection, 64-bit extensions, and better performance than the Pentium 4 500 series—were available in the first Athlon 64 processors that debuted in September 2003. AMD vaulted so far out ahead of Intel in terms of technology and performance that it’s taken quite a while for Intel to catch up.

Fortunately for Intel, AMD hasn’t done much since the Athlon 64’s debut but monkey with cache sizes, add another memory channel, and ratchet up clock speeds a couple of notches. The 600 series is getting closer to the Athlon 64 in terms of overall attractiveness, and AMD needs to answer in order to retain the lead. In fact, if you don’t care about playing games on your PC, the Pentium 4 600 series is as good a choice as any. The overall WorldBench scores illustrate the general parity between Intel and AMD offerings at each price point. Given Intel’s dominance at the big PC makers, the 600 series is probably as good as it needs to be in order to become a sales success.

One thing that threatens that success is the funky model numbering and pricing mix that Intel has chosen to present to the hapless consumer.

Actually, I take that back. Hap or no hap, it’s confusing.

If you’ll recall from the beginning of this article, the Pentium 4 550J is priced just five dollars below the P4 640. Overall, the performance race between the two would have to go to the 550J, because 200MHz of clock speed is worth more than the move from 1MB of L2 cache to 2MB. The 550J lacks SpeedStep, but with the C1E halt state, that’s quite arguably a moot point. So the decision between the two comes down to this, I suppose: do you want slightly higher performance in 32-bit apps or, for five bucks more, 64-bit capabilities? Ask that of Joe Schmoe and he’ll deck you.

I suppose Intel will rely on PC makers to package up the 600 series and make it all work, but the strategy, on the face of it, is confusing. Surely the larger model number with the bigger cache and 64-bit extensions will sell best. Unless consumers buy primarily based on MHz. Is Intel experimenting a little here? Sure seems like it.

I should probably say a word or two about the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz. At its customary price of $999, the Extreme Edition was never a bargain hunter’s dream chip. This new 3.73GHz version performs comparably to the previous 3. 46GHz one, but no better. The move to a Prescott-based Extreme Edition processor was no doubt inevitable, and the move does bring 64-bit support, but it’s an even trade. Go buy an Athlon 64 3500+ if you want a gamer’s CPU. It’s faster than any Extreme Edition, and you can pocket the $727 you save (or better yet, buy an obscenely expensive graphics card.) Personally, I’d rather have a Pentium 4 660 than an Extreme Edition 3.73GHz. Without SpeedStep or the C1E halt state, the Extreme Edition is less attractive than its 600-series siblings.

Now, there’s 64-bit performance testing to be done, so I’ll bring this one to a close. Stay tuned for the next chapter. 

Intel Pentium 4 540 PCSTATS Review

Abstract: The Pentium 4 3. 2E LGA775 (Land Grid Array) Socket 775 processor is based on the same 0.09 micron manufacturing process as its Socket 478 Prescott cousin.  85% Rating:    Table of Contents Filed under: CPU / Processors Published:  Author:  External Mfg. Website: Intel May 11 2005   C. Sun   Home > Reviews > CPU / Processors > Intel Pentium 4 540 The 915P, along with its sister product the 915G, is the more mainstream of Intel’s first Socket 775 chipsets, offering motherboard manufacturers considerable flexibility in implementing the features it supports. These chipsets support only socket-755 Pentium 4 processors at front-side bus speeds of 533 and 800MHz, incidently. Subsequent to this release, the 925XE brought in support for 1066MHz bus processors, but that is beyond the scope of this review at the moment. The 915 chipset supports both DDR-2 and the DDR memory standard, both in dual-channel. This allows for a slightly easier upgrade path for current users, who would otherwise be faced with the daunting necessity of upgrading processor, motherboard and memory. Intel 915-based boards can use both types of memory, along the lines of SIS’s dual SDRAM\DDR-SDRAM chipsets of a few years ago. This would seem to be an obvious user-friendly step to take, but it has only been implemented by a few manufacturers. Though the Intel 915 chipset is supposed to be PCI Express or integrated graphics only, several motherboard manufacturers have already introduced 915-based boards with both an AGP and a PCI Express slot. This is achieved by linking the AGP slot to the PCI-bus, since the chipset lacks any provision for a dedicated AGP bus. As you would expect, this limits the bandwidth available to AGP cards on these boards considerably and can hobble their performance. For an example of this, see PCSTATS review of the Albatron PX915P-AGPE motherboard which includes one of these ersatz AGP slots. The 915 chipset uses the ICH6 Southbridge (see below for more details) and as such supports Serial ATA-150 and PCI Express I/O slots, as well as the typical set of USB 2.0 and other inputs. Actual implementation of these depends on the individual manufacturers. The main version of this chipset is the 915P, but in keeping with the mainstream sales target, a variant (915G) supports integrated Intel graphics. The integrated graphics engine is a new one, Intel’s GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 900. While this is light-years better than the previous Intel ‘extreme’ integrated graphics chip, which was anything but extreme, it’s still not a good performer with today’s games. < Previous Page © 2022 PCSTATS.com Next Page >   Contents of Article: Intel Pentium 4 540  Pg 1.  Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2E) Socket LGA 775 Processor Review  Pg 2.  CPU Features  Pg 3.  Model Numbers  Pg 4.  Intel’s chipsets for Socket 775: 915P/G and 925X  Pg 5.  — The 915G/P chipset  Pg 6.  The 925X chipset  Pg 7.  Test setup and SysMark 2004  Pg 8.   Benchmarks: Winstone 2002, Super Pi  Pg 9.  Benchmarks: Sandra 2004, POVray  Pg 10.  Benchmarks: ScienceMark, CINEBENCH 2000  Pg 11.  Benchmarks: PCMark04, 3DMark2001  Pg 12.  Benchmarks: 3DMark05, AquaMark3  Pg 13.  Benchmarks: Comanche 4, UT2003  Pg 14.  Benchmarks: UT2004, Doom3  Pg 15.  Overclocking and conclusion

Intel Corporation Intel D850EMVR motherboard (2.67 GHz, Pentium 4 processor)

CFP2000 Result: Intel Corporation Intel D850EMVR motherboard (2.67 GHz, Pentium 4 processor)

Intel Corporation Intel D850EMVR motherboard (2. 67 GHz, Pentium 4 processor)

SPECfp2000 = 1024      SPECfp_base2000 = 1012

Benchmark	Reference Time	Base Runtime	Base Ratio	Runtime	Ratio
168.wupwise	1600	127	1259	127	1260
171. swim	3100	174	1777	172	1800
172.mgrid	1800	185	975	183	982
173.applu	2100	194	1081	190	1106
177.mesa	1400	136	1030	135	1035
178. galgel	2900	204	1425	202	1437
179.art	2600	383	679	377	689
183.equake	1300	109	1191	104	1253
187.facerec	1900	158	1199	157	1209
188. ammp	2200	335	656	332	662
189.lucas	2000	137	1455	137	1455
191.fma3d	2100	210	999	210	1001
200.sixtrack	1100	226	487	221	499
301. apsi	2600	344	755	344	755
SPECfp_base2000			1012
		SPECfp2000			1024

Hardware Hardware Vendor: Intel Corporation Model Name: Intel D850EMVR motherboard (2.67 GHz, Pentium 4 processor) CPU: Pentium 4 processor (2.67 GHz, 533 MHz bus) CPU MHz: 2666 FPU: Integrated CPU(s) enabled: 1 core, 1 chip, 1 core/chip CPU(s) orderable: 1 Parallel: No Primary Cache: 12k micro-ops I + 8KBD on chip Secondary Cache: 512KB(I+D) on chip L3 Cache: N/A Other Cache: N/A Memory: 256 MB (2 128 MB PC1066-32 RDRAM non-ECC modules) Disk Subsystem: IBM 120GXP 80 GB IC35L080AVVA07-0 ATA-100 Other Hardware: None

Software Operating System: Windows XP Professional(Build 2600) Compiler: Intel C++ Compiler 6. 0 Build 020321Z Intel Fortran Compiler 6.0 Build 020321Z Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 SP5(for libraries) File System: FAT32 System State: Default

 +FDO: PASS1=  -Qprof_gen  PASS2=-Qprof_use
 Base tuning:  -Qipo -QxW -O3 +FDO
 Portability:
 178.galgel:   -FI /F32000000
 Peak tuning:
 168.wupwise:  -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO
 171.swim:     -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO
 172.mgrid:    -Qipo -QaxW -O3 +FDO
 173.applu:    -Qipo -QxW  -O3 -Qscalar_rep- -Qauto +FDO
 177.mesa:     -Qipo -Oa -QxW -O3 +FDO
 178.galgel:   -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO
 179.art:      -Qipo -QxW  -O3 -Oa +FDO
 183.equake:   -Qipo -QxW  -Oa -Qrcd +FDO
 187.facerec:  -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO 
 188.ammp:     -Qipo -QxW  -O3 -Oa +FDO
 189.lucas:    -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO
 191. fma3d:    -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO
 200.sixtrack: -Qipo -QxW  +FDO
 301.apsi:     -Qipo -QxW  -O3 +FDO
 Tested systems can be used with Shin-G ATX case, Delta Inc. power supply PS-300GB-1 B
 Product description located as of 10/2002:
 http://developer.intel.com/design/motherbd/mv2/index.htm
 Motherboard ordering information is available at:
 http://program.intel.com/shared/products/boards/d850emv2/index.htm 
 The system bus runs at 533 MHz 

For questions about this result, please contact the tester.
For other inquiries, please contact [email protected]
Copyright © 1999-2004 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation

First published at SPEC.org on 22-Oct-2002

Generated on Wed Apr 13 13:03:08 2005 by SPEC CPU2000 HTML formatter v1.01

Intel Corporation Intel D875PBZ motherboard (3.0 GHz, Pentium 4 processor with Hyper-Threading Technology)

CINT2000 Result: Intel Corporation Intel D875PBZ motherboard (3. 0 GHz, Pentium 4 processor with Hyper-Threading Technology)

Benchmark	Reference Time	Base Runtime	Base Ratio	Runtime	Ratio
164. gzip	1400	112	1254	112	1253
175.vpr	1400	186	754	186	755
176.gcc	1100	75.4	1459	76.1	1445
181.mcf	1800	179	1007	180	1002
186. crafty	1000	88.0	1136	88.1	1135
197.parser	1800	157	1149	157	1149
252.eon	1300	82.5	1577	72.5	1794
253.perlbmk	1800	134	1343	121	1485
254. gap	1100	69.0	1593	69.0	1593
255.vortex	1900	84.9	2239	84.9	2239
256.bzip2	1500	162	927	157	956
300.twolf	3000	331	908	290	1035
SPECint_base2000			1226
		SPECint2000			1265

Hardware Hardware Vendor: Intel Corporation Model Name: Intel D875PBZ motherboard (3. 0 GHz, Pentium 4 processor with Hyper-Threading Technology) CPU: Intel Pentium 4 Processor with Hyper-Threading Technology(3.0 GHz, 800 MHz bus) CPU MHz: 3000 FPU: Integrated CPU(s) enabled: 1 core, 1 chip, 1 core/chip (Hyper-Threading Technology enabled) CPU(s) orderable: 1 Parallel: No Primary Cache: 12k micro-ops I + 8KBD on chip Secondary Cache: 512KB(I+D) on chip L3 Cache: N/A Other Cache: N/A Memory: 512 MB (4 128 MB PC3200 Samsung CL3-3-3) Disk Subsystem: IBM 120GXP 80 GB IC35L080AVVA07-0 ATA-100 Other Hardware: None

Software Operating System: Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1a Compiler: Intel C++ Compiler 8. 0 Microsoft Visual Studio .Net 7.0(for libraries) MicroQuill SmartHeap library V6.0 File System: FAT32 System State: Default

 ONESTEP=yes    +FDO: PASS1=-Qprof_gen  PASS2=-Qprof_use
 Base tuning for C programs:   -QxN -Qipo -O3 +FDO
 Base tuning for C++ programs: -QxN -Qipo -GX -GR
 Portability flags:
 176.gcc: -Dalloca=_alloca /F10000000
 186.crafty: -DNT_i386
 253.perlbmk: -DSPEC_CPU2000_NTOS -DPERLDLL /MT
 254.gap: -DSYS_HAS_CALLOC_PROTO -DSYS_HAS_MALLOC_PROTO
 Peak tuning:
 164.gzip:     -QxN -Qipo -Oa -O3 +FDO 
 175.vpr:      -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO 
 176.gcc:      -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO 
 181.mcf:      -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO
 186.crafty:   -QxN -Qipo -Oa -O3 +FDO
 197.parser:   -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO
 252. eon:      -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO
 253.perlbmk:  -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO shlW32M.lib
 254.gap:      basepeak=yes
 255.vortex    basepeak=yes
 256.bzip2:    -Qipo -Oa -Qunroll1 +FDO
 300.twolf:    -QxN -Qipo     -O3 +FDO shlW32M.lib
 Tested systems can be used with Shin-G ATX case, Delta Inc. power supply PS-300GB-1 
 Product description located as of 9/2003:
 http://developer.intel.com/design/motherbd/bz/index.htm
 Motherboard is available through Intel OEM Distribution Channel. See 
 http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/products/box_desktop_boards/p4_boards/p4_dsk_board_d875pbz/index.htm
 The system bus runs at 800 MHz
 shlW32M.lib is the SmartHeap library V6.0 from http://www.microquill.com/smartheap/index.html
 An AGP video card is installed

Comparison of Intel Pentium 4 505 and Intel Pentium M 755

Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium 4 505 and Intel Pentium M 755 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Security and reliability, Technology, Virtualization.

Intel Pentium 4 505

versus

Intel Pentium M 755

Benefits

Reasons to choose Intel Pentium 4 505

• Newer processor, release date difference 7 month(s)
• Approximately 33% higher clock speed: 2.66 GHz vs 2 GHz

Reasons to choose Intel Pentium M 755

• About 48% more maximum core temperature: 100°C vs 67. 7°C
• access
• L2 cache is 2 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
• 10.5 times less power consumption: 7.5 Watt vs 84 Watt

Performance comparison

	Intel Pentium 4 505	Intel Pentium M 755
Architecture name	Prescott	Dothan
Production date	December 2004	May 2004
Place in the ranking	not rated	not rated
Processor Number	505	755
Series	Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor	Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor
Status	Discontinued	Discontinued
Applicability	Desktop	Mobile
Support 64 bit
Base frequency	2. 66 GHz	2.00 GHz
Bus Speed ​​	533 MHz FSB	400 MHz FSB
Crystal area	112 mm2	87 mm2
Level 1 cache	16KB	32KB
Level 2 cache	1024KB	2048KB
Process	90nm	90 nm
Maximum core temperature	67.7°C	100°C
Maximum frequency	2. 66 GHz	2 GHz
Number of cores	1	1
Number of transistors	125 million	144 million
Permissible core voltage	1.25V-1.388V	0.988-1.340V
System bus (FSB)		400MHz
Number of threads		1
Supported memory types	DDR1, DDR2, DDR3
Low Halogen Options Available
Maximum number of processors in configuration	1	1
Supported sockets	PLGA775	PPGA478, H-PBGA479
Power consumption (TDP)	84 Watt	7. 5 Watt
Package Size		35mm x 35mm
Execute Disable Bit (EDB)
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT)
Intel 64
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology
Parity FSB
Idle States
Intel® Demand Based Switching
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology
Physical Address Extensions (PAE)		32-bit
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x)

Navigation

Choose a processor

Intel

Pentium 4 505

versus

AMD
Athlon 64 4000+

Intel
Pentium 4 505

versus

Intel
Pentium 4 519

Intel
Pentium 4 505

versus

Intel
Pentium 4 505J

Comparison of Intel Pentium 4 519K and Intel Pentium M 755

Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium 4 519K and Intel Pentium M 755 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Security and reliability, Technology, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.

Intel Pentium 4 519K

versus

Intel Pentium M 755

Advantages

reasons to choose Intel Pentium 4 519k

• The processor of the 8th Month (S)
• processor is unlocked, an unlocked multiplier allows you to easily make overoking
• % more Clock speed: 3.06 GHz vs 2 GHz

Reasons to choose Intel Pentium M 755

• About 48% more maximum core temperature: 100°C vs 67. 7°C
• access
• L2 cache is 2 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
• 10.5 times less power consumption: 7.5 Watt vs 84 Watt

Benchmark comparison

CPU 1: Intel Pentium 4 519K
CPU 2: Intel Pentium M 755

Performance comparison

	Intel Pentium 4 519K	Intel Pentium M 755
Architecture name	Prescott	Dothan
Production date	January 2005	May 2004
Place in the ranking	2257	not rated
Processor Number	519K	755
Series	Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor	Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor
Status	Discontinued	Discontinued
Applicability	Desktop	Mobile
Support 64 bit
Base frequency	3. 06 GHz	2.00 GHz
Bus Speed ​​	533 MHz FSB	400 MHz FSB
Crystal area	112 mm2	87 mm2
Level 1 cache	16KB	32KB
Level 2 cache	1024KB	2048KB
Process	90nm	90 nm
Maximum core temperature	67.7°C	100°C
Maximum frequency	3. 06 GHz	2 GHz
Number of cores	1	1
Number of transistors	125 million	144 million
Unlocked
Permissible core voltage	1.25V-1.400V	0.988-1.340V
System bus (FSB)		400MHz
Number of threads		1
Supported memory types	DDR1, DDR2, DDR3
Low Halogen Options Available
Maximum number of processors in configuration	1	1
Supported sockets	PLGA775	PPGA478, H-PBGA479
Power consumption (TDP)	84 Watt	7. 5 Watt
Package Size		35mm x 35mm
Execute Disable Bit (EDB)
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT)
Idle States
Intel 64
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Thermal Monitoring
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology
Parity FSB
Intel® Demand Based Switching
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology
Physical Address Extensions (PAE)		32-bit
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x)

Hot Pentium 4 and people’s love For different reasons.

Dead-end architecture, high heat dissipation, proprietary and expensive RAM for first-generation processors. Now this processor is somewhere in the middle between the categories of «old trash» and «warm nostalgic retro». But it is easily located, everywhere and for a penny, except for rarities and topchik. If something else can be squeezed out of computers based on the next Intel Core 2 desktop architecture in modern software, then on the “fourth stump” without a chance, it will not take off. In general, I had to take it, I decided, and the very next day I became the owner of two motherboards, three processors, a deck of RAM sticks, coolers, power supplies: it was really easy.

I will assemble a computer based on Pentium 4 according to the best recommendations of 15 years ago a little later (advice on proper assembly in the spirit of the time is welcome). This article is an attempt to place timestamps in the Pentium 4 era, to determine what was wrong with this processor, and what was wrong. Plus the results of experiments with real hardware, some impressions from the present and memories from the past. And benchmarks, of course, where without them.

I keep a diary of a collector of old pieces of iron in Telegram.

Willamette and RDRAM
— Announcement : November 2000, 20 years ago
— Process : 180 nanometers
— Frequency : 1.3-2.0 GHz
— TDP : 50-75 Watts
— L2 cache size : 256 KB
— System bus frequency : 100 MHz, 3200 MB/s

Special thanks to the IXBT site for keeping the archive of articles with original links. Shortly before the official announcement, it published (in two parts) a detailed description of the new NetBurst architecture based on the Pentium 4 and a comparison with previous Pentium III processors based on the P6 architecture. Important innovations in NetBurst are a «long» computational pipeline of 20 levels, support for a new set of SSE2 instructions, a system bus that performs four transactions per clock, the operation of arithmetic logic units at double the frequency. On November 20, 2000, processors with a frequency of 1.4 and 1.5 GHz are produced. For comparison, the maximum frequency of the Pentium 3 Coppermine processor at that time was 1.13 GHz. On the same day, IXBT publishes photos of the processor and test results with a general verdict: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Pentium 4 1.4 is compared with Pentium 3 1GHz and these two systems show approximately the same result — in one benchmark the old processor is slightly ahead, in the other — a slight advantage of the new one. In general, it was not very clear where the breakthrough was. Obviously, the Pentium 4 was faster only in the audio data compression test. In the first year of its life, Intel’s new flagship was a dubious choice, especially since the third Pentium was re-released in 2001 on a new 130nm process technology and increased the frequency to 1.4 GHz. A feature of the Netburst architecture and that very “super-long” pipeline was the potential for a further increase in frequency. In August 2001, the frequency of Pentium 4 processors was increased to 2 GHz. As for the advantages in benchmarks and real software, as a rule, everything depended on the desire of developers to optimize software for a new architecture.

In the same August of 2001, I buy a Pentium III computer with only a vague idea of ​​what’s going on in the personal systems market. I focus on advertising posters (drawing paper, felt-tip pens) on the Savelovsky market, which, as it were, is not an objective source of information. One thing is clear: I can’t afford the “fourth pentium” with all my desire — it’s too expensive. My previous PC is a 386, and compared to that, any new hardware is better. The incomprehensible RDRAM memory, with which the P4 went on sale a year earlier, is confusing: the press writes about excessive heating and small advantages compared to SDRAM memory. In 2020, the combination of a dead-end processor with a dead-end memory standard is a worthy reason to build a retro PC, but I have other priorities.

Northwood
— Announcement : January 2002, 18 years ago
— Process : 130 nanometers
— Frequency : 1. 6-3.4 GHz
— TDP : 38-80 Watts
— L2 cache size : 512 KB
— System bus frequency : 100-200 MHz, 3200-6400 MB / s

With frequencies of 2 and more gigahertz, the Pentium 4 of the second generation should be compared not with the outdated Pentium 3, but with a competitor from AMD, the Athlon XP processor. AMD consistently lagged behind Intel in terms of the maximum frequency of its processors, which did not prevent them from showing decent results in benchmarks. It was difficult to convince the average consumer, who is used to evaluating computers by processor frequency, that everything is somewhat more complicated. AMD actively uses Performance Rating — this is when a processor with a frequency of 2100 MHz is called «Ahtlon XP 3000+». This rating hinted at the frequency of the Pentium 4 processor with similar performance, although AMD has never officially acknowledged this connection.

With Northwood processors, Intel is ditching Rambus DRAM. The new chipsets work with DDR SDRAM. The frequency of the system bus is growing, and with it the speed of working with RAM: in May 2002, processors with an FSB frequency of 133 MHz are produced, a year later — 200 MHz. In November 2002, another innovation appears: Hyper-Threading technology, which makes it possible to additionally load the computing pipeline due to the virtual second processor core. In my computer reality of the same year, for some time I am left without a computer at all, and then I assemble an outdated, but quite suitable for any tasks desktop based on Pentium II.

In December 2020, I buy a set of Asus P4PE motherboard, Pentium 4 Northwood 2.4 GHz (SL6EU, 133 MHz FSB) and 1 gigabyte of DDR RAM.

This is not the most budget motherboard, but not «premium» either. i845 chipset, integrated audio and 100 Mbit network interface. The board provides space for a SATA controller, but it is not soldered, so I connect a 320 gigabyte IDE hard drive to the board.

Video card slot — AGP 4x standard, and there are none in my collection yet. But there is a strange but working solution: GeForce 6200 512 MB with PCI slot and passive cooling. The blue slot on the board is a place to install a WiFi module, which Asus sells as a load to the board.

I did not set myself the task of conducting a scientific study of the performance of the old processor: for this, I would have to mine many variants of motherboards and CPUs. But I wanted to make an impression, so I’ll choose a relatively modern Geekbench 4 benchmark. Here are the results:

The processor does not yet support Hyper-Threading, the results in the multitasking test are slightly worse than in the single-tasking test. For now, let’s remember these figures, and at the same time note the time frame: mid-2002. In any case, this is not bad progress in two years: we started with 1.7 GHz, and at the end of 2002 we already crossed the line of 3 GHz. Already in 2000, technical publications write about reaching a frequency of 10 gigahertz by 2005. I did not find official statements from Intel with such a figure, apparently the forecast was voiced behind the scenes. But most likely this was the plan: if the process technology of 130 nanometers allows 3 gigahertz, then 90nm will make six, and so on. A simple and understandable scheme for improving productivity.

Hot Prescott
— Announcement : February 2004, 16 years ago
— Process : 90 nanometers
— Frequency : 2.4-3.8 GHz
— TDP : 84-115 Watts
— L2 cache size : 1024-2048 KB
— System bus frequency : 133-200 MHz, 4256-6400 MB / s (rare models up to 266 MHz)

You can’t just take and change an Intel processor for a new one at the beginning of the 2000s. First, Socket 423 changes to Socket 478. Both Northwood and Prescott processors are produced in this design, but Prescott does not work on my Asus P4PE board of an early revision, although it supports a system bus frequency of 200 MHz. AMD is doing better with backwards compatibility. In February 2004, IXBT analyzes the innovations in the Pentium 4 Prescott: it’s not just a new process technology. Increased conveyor length from 20 to 31 stages in an attempt to find overclocking potential. The second level cache has been increased to one megabyte, later processors with two megabytes of cache memory will appear. Implemented new SSE3 instructions. EM64T technology is added — 64-bit OS can now be installed on processors. AMD is moving to 64 bits early and will be the first to release dual-core consumer CPUs. In the same article, the processor is compared with Northwood of the same frequency and AMD Ahtlon 64 3400+. The results are the same as in 2000: somewhere better than its predecessor, somewhere worse. Overall verdict: « the Prescott core is generally slower than the Northwood «.

If the situation of 2000-2002 were repeated, then this would not be a problem: we quickly reach the 4-5 GHz line, and leave the old processors and competitors far behind. But no: even according to the official Prescott specifications, they turned out very hot. And the frequency at the end of 2004 was increased to 3. 8 gigahertz: this record will be delayed for several years. The planned Pentium 4 580 with a frequency of 4 gigahertz was canceled. No 10 gigahertz and close It didn’t happen. I would like to say: they ran into physical limitations, but this is not entirely true. Until the early 2010s, the Pentium 4 was a favorite toy of overclockers. On the HWBot website, the Intel Celeron D 352 based on the NetBurst architecture is still in 5th place in terms of maximum frequency — 8543 megahertz A full-fledged Pentium 4 was able to overclock to 8179megahertz. But overclocking and the ability to solve user tasks are completely different things. The user does not need liquid nitrogen cooling, he does not want to learn how to remove the thermal distributor cover from the processor. And it was such a simple plan.

At the end of 2004, another event happened: Intel processors switched to the new Socket 775. For the first time, processors were deprived of legs, they moved to the mating socket on the motherboard. Socket 775 lasted surprisingly long on the market, and is now more associated with the Intel Core 2 platform. I buy another set: an Asus P5GD1 motherboard, a Pentium 4 processor, and three gigabytes of RAM with four DDR1 modules. This is almost modern: a PCI Express slot for a video card, built-in sound with the ability to connect multi-channel acoustics (it was fashionable in the mid-2000s), a slightly more convenient cooler with four mounts. The board is again a budget one, but there is already SATA, an additional IDE controller, connectors for USB ports and audio on the front panel. No overclocking options, none. But we don’t need to yet.

The board came with a 2006 Intel Pentium 4 generation Cedar Mill processor. This is the «last forgiveness» of the NetBurst architecture AKA the «Normal Man’s Prescott»: 65 nanometer process technology, 2 megabytes of cache, TDP within reason, frequencies from 3 to 3.6 GHz. But I get a real, the same fiery Prescott with a frequency of 3. 4 gigahertz. At the same time, I will change the video card to a “normal” GeForce 6800. It has a terribly evil small cooler that I want to immediately change to something more decent.

Let’s see what the processors will show in the benchmarks:

Pentium 4 3.4 PressCott:

Pentium 4 3.2 CEDAR MILL:

DICH

Pentium 4 as a retroster, I want to find something this way, and I want if not the most powerful, then some rare processor of this model. The choice is large. First, we can mention the Intel Pentium D: the latest development of Prescott in a dual-core version. On it you can build the hottest Pentium 4 with an official TDP of 130 watts for models with a frequency of 3.2-3.6 gigahertz. It will be as close as possible to modern computers, and at the same time it will heat your office well in winter. Secondly, this is the same Pentium 4 with a historically maximum frequency of 3.8 GHz. Finally, there is the Pentium 4 of the Extreme Edition series: they appeared every time when AMD was ready to introduce the next flagship, and Intel, at least by half a centimeter, tried to overtake the competitor. The early P4EEs were based on the 130nm Gallatin core, borrowed from the Intel Xeon. Of particular interest are Pentium 4 EE with a system bus frequency of 266 MHz — there were only two of them. Finding any extreme Pentium is not easy enough, retailing for ~$1,300 compared to ~$500 for a «regular top». There were few people willing to exchange money for heat. Proof of this is this lot on eBay:

I probably won’t go after rare modifications — it doesn’t make much sense anyway. I plan to stick with late Pentium 4s with normal heat dissipation, and maybe even try moderate overclocking — it will most likely be possible to achieve those same 3.8 GHz (or high FSB bandwidth) much easier and cheaper. But this is not certain, you may have to suffer.

Everything repeats
I thought for a long time about what to compare the performance of the Pentium 4 to. When I examined the 2007 Sony VAIO TZ subnotebook, I had an assumption that its performance was on par with that of the Pentium 4. And so it happened: an economical, light and thin laptop shows in Geekbench 4 778 points in the single-threaded test and 1241 points in the «multi-core» test. The first result is slightly better than the 2002 Pentium 4 2.4. The second is higher than the Prescott 3.4, with incomparable power consumption. Another interesting comparison from my collection is the 2004 IBM ThinkPad T40 Pentium M 755 2GHz laptop. Its result in Geekbench is 876 points, which roughly corresponds to the Pentium 4 of the same year of release with a frequency of 2.8-3 GHz. It was then that it finally became clear that it was not only the processor frequency that mattered: it would be great to increase it further indefinitely, this is understandable for buyers. But it didn’t.

Another «game» is an adapter from Socket 479 (mobile Pentium M) to Socket 478 (desktop motherboards). Overclocking such a semi-stationary PC showed excellent results. My slowly aging but still modern ThinkPad T480 laptop with the eighth generation Core i7 gives out more than 5000 points in Geekbench 4, at a maximum frequency of 4 GHz. It will be correct to compare with the results of good desktop processors, and this is about 10 thousand points. 10 times performance increase (per core, and there are now many of them) from 2005 to 2020. Compare that to a 300x gain (by my own measurements) of 1992 to 2001.

In 2005, Intel «had problems»: something went wrong with the NetBurst architecture, competitors are coming, both external and internal — in the form of that same mobile Pentium M, the successor to Pentium Pro processors from the nineties. In July 2006, the company releases Intel Core 2 processors, which also have the ancient P6 architecture as a relative. The starting frequency by the standards of Netburst is ridiculous — 1.87-2.67 GHz, but the performance is higher, the power consumption is noticeably lower. In 2007, the first quad-core processors are released. In 2005, I still buy my computer based on Pentium 4, for which my tech-savvy friends criticize me — I bought it in vain, it’s too late. And they were right, of course.

Although the Pentium 4 became a dead end branch of the processor industry, providing a dubious increase in performance from generation to generation, it was at this time that computers finally acquired modern features. Became truly multimedia, cracking down on video and music content without any problems. The volumes of hard drives have grown from units to hundreds of gigabytes, the first solid-state drives have appeared. Finally, in the era of my retro video card GeForce 6800, iconic games were released that I personally still play: Half-Life 2, Far Cry, GTA San Andreas. Not only the capabilities of the processor are important, but also the performance of all peripherals, the availability of high-speed Internet. The rapid development of the entire computer ecosystem, still revolving around a personal computer, more often a desktop than a portable one, happened just at the beginning of the 2000s. This is an interesting era.

About love. In my telegram channel, I conducted a survey about the subjective attitude to the Pentium 4. And the majority still classified it as a “pleasant retro”. As time goes on, soon Core 2-based systems will move into this category, and they even run the modern web. And one more thing: Intel has «problems» even now. And with the transition to a new process technology, and an increase in productivity compared to previous generations. All this was already 15 years ago, and then Intel managed. True, then the traditional x86 markets for desktops and servers were not threatened by the ARM architecture.

As for me, the pleasant construction of a retro computer from retro components begins. In the next article: a slightly more elite Pentium 4 configuration, more benchmarks, and an attempt to bring back my 2005.

Speeze ChillMax™ Quiet Cooler for Pentium 4 LGA755

The problem of reducing the noise level of modern computers, and at the same time increasing the cooling efficiency of high-performance processors is becoming more and more urgent every day. Indeed, today the coolness of a cooler is determined not so much by its dimensions, the presence of neon illumination, a not very intelligible turbine and other body kit, but rather by how efficient the design used is.

In this article, we will introduce you to a very interesting cooler from Speeze — ChillMax™, which uses a design that allows, with standard dimensions and a relatively low fan speed, to provide high efficiency of heat removal from the processor.

Specifications

The main highlight of the cooler is a copper heatsink made using the Stamped fin technology and consisting of many thin plates, the heat to which is transferred from a massive «sole».

Four heat-conducting tubes are used in the design to ensure uniform distribution of heat from the «soles» to the upper, colder part of the fins. Hot air rises through them and is cooled by a fan with a constant rotation speed of only 2700 RPM, which is 30-50% lower than conventional coolers, including boxed Intel coolers.

The fan is the only plastic cooler element that has a glowing effect that reacts to ultraviolet light. It is attached to a special steel frame, which simultaneously performs the function of fastening the cooler to the board.

As you can see, a non-standard screw solution is used to attach the cooler to the board, which, in our opinion, is not only easier to install, but also more durable and reliable. True, for this it is necessary to use a special frame included in the delivery kit, which is attached to the back side of the board, which made some adjustments to the process of installing the cooler on the board.

In particular, to install the cooler, you need to remove the motherboard, apply the Stars-420 thermal paste included in the package, install the frame in the mounting holes, install the cooler, and tighten the mounting screws diagonally. After that, you need to connect a three-core shielded cable to the connector on the board, and that’s it … you can insert the board into the case.

This cooling concept has been used for a long time in portable Barebone platforms and laptops, where there are serious restrictions on internal space and increased requirements for noise reduction. Now it’s time to see what Speeze ChillMax™ can actually do.

So, immediately after switching on, we noticed a reduced noise level. In fact, if you block the rotation of the fan, the noise level of the system does not change. In our opinion this is a really important feature of the Speeze ChillMax™, especially for systems that use multiple fans.

As far as temperature is concerned, despite the low RPM, the Speeze ChillMax™ provided more efficient cooling at 2700PRM, both idle and under full load, than a boxed cooler running at over 4000 RPM. What’s more, the Speeze ChillMax™ proved to be more efficient than the quiet LeopardStream III™ cooler that you can read about here.

Conclusion

So, as you can see, the design used really has a lot of advantages compared to other budget solutions, which by the way include the Speeze ChillMax ™ itself, as evidenced by its price of $27. Everything here, from a strict and at the same time beautiful appearance with an ultraviolet fan illumination, to a convenient mounting mechanism and high cooling efficiency, is aimed at creating a simple and convenient solution that allows you to reduce the temperature of the Pentium 4 3. 8GHz processor by more than 10 ° compared to the box Intel cooler.

We thank NEO GROUP, the official distributor of Speeze in Russia, for providing the Speeze Speeze ChillMax™ cooler.

The official Russian site of Speeze is www.speeze.ru.

Intel Pentium M 755 — 26 secret facts, review, specifications, reviews.

Top specifications and features

• Heat dissipation (TDP)
• Technological process
• Number of transistors
• Number of Cores
• Number of threads

Performance

Intel Pentium M 755:
2138
Best score:

Interfaces and communications

Intel Pentium M 755:
1013
Best score:

Key Features of

Intel Pentium M 755:
1629
Best score:

Heat dissipation (TDP)

Intel Pentium M 755:
7. 5W
Best score:
0.025 W

Process

Intel Pentium M 755:
90nm
Best score:
5nm

Description

The Intel Pentium M 755 processor runs at 2 Hz. In this case, the maximum frequency in Boost mode reaches 2 Hz. 1 cores available. The L1 cache is 32 KB, L2 2 MB and L3 1 MB. Power consumption at peak times can reach 7.5 watts.

The maximum number of threads that Intel Pentium M 755 can work with is 1.

Intel Pentium M 755 works on 90 nm architecture. Total number of transistors 140 million

Regarding memory specification.

Now about the tests of Intel Pentium M 755. According to the results of the analysis of more than 4000 processors, Intel Pentium M 755 took 3622 place in the rating of the best.

Why Intel Pentium M 755 is better than others5%

• Process technology 90 nm. This parameter is higher than 89%
• Number of transistors 140 million. This parameter is lower than 42%
• Number of cores 1 . This parameter is lower than 101%
• Number of threads 1 . This setting is lower than 90%
• L2 cache size 2 MB. This parameter is lower than 33%
• L1 cache size 32 KB. This setting is lower than 61%
• Processor base clock speed 2 GHz. This parameter is lower than that of 62%

Review Intel Pentium M 755

Performance

Interfaces and communications

Main characteristics

Intel Pentium M 755 Review: Highlights

Number of threads

The more threads, the higher the performance of the processor, and it will be able to perform several tasks at the same time.
Show all

one

max 256

Average: 10.7

256

L1 cache size

Large amount of L1 memory accelerates results in CPU and system performance settings
Show all

32KB

max 4608

Average: 299. 3 KB

4608KB

L2 Cache Size

L2 cache with large scratchpad memory can increase processor speed and overall system performance.
Show all

2MB

max 512

Average: 4.5 MB

512MB

Maximum Turbo Clock Speed ​​

When the processor speed drops below its limit, it can jump to a higher clock speed to improve performance.
Show all

2GHz

max 5.5

Average: 3.2 GHz

5.5GHz

Number of cores

one

max 72

Mean: 5.8

72

Processor base clock speed

2GHz

max 4. 7

Average: 2.5 GHz

4.7GHz

Idle states

None

Unlocked CPU multiplier

Some processors have an unlocked multiplier, which makes them faster and better in games and other applications.
Show all

No

Parity FSB

No

Max. number of processors in the configuration

one

Mean: 1.3

8

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)

Yes

Hyper-Threading Technology

Many Intel processors use state-of-the-art hyper-threading technology. Thus, each processor core works simultaneously on two threads, which significantly increases performance. Most processors work on the principle: one thread per core, therefore, their performance is lower.
Show all

No

Socket

PPGA478. H-PBGA479

Demand Based Switching

No

PAE

32

max 46

Average: 39.5

46

TXT

No

EDB

No

VT-x

No

Technological process

The small size of semiconductors means that this is a new generation chip.

90 nm

Average: 36.8 nm

5nm

Number of transistors

140 million

max 57000

Average: 1517.3 million

57000 million

Heat Dissipation (TDP)

The Heat Dissipation Requirements (TDP) is the maximum amount of energy that can be dissipated by the cooling system. The lower the TDP, the less power will be consumed.
Show all

7.5W

Average: 67.6 W

0.025W

Supports 64-bit system

A 64-bit system, unlike a 32-bit system, can support more than 4 GB of RAM. This increases productivity. It also allows you to run 64-bit applications.
Show all

No

Code name

Dothan

Purpose

Laptop

FAQ

How fast is the Intel Pentium M 755 5600X?

The processor runs at 2 GHz.

How many cores does the Intel Pentium M 755 have?

1 core

What is the socket of the Intel Pentium M 755

PPGA478 is used to install the Intel Pentium M 755. H-PBGA479.

Is the Intel Pentium M 755 a 64-bit processor

No

What architecture does the Intel Pentium M 755 use?

The Intel Pentium M 755 is based on the Dothan architecture.

What is the frequency of the Intel Pentium M 755 processor?

Intel Pentium M 755 processor running at 2 Hz.

What is the maximum frequency of the Intel Pentium M 755 processor?

In this case, the maximum frequency in Boost mode reaches 2 Hz.

What is the cache size of the Intel Pentium M 755?

L1 cache is 32 KB, L2 2 MB and L3 1 MB.

How many watts does the Intel Pentium M 755 consume?

Power consumption at peak times can be up to 7.5 watts.

leave your feedback

Review of Pentium M 780 (2.26 GHz) and Asus CT-479 adapter

Pentium M mobile processor on Dothan core

Introduction

The first tests of mobile Pentium-M processor on Dothan core made the most favorable impression on us. First, at 2.26 MHz it showed the best performance compared to Intel Pentium4 660 (3.6 GHz) and AMD Athlon64 3500+ (2.2 GHz). However, due to the peculiarities of the Dothan architecture, the advantages of this processor did not appear in all applications. In particular, in programs with streaming information processing (coding, etc.), this processor lost to Pentium4 with the NetBurst architecture. And in those applications where memory access speed plays a significant role, Dothan lost out to Athlon64 (the latter has an integrated memory controller). However, in both cases, the speed lag was not critical, which allows us to conclude that today Pentium-M is one of the best processors for desktop systems. High performance, low heat generation — these are the two most important criteria on which we based this conclusion. In fairness, it should be noted that the Dothan kernel does not support 64-bit command extensions. Also, Pentium-M processors are single-core (this will soon change with the introduction of Intel® Core™ Duo laptops, which have already been in our test lab), which in some cases reduces their attractiveness. And finally, the prices for these processors are quite high, and the number of retail offers is small.

90 NM 2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 MB L2 Mb L2 + Intel® Pentium® M processor 760 90 nm 2 L2 2 533 + + Intel® Pentium® M processor 755 90 nm 2 MB L2 2 400 + Intel® Pentium® M processor 750 90 nm 2 L2 1,86 533 + + Intel® Pentium® M processor 745 90 nm 2 L2 1,80 400 + Intel® Pentium® M processor 740 90 nm 2 L2 1.73 GHz 533 + + Intel® Pentium® M processor 735 90 nm 2 L2 1,70 400 + Intel® Pentium ® M Processor 730 90 NM 2 MB L2 1. 60 GHz 533 MHz + Intel® Pentium 15

900 Nm

9

-479. Summarizing the information, we can list 3 possible options. The first is the purchase of a motherboard originally designed for the Pentium-M processor (like, for example, the MSI 9628 based on the Intel 915GM chipset). The second way is available only to owners of ASUS motherboards with Socket 478. They can buy a special ASUS CT-479 adapter in the store and install Pentium-M into the Pentium-M system without any problems. The third way is the most extravagant: the user can purchase a hybrid board, such as ECS PF88, and install a special expansion board into it. For a Pentium-M processor, such a board is called ECS I9S, and on its board there is a processor socket with a power supply module, a couple of DDR-I memory slots and a northbridge of the chipset.

So, we start today’s review with an examination of the ASUS CT-479 adapter.

ASUS CT-479 adapter

The idea of ​​creating this device is quite simple: to allow you to install a Pentium-M on a Socket478 board. But is any board suitable for such an upgrade? No, because for the operation of such a system, support for the mobile processor from the BIOS is required. Accordingly, this support was implemented by ASUS programmers only for their products (and even not for all), and the rest of the manufacturers of the first echelon (not to mention the second) ignored the CT-479 adapter0028

As we can see, to assemble a system with a Pentium-M processor, you need to have not only a motherboard from a rather small list, but the board itself must have a BIOS version not earlier than indicated in the table. We used the P4P800-E model with BIOS 1009. Also, purely for the sake of interest, we tried to assemble a system with an Abit IC7-G board and an ASUS CT-479 adapter.

In the first case, the system worked, in the second it didn’t (which, in fact, was to be expected).

The adapter is packed in a box like this:

In addition to the adapter (which the buyer can see through a transparent window), we found installation instructions, a power cable, and a special cooler with a mount in the box.

Now let’s look at the adapter itself. On the front there is a socket for Pentium-M (Socket 479), a power connector, and a pair of jumpers for setting the frequency FSB = 100 MHz or 133 MHz:

On the reverse side of the adapter there is a Socket478 mate (and nothing else):

We quickly install the processor, connect the power cable (from the kit) and install the adapter into the Socket478 socket.

It’s time to install the cooler from the kit.

Please note that the jumpers and power connector installed on the adapter interfere with the installation of standard Socket478 coolers. And only thanks to the special shape of the cooler radiator, they remain accessible.

Apart from the shape of the heatsink, the cooler is nothing special:

The base of the cooler has a safety gasket and a thermal interface layer.

And this is how the cooler looks in comparison with another cooler for Pentium-M (from the MSI board kit. 479 we recommend replacing it with a quieter 70mm fan.0003

There is not much more to say about the adapter. We start the system, and it recognizes the mobile processor without any problems.

Further work does not bring any surprises. We can even work with the BIOS settings responsible for overclocking the processor.

In particular, with a small increase in voltage (up to 1.4 V), we increased the FSB frequency from 133 to 148 MHz, which resulted in an increase in the processor clock speed to 2. 51 GHz. At the same time, the temperature of the processor, even under load, did not exceed 52 ° C. Note that the system also started at higher frequencies, but to increase stability, a more significant increase in the Vcore voltage was required. In turn, this could require an improvement in the cooling system. But due to the special shape of the cooler, we could not quickly find the right one. Moreover, because of the open kernel, we were afraid to install such monsters as Zalman 7000, 7700 or 9500.

Preliminary conclusion: ASUS has given an excellent opportunity to users of Socket478 boards to upgrade their system with minimal losses.

ECS PF88 + I9S board

The ECS PF88 Extreme motherboard has already been tested in our laboratory. Therefore, we will not dwell on it in detail, but only recall the most important information. So, on this board, the north bridge SIS 656 and the south bridge SiS 965 are installed; Initially, the board was designed to work with Intel LGA775 processors in conjunction with DDR-II memory.

The main feature of the board is the Elite Bus slot,

in which special expansion cards are installed to support other types of processors. Each of these cards has a processor socket, a power module, memory slots, and a chipset northbridge. ECS announces the availability of the following cards: SIMA A4S (designed for AMD Socket754 processors; SiS 756 chipset), SIMA A9S (for AMD Socket939 processors; SiS 756 chipset) and SIMA I9S (Intel Pentium M; SiS 649) As part of this review, we are only interested in the last map.

In addition to the card, you can find installation instructions in the box, as well as a BIOS chip:

memory is fast, and we get a ready-made block:

Next, we pull out two dozen jumpers from the ECS PF88 board, try on the I9 boardS,

install and successfully start the system.

The I9S board has one three-pin fan connector (near the processor socket):

Finally, the board has a 4-pin connector for connecting the power supply cable, and its own power supply module, which contains 6 1500 uF capacitors.

As in the case with the Socket478+CT-479 system, everything worked stably and very efficiently. We even used the BIOS settings to overclock the processor. But the maximum that the PF88 + I9S combination gave us is FSB = 140 MHz.

In this case, the motherboard prevents further overclocking. And on the Socket478+CT-479 bundle, as we suspect, further overclocking was impossible due to the Dothan core technological limit being reached. Therefore, if a user purchases the cheapest Pentium-M processor with a multiplier = 15, then the maximum he will reach on PF88 is 2.1 GHz (which is clearly not enough). However, it is quite possible that in the next BIOS versions, ECS engineers will improve overclocking functions.

By the way, let’s list them.

First, the I9S board allows you to change the system bus frequency in the range from 100 (133) to 250 MHz in 1 MHz steps.

The board also has a function to change the processor multiplier (but it did not work for us).

Secondly, the I9S board allows you to increase the voltage on the processor (Vcore) by 0.075 V in 0.025 V steps.0003

Immediately note the function of changing the PCI frequency,

and the function of changing the memory frequency:

system monitoring:

The remaining BIOS settings are the same for all additional expansion cards, as well as for the PF88 board without these cards.

Capacity

Now let’s move on to the most interesting part of the review, which is dedicated to the performance of the Pentium-M processor. We note right away that the system with the ASUS P4P800-E board is equipped with an AGP slot, and, accordingly, the performance comparison is subject to the difference between the PCI Express and AGP buses. In addition, the noname 6600GT video card worked at completely «left» frequencies, and for a more correct comparison, we overclocked it to 550/1000 frequencies (whereas the ASUS 6600GT PCI-Express video card worked at 550/1100 frequencies). Therefore, we mentally add some performance at high resolutions to the ASUS P4P800-E + Pentium-M bundle.

Speaking of permissions. In the diagrams of most games, resolutions are not indicated. But the highest score is always obtained at low resolution and minimal detail of the 3D image. It’s in bold and should be the first thing you look at when comparing performance, because at higher resolutions (and better detail) the performance of the graphics card plays a big role. Accordingly, the speed of various systems is practically equalized.

And more about diagrams. At the bottom of each of the graphs, the performance of the systems in normal mode is indicated. And at the top — with overclocking, and the frequencies are indicated in the name of the system. As for the Pentium-M processor, its nominal frequency is 1.7 GHz (17 x 100 MHz). However, in all tests, we used FSB=133 (or higher). The fact is that if a user buys a Pentium-M processor, then with a high probability the motherboard will allow you to select FSB = 100 or 133 MHz (using BIOS parameters or jumpers). Moreover, again, with a very high probability, the process will work in this mode (since the technological limit of the Dothan core is around 2.5 GHz), and there is no need to increase the Vcore voltage. But still, we note that the performance of the Pentium-M processor was obtained using overclocking. However, the speed of such a system does not differ by a fraction of fps from the speed of the top processor Intel® Pentium® M 780.

So, we used the following components:

So, the tests used a familiar set of applications. First, let’s look at the results of synthetic tests.

Before us are exclusively synthetic applications that demonstrate theoretical

performance.

Now for gaming application tests.

.

kbps. more is better

s. less is better

Some comments on the test results.

First, the Pentium-M at 2.26 GHz (which is the default for the Intel® Pentium® M 780) outperforms all other Intel processors with NetBurst architecture (including the 955 Extreme Edition) in all gaming applications. Also, its speed (again in games) is higher than the performance of the Athlon 3500+ processor, and in some games it outperforms 4400+/4800+! We have already talked about Pentium-M’s weaknesses: in streaming tasks it will yield to Pentium 4, and in applications that depend on speed of memory access — AMD Athlon 64. As for the rivalry with dual-core processors, Dothan does not participate in it. Intel has the Intel® Core™ Duo for this purpose.

Now let’s see how things are in overclocking. Those. we compare the performance of a Pentium-M at 2.5 GHz with an Athlon X2 at 2.7 GHz and an Intel Pentium Extreme Edition at 4.25 GHz. Since the comparison will be on games, dual-core processors will not get a noticeable advantage (on their side, only the optimization of graphics drivers for multithreading). And again, Pentium-M outperforms Extreme Edition (except for Quake4), but lags behind overclocked Athlon-a.

Pins

So, everything is clear with the speed of work — it is very, very high. But still this processor is not designed for desktop systems. Accordingly, motherboard manufacturers offer an extremely small number of products for Socket479. And almost all of them seriously lose to desktop systems in terms of expandability. To illustrate this, here is the following table:

Name	Graphics	Southbridge	Number of USB 2.0 ports	SATA II socket	SATA socket	PATA socket	Gigabit Ethernet socket
MSI 9628 + Pentium-M	PCI Express	ICH6R	8	—	4	1	—	AC’97 2. 3
ASUS P4P800-E + Pentium-M	AGP	ICH5R	8	—	2 channels	2 channels 915GM with ICH6R southbridge and SIS 649 + SiS 965. However, they do not support SerialATA II either, and manufacturers have to add an additional controller (like on the PF88 board). Note that the Intel 915GM supports DDR-II RAM, and the system works a little faster with it than with DDR-I. Another advantage of desktop systems is the support for technologies such as SLI and Crossfire, which allow you to combine the processing power of two video cards. However, it’s worth messing with such a function only when the speed of one high-end video card is not enough. And in the middle and low-end sectors, one more powerful video card looks more attractive than two weaker ones combined in SLI/Crossfire. Therefore, if the fan of Intel systems does not have special requirements for expansion capabilities and does not need to use SLI / Crossfire, then we can advise him to purchase a system based on the Intel Pentium-M processor. The only point: when ordering components in a store (and they will probably only be made to order), specify the receipt of the processor, motherboard and cooler as one set. Otherwise, even the search for such a “little thing” as a Pentium-M cooler can turn into a hassle and a run through the shops. As for fans of AMD systems, they have nothing to «worry about». For at stock frequencies, the Pentium-M 780 processor is not faster than the Athlon64 with a frequency of 2.4 GHz, and the overclocked Athlon64 to 2.7-2.8 GHz (Venice core) outperforms the overclocked Pentium-M in games. However, the smartest motherboard manufacturers are preparing, or have already released, modern boards for Pentium-M based on the i975X chipset! For example, AOpen i975Xa-YDG with very powerful expansion options and two PCI Express x16 slots. In my opinion, in the foreseeable future (about half a year) it is these products that will be the optimal basis for Intel systems! As for the owners of ASUS boards for Socket478, thanks to the ASUS CT-479 adapter, they have a real opportunity to increase the performance of their system, reduce power consumption (and, accordingly, the noise level). Moreover, the use of this adapter with a Pentium-M processor does not require reinstallation of Windows (which is like death for some users, due to the mass of configured applications). All questions, comments and wishes can and should be asked at the conference. The editors would like to thank MSI for providing the Pentium-M processor. Pentium M: a good «desktop» CPU… which we won’t have Talking about the fact that the mobile Intel Pentium M processor, with very attractive power consumption and relatively low heat dissipation, also has very good performance, has been going on for a long time. And they often end with one wish: “Oh, if only you could install this CPU in a regular desktop!” However, this wish for the most part does not have clear justifications, but is based solely on feelings: “Here, I have a Pentium M laptop and it works very fast!” Yes, fast. For laptop fast. However, is it possible to directly compare the performance of a laptop and a desktop? Indeed, in the first case, we compare the speed with our previous feelings from other laptops, and not from the desktop . .. In general, the problem of correctly comparing the Pentium M with desktop CPUs has become quite acute, and it was clearly worth doing. Either to make sure of the really high attractiveness of the hypothetical «PC with Pentium M inside» — or at least to dispel the myths about the supposedly high attractiveness of such a solution. Fortunately, some manufacturers have released products that allow you to correctly compare the performance of the Pentium M with the usual CPUs. So, AOpen and DFI released desktop boards based on the mobile Intel 855M chipset (and one of them, from DFI, is taking part in our today’s testing), and ASUS surprised the world with … an adapter for installing a mobile processor in desktop boards for Socket 478! True, the last barrel of honey was not without a fly in the ointment. Since motherboard BIOS support is mandatory even just for it to start correctly, only boards from the same manufacturer that have Pentium M support added to the BIOS specifically for compatibility can work with an adapter from ASUS. Here is a list of these boards: ASUS P4P800-VM ASUS P4GPL-X ASUS P4GD1 ASUS P4P800-E ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe ASUS P4P800 SE C. included in this list) the adapter will not work. And even if by some miracle it does work, no one knows how the CPU will be determined and how correctly it will function (but most likely the answers to these questions sound incorrect, bad). However, our attempts to “start up” the system with an adapter, using a couple of Socket 478 boards from other brands that came to hand, ended in nothing: the system started working (the fans on the video card and processor cooler rotated, and even the CPU got a little warm), but The screen was in total darkness. But back to our … «mobile desktop» processors. The main task that we set for ourselves in this testing was simple: on the one hand, to compare the performance of different cores under the conditions of their operation at the same frequency (that is, roughly speaking, to see how many units of speed «in terms of megahertz” provide processors of various architectures), on the other hand, to roughly estimate (based on test results) the prospects for a hypothetical “Intel mobile core on a desktop”. In other words, try to predict the development of events in case Intel suddenly decides to abandon NetBurst and create a desktop processor based on the core underlying the Pentium M. It’s time to start testing … Test bench configuration AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.167 GHz core, 512 KB L2, 333 MHz FSB) AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (2.2 GHz core, 1 MB L2) 90 2.00 GHz core, 2 MB L2, 533 MHz FSB) Intel Pentium M 770 (2.13 GHz core, 2 MB L2, 533 MHz FSB) Intel Pentium 4 2.8E GHz (Socket 478, 1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB ) Intel Pentium 4 540J (1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB, 3.2 GHz) Mainboards 2×512 MB PC5400 (DDR2-533) DDR2 SDRAM DIMM 3-3-3-8 (Corsair) ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB video card (Manli) ATI Radeon X800 XT video card (250 20) Hard drive Samsung SP1614C (SATA), 7200 rpm, 8 MB cache Windows XP Professional SP2, DirectX 9.0c ATI CATALYST 5.4 (Display Driver 6. 14.10.6525) As you can see, the “zoo” turned out to be quite large . However, understanding it is quite simple, since two large subgroups participate in the tests. Conventionally, they can be called «AGP subgroup» and «PCI Express subgroup». First subgroup, AGP: Athlon XP 3000+ and nForce2 Ultra board, DDR400 Pentium 4 2.8E GHz and i865PE board, DDR400 Athlon 64 3700+ and VIA K8T8 Pen00 board, D019 770) and a desktop board based on i855M, DDR400 in DDR333 mode Accordingly, the use of AGP was due to the fact that the board for the main heroes of the day (Pentium M) supports exactly this graphic bus. In the same way, the second subgroup already uses a PCI Express video card — firstly, because our board is from ASUS, which is capable of working with a Socket 479 adapter—> Socket 478 is equipped with this particular graphics bus, and secondly, why not install a more powerful video card on the stand? PCI Express subgroup: Pentium 4 540J and i955X based board, DDR2-533 Athlon 64 3700+ and nForce4 Ultra based board, DDR400 Pentium M (760/770) and i955 based board, DDR4015 Socket 478 with an adapter to 479. We will dwell on the descriptions of some of the used boards (a particularly interesting product from DFI) a little later (follow the announcements of the «Platform» section), but for now we invite you to take a look at what it looked like » Pentium M Coming to Desktop» in our test lab. Socket with cooler installed, board DFI 855GME-MGF . Socket 479. You can confuse it with Socket 478, but it’s difficult: the socket is «latched» not with the usual lever on the side, but with a screwdriver. Socket 479 Adapter > 478, ASUS CT-479 CPU Upgrade Kit front view. Two jumpers set the FSB frequency 400 or 533 MHz. There are no more control elements on the adapter. Adapter Socket 479 > 478, ASUS CT-479 CPU Upgrade Kit , rear view. Adapter with processor after installation in Socket 478 on the board. The same, but with a cooler installed (the cooler is special, it comes with an adapter) We selected rival processors (if possible) according to a quite obvious principle: their frequency should be as close as possible to the frequency of the top Pentium M. The exception was made only for Pentium 4: everyone understands that with the same frequency as its rivals, it would lose to everyone, since the main advantage of this CPU, and of the entire NetBurst architecture as such, lies in the ability to achieve high core frequencies. Therefore, we selected Pentium 4 in such a way that they showed approximately the same performance as the Pentium M 770. Of course, on average, , that is, for all tests. Fortunately, it is not difficult to calculate a certain “average score” using the elementary Excel GEOMEAN function. We emphasize that the average score of Pentium 4 2.8E (in the «AGP subgroup») and Pentium 4 540J (in the «PCI-E subgroup») is really very close to the results of the Pentium M 770 (for each subgroup, respectively). As for the «comparative efficiency in terms of megahertz», then in the case of the Pentium 4, for the reasons explained above, this parameter is of no interest. Test results Recall that the diagrams with the results of all tests (61 diagrams) are placed on a separate page without comments, just «as is». The article shows only summary charts that combine the results of a whole group of tests into a certain average score. This approach allows, on the one hand, to satisfy the curiosity of particularly inquisitive readers who object to reducing the number of test results given in the articles, and on the other hand, to make the “basic” material less colorful and saturated with graphics. As for the comments, it is assumed that the real pro, interested in the details, they are unnecessary. SPECapc for 3ds max 6 (3ds max 7.0) Detailed results The «old» platform represented by Athlon XP and Pentium 4 / Socket 478 looks the least convincing. The Pentium M is quite good — even on a mobile platform, it manages to overtake the Pentium 4 540 running at 3.2 GHz and on the most advanced dual-channel chipset with DDR2 (i955). On the desktop platform (i915), the Pentium M performs even better (8% better on average). However, Athlon 64 still occupies the first place, and it surpasses the best result of Pentium M by 6%, while its core frequency is only 3% higher (2. 2 GHz versus 2.13). Thus, on the whole, Athlon 64 is still more efficient than Pentium M. By the way, let’s not forget that Pentium M has twice as much L2 cache. SPECapc for Maya 6 (Maya 6.5) Detailed results even slightly higher than the top mobile Intel processor (2167 MHz). However, its cache is four (!) times smaller, perhaps this played the main role. The dual-channel chipset in combination with DDR400 (i915) is clearly more preferable for Pentium M than the «native» mobile i855M — the performance increase of the mobile processor on the desktop platform reaches 12%. Which, however, is natural: even with «only» 533 MHz FSB, single-channel DDR333 (namely, this mode is offered to us by i855M) is not able to satisfy the processor’s requests for memory access speed. Lightwave 8.2 rendering Quite a mixed picture, but the vast majority of processors demonstrate approximately the same results, there is only one outsider Athlon XP 3000+. Please note that in this test, the results of the mobile and desktop platforms for the Pentium M are approximately equal. This indicates that the speed of working with memory for Lightwave is practically unimportant. SPECapc for SolidWorks 2003 Detailed results Pentium M on the mobile platform is about on par with the Pentium 4 2.8E and Athlon XP 3000+, on the desktop it is about on par with the Pentium 4 540J (3.2 GHz). The fastest, as in the case of 3ds max 7, is Athlon 64 3700+, in both of its guises. Adobe Photoshop CS (8) Detailed results The Pentium 4 540 on the new platform with DDR2 was the best performer, the worst was the old Athlon XP 3000+. The results of other processors are approximately in the same range. The relatively small gain of the i915 over the i855 is rather strange, most likely due to the fact that 2 megabytes of cache in the Pentium M is quite enough for Photoshop to compensate for the low speed of working with memory. However, let’s make a reservation: within the framework of the functions we are studying … Adobe Acrobat 6. 0 A rather even line, but there are still leaders, and these are Pentium M and Athlon 64. «Universal» data compression (archiving) Detailed results the transition from the mobile platform to the desktop one adds a Pentium M 400 MHz «in the equivalent of a Pentium 4»: if on the i855 its performance is approximately equal to the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz, then on the i915 it is already approximately equal to the speed of the Pentium 4 540 operating at 3.2 GHz. However, the Athlon 64 is still faster, and again by a much larger amount than one would expect based on how much it outperforms the Pentium M in terms of frequency. Lossy media compression (MP3/MPEG2-4) Detailed results are identical. However, this does not mean that they are bad, on the contrary: the only processor that managed to outperform the Pentium M 770 is the Pentium 4 540. two. The advantage of both Pentium 4s in this test is undoubted, and we know well how it was achieved: only they have support for Hyper-Threading technology, which allows emulating two CPUs on the basis of one physical core. 3D games and graphics visualization in professional packages DOOM 3 In the «AGP subgroup» we observe a clear lack of video card performance, but with PCI Express (ATI Radeon X800) dependence on the processor is already visible. Well, we are already used to the fact that the Pentium 4 almost always ends up in the lowest places in games. But the Pentium M pleased — it almost catches up with Athlon 64, and if we take into account that the latter is also slightly higher in frequency, then we can assume that in absolutely equal conditions Pentium M would have caught up with it. Far Cry The situation is completely similar to the previous one… Painkiller But Painkiller does not like all Intel processors without exception. Although, however, the processor based on the AMD K7 core (Athlon XP 3000+) was not very «kind» either, so it would be more correct to speak not about the love of this game for AMD processors, but about sympathy for a very specific K8 core. Unreal Tournament 2004 In this case Pentium M fails to catch up with Athlon 64, but at least it looks much more convincing than both Pentium 4 and Athlon XP. Overall score for games Detailed results In general, we can draw the following conclusion for games: the AMD K8 core in the face of Athlon 64 demonstrates the best efficiency «per megahertz frequency», but, despite this, the Pentium M core still much more «gaming-attractive» than the Prescott / Pentium 4 core. SPEC viewperf Detailed results But this time SPEC viewperf decided to have a «dissenting opinion», pushing the Pentium M to the very bottom in each subgroup. It is also the only test where Athlon XP 3000+ was able to outperform Pentium M. In general, “it’s all strange, very strange …” As a rule, SPEC viewperf in the distribution of places “agrees” with game tests, but here such a “bang” … Conclusion Let’s start drawing conclusions. Briefly, briefly, let us recall what interesting facts about the performance of the Pentium M we managed to find out: There have been numerous cases when the use of a desktop platform with a fast dual-channel memory controller added a significant amount of points to the Pentium M compared to the standard mobile platform. That is, this processor has a certain performance margin (for desktop use, in relation to mobile computers), even if it does not increase the frequency. In many programs with some pronounced processor preferences, the Pentium M showed a funny property: it ended up somewhere in the middle. That is, «better than the worst option, but worse than the best.» On the whole, such behavior can only be welcomed, because from time to time both main competitors turn out to be “downstairs” — both Pentium 4 and Athlon 64, and Pentium M, thus, provides us with a more “smooth” option. Overall, AMD Athlon 64 / Socket 9 efficiency per megahertz39 is still higher than that of the Pentium M. Although, two things should not be forgotten: firstly, the Pentium M has twice as much second-level cache (this is an additional argument not in its favor), and secondly, the Athlon 64 a dual-channel DDR400 controller, while the Pentium M has only a 533 MHz FSB (on the contrary, this speaks in favor of the Pentium M, since if it is given a normal 800 MHz FSB, the speed may increase). The average performance of the Pentium M 770 (core frequency 2.13 GHz) when running on a mobile platform can be considered approximately equivalent to the performance of a Pentium 4 «Prescott» with a frequency of around 2.8 GHz, and when working on a desktop platform it is approximately equivalent to the performance of a Pentium 4 with a frequency of around 3.2 GHz. Of course, with standard reservations: not exactly, but only approximately, and not in general, but only within the framework of our testing methodology. Thus, at first glance, it seems that we are seeing a very happy picture: a low-heating, low-power processor operating at a frequency of “only” 2.13 GHz, which confidently competes with a 3.2-GHz desktop “stove”, whose appetites for much more power consumption. However, let’s descend from heaven to earth… It can be assumed that if a comparison of the core that formed the basis of the Pentium M (let’s call this type of core conditionally «P6+»), with the cores of the NetBurst architecture (and especially with the latest Prescott) , did not happen now, and not on our website, but 10 years ago, and in Intel laboratories (when the decision was made about what the next desktop CPU would be) perhaps a completely different processor would be sold under the name «Pentium 4» now. However, history does not recognize the subjunctive mood, so the correct question now sounds not like “Is Pentium M better than Pentium 4 for desktop?”, but like “St about are the advantages of Pentium M over Pentium 4 in order to completely reshape the desktop CPU market (and this is inevitable, since Intel has a share of about 80% in this market), model lines, marketing plans, reorient production lines, change the development strategy?” That’s what the right question sounds like. And the answer to it, it seems to us, is obvious. It is all the more obvious if we take into account that the efficiency of the Pentium M, judging by the test results, is approximately in the same range as the efficiency of the Athlon 64, which means that the P6+ core will most likely not be able to become a weapon of victory for Intel. For Intel, a hypothetical desktop CPU based on the P6+ core is nothing more than a good way to catch up with AMD in areas where it currently lags behind. Catch up, but not overtake. Of course, if you do not chase after ultra-low (by desktop standards) power consumption, then it will be possible to increase the frequency (most likely, again, approximately to the level of current AMD desktop CPUs, that is, somewhere up to 3 GHz or slightly lower ), it will be possible to make the processor bus faster, however … If our hypothesis about the approximately equal «efficiency» of the Intel P6 + and AMD K8 cores is true then in order to significantly overtake AMD, Intel will have to release a processor based on the P6 + core with again — but at a much higher frequency. And the frequency of the top Pentium M, let me remind you, is now only 2.13 GHz. Top! Will Intel be able to make a processor based on the P6+ core with a frequency of at least 3.2-3.4 GHz (considering that AMD will most likely overcome the 3 GHz threshold)? It’s doubtful… Besides, the further increase in the cache size in the case of the Pentium M looks somehow fantastic — and so 2 megabytes already, much more? Besides, an ultra-fast bus with such a large cache, as we have seen, is sometimes not really needed, so the effect of switching from 533 MHz FSB to 800 MHz or even 1066 MHz may not be so great. Therefore, our general conclusion is: yes, if it were not for so much time, effort, and money invested in NetBurst it is quite possible that the P6+ core could become a very attractive basis for yesterday’s and today’s Intel desktop processors. Although it doesn’t demonstrate any miracles, the mobile Pentium M of equal frequency Athlon 64 doesn’t «rip a hot-water bottle like Tuzik» at all, so even in this scenario AMD would have absolutely nothing to cry burning tears from. It’s just that the processors of the two main competitors would be much more similar to each other, in behavior and preferences, than they are now. However, the Net Burst architecture exists, and it has been slowly improving for years in a row, the Pentium 4 brand is promoted, processors are sold (and not bad, we note), and Pentium M does not pull at all for the hypothetical Pentium 5. Yes, he is good, but not so good . It would be a mistake to promote this solution to the desktop market today, since a new and promising one should be better than a competitor, and not just “no worse”. So let’s look at the results again and take a breath about a pretty good desktop processor that we could have had, but somehow didn’t work out… : Maximum performance of the Intel mobile platform Not so long ago we already considered the performance of the mobile processor Intel Pentium M on the desktop platform, and the only thing that has changed since then was the official announcement of the new Pentium M 780 with a core frequency of 2.26 GHz. In general, it’s a completely ordinary event, and it’s pretty clear what to expect from the new processor: after all, it doesn’t differ from the previous Pentium M 760/770, except for the increased frequency. However, since this CPU fell into our hands, it was decided to test its performance after all. If only because there are not so many Pentium M tests in the desktop environment on our website :). True, this time we decided to focus solely on the highest possible performance. Therefore, the tests were carried out only on the board with the i9 chipset15, using an adapter from ASUS (this configuration has already been described in sufficient detail in a previous article on a similar topic). Adapter with processor after installation in Socket 478 on the board. The same, but with a cooler installed (the cooler is special, it comes with an adapter) if you do not resort to overclocking. In addition, since the Pentium M 780 is still faster than the 770, we decided to add two more processors to the Athlon 64 3700+ and Pentium 4 540 — Athlon 64 4000+ and Pentium 4 560. They were supposed to mark a kind of «upper limit» , that is, to show which «real desktop» processors the mobile solution from Intel is not yet able to overtake, even when working on a desktop board with dual-channel memory. Test bench configuration AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (2.2 GHz core, 1 MB L2) AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4 GHz core, 1 MB L2) Intel Pentium 4 L40 (1 5 MB L2) 800 MHz FSB, 3.2 GHz) Intel Pentium 4 560 (1 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB, 3.6 GHz) Intel Pentium M 760 (2.00 GHz core, 2 MB L2, 533 MHz FSB) Intel0 Pentium M 77 (2. 13 GHz core, 2 MB L2, 533 MHz FSB) Intel Pentium M 780 (2.26 GHz core, 2 MB L2, 533 MHz FSB) Windows XP Professional SP2, DirectX 9.0c ATI CATALYST 5.4 (Display Driver 6.14.10.6525) Test results Recall that the diagrams with the results of all tests (61 diagrams) are placed on a separate page without comments, just » as is». The article shows only summary charts that combine the results of a whole group of tests into a certain average score. This approach allows, on the one hand, to satisfy the curiosity of particularly inquisitive readers who object to reducing the number of test results given in the articles, and on the other hand, to make the “basic” material less colorful and saturated with graphics. As for comments, it is assumed that real pros who are interested in details do not need them. SPECapc for 3ds max 6 (3ds max 7.0) Detailed results Pentium M performance growth is almost linear, which indicates that the 533 MHz bus is still enough for it at such frequencies. As always, the Pentium 4 does not perform very well in this test due to a serious loss in the «Interactive» subtest (see detailed results). It’s symptomatic that the Pentium M performs quite well in this subtest, as does the Athlon 64 — this indicates that their architectures are close in terms of the preferences of the program under study. It is understandable: both have a short pipeline. SPECapc for Maya 6 (Maya 6.5) Detailed results But here Athlon 64 is already on the sidelines, and the main rivalry flares up between Intel processors, while the Pentium M 780 is the fastest. From this result, we can draw an interesting conclusion regarding the test itself: if the CPU, which has the smallest memory bus bandwidth among all participants, was able to win, it would be logical to assume that SPECapc for Maya is rather indifferent to this parameter. On the other hand, of all the participants, the Pentium M has the largest L2 cache. We will assume that we have found a clue . .. Lightwave 8.2, rendering In rendering, the Pentium 4 560 turned out to be the best, and the 540 performed well, losing only to the Athlon 64 4000+. It seems to us that Pentium 4 owes its good results to support for «virtual multiprocessing» — Hyper-Threading, because Lightwave supports multithreading. The performance of the Pentium M scales quite confidently with frequency, but this is not unusual for the task under consideration: rendering engines, as a rule, are quite indifferent to memory bandwidth. SPECapc for SolidWorks 2003 Detailed results Quite a predictable result for anyone who read the previous article. Adobe Photoshop CS (8) Detailed results Pentium 4 is the best (apparently, again due to Hyper-Threading), Pentium M 780 is somewhere between Athlon 64 3700+ and 4000+ in terms of performance. The «step» of the Pentium M processors is completely flat, which testifies to the remarkable scalability, at least in the frequency range under consideration. Adobe Acrobat 6.0 «Universal» data compression (archiving) Detailed results Perhaps the only class of applications in which memory dependence is visible. The Pentium M is still scaled «evenly» — but the size of the «steps» has become much smaller. Lossy media compression (MP3/MPEG2-4) Detailed results “Mean hospital temperature” does not need much comment, but we would recommend paying attention to the detailed results. It is very clear that AMD processors (traditionally) «failed» the LAME encoding test with the Q=0 option, but this is already a common place and is not as interesting as the «failures» of the Pentium M. The latter performed quite unsuccessfully in the MPEG4 / Windows Media subtest Video, and completely failed in the MPEG2 / Canopus ProCoder subtest. As they say: “note to housewives” … SPEC viewperf Detailed results And here the difference between all the participants is quite negligible, which suggests that the video card is not powerful enough. Conclusion On the one hand, the Pentium M 780, in general, is not so bad, and in most cases it stands quite worthy in comparison with not the slowest desktop processors from Intel and AMD. On the other hand, let’s not forget that we are comparing the fastest Pentium M at the current time with by no means top-end desktop CPUs. After all, in addition to Athlon 64 4000+, AMD has Athlon 64 FX-55/57, and even higher than Pentium 4 560 there is at least Pentium 4 570, not to mention 660/670 and eXtreme Edition 3.73 GHz. In general: «Not bad, yes — but no more.» Of course, the Pentium M also has its unbeatable trump cards — low heat, low power consumption. However, the user wants performance from a desktop first of all (otherwise, why would he need a desktop?) And if you take into account the fact that building a PC based on the top Pentium M can cost no matter how much more expensive than building it based on the same Athlon 64 FX-57, we can only state that Pentium M desktops, apparently, will remain a fun toy for fans of “quiet computers” and other “IT aesthetes”.