Intel’s Pentium D 820 and Pentium 4 670 processors
IT’S THE GEEKY equivalent of a conversation that most guys would have about a Maxim girl versus the Olsen twins. Would you rather have a single, very fast CPU or a pair of somewhat slower processors? That’s a tough question, and it’s precisely the one that Intel has prompted by releasing a couple of new CPUs today, the Pentium D 820 and the Pentium 4 670. The P4 670 is the fastest single Pentium 4 processor ever released, running at nearly 4GHz. The Pentium D 820, meanwhile, runs a full gigahertz slower, but it has two complete Pentium 4-style CPU cores onboard for a very nice price.
Which is better? Well, that depends on a great many things. Let’s have a look at some of them.
Two new Pentiums roll out
In many ways, the two CPUs Intel is introducing today are fundamentally similar. Both are based on the latest version of the Pentium 4’s Netburst microarchitecture, both ride on an 800MHz front-side bus, and both are capable of 64-bit computing via Intel’s EM64T extensions. But beyond these wide areas of overlap are deep differences in approach.
The Pentium D 820 (left) and Pentium 4 670 (right)
The Pentium 4 670 is arguably the last of an old guard, a CPU intended to extract maximum performance out of a single processor core. The P4 670 extends the familiar Pentium 4 600 series one more speed grade, to 3.8GHz, and like the rest of the 600 series, the P4 670 packs 2MB of onboard cache to further improve performance. For the privilege of owning a CPU that runs at this dizzying speed, you’ll have to pay something close to Intel’s list price of $851.
The cores on the Pentium D 820 pulse along at a relatively leisurely pace of 2.8GHz, but there are two of ’em, so its overall performance in multithreaded applications or when multitasking may be superior to a single-core CPU. We’ve already reviewed the Extreme Edition of Intel’s dual-core desktop chip, code-named Smithfield. The Pentium D is a de-tuned version of the Smithfield core that’s had its Hyper-Threading capabilities disabled and its clock speed dialed back a few notches to 2.
8GHz. In fact, its clock speed is sufficiently slow that Intel apparently saw no need for the 820 to have power management features like Enhanced Speedstep, the C1E halt state, or TM2 thermal throttling. Other recent Pentium desktop processors run at 2.8GHz when throttled back, and the Pentium D 820 is already there.
The real virtue of the Pentium D 820 isn’t just its dual processor cores, though; it’s the price. At only $241, the Pentium D 820 signals that Intel is dead serious about bringing dual-core CPUs to desktop PCs. In fact, the Pentium D’s price is low enough to shake up the whole CPU market. Its arrival presents consumers with a series of stark choices between single-core and dual-core processors at roughly comparable prices.
That fact, combined with the proliferation of very different model numbering systems from AMD and Intel, has made head-to-head competitive comparisons of CPUs quite a bit trickier than in the past. Freed from the constraints of model number-clock speed comparisons, Intel and AMD have priced their CPUs at points that don’t entirely correspond to one another./data/P4-800.jpg)
I’ve made an attempt, in the table below, to classify competing CPUs in a reasonably direct manner, but I may have only succeeded in illustrating the problem.
| CPU | Price | CPU | Price | CPU | Price | CPU | Price |
| Pentium 4 630 | $224 | Athlon 64 3200+ | $194 | ||||
| Pentium 4 640 | $237 | Pentium D 820 | $241 | Athlon 64 3500+ | $272 | ||
| Pentium D 830 | $316 | ||||||
| Pentium 4 650 | $401 | Athlon 64 3800+ | $373 | ||||
| Pentium D 840 | $530 | Athlon 64 4000+ | $482 | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | $537 | ||
| Pentium 4 660 | $605 | Athlon 64 X2 4400+ | $581 | ||||
| Pentium 4 670 | $851 | Athlon 64 FX-55 | $827 | Athlon 64 X2 4600+ | $803 | ||
Pentium 4 XE 3. 73GHz |
$999 | Pentium XE 840 | $999 | Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | $1001 |
That’s official pricing on the Pentium D line, by the way.
You can see the trouble. Identifying a direct competitor for some of these models, like the Pentium D 830 or the Athlon 64 4000+, is downright befuddling. Fortunately, the two processors we’re reviewing here line up fairly directly against the competition. The Pentium 4 670 is priced pretty close to the Athlon 64 FX-55, and the Pentium D 820 just undercuts the Athlon 64 3500+ by $31. That means, of course, that the Pentium D 820’s two somewhat pokey cores will do battle with a relatively quick single-core competitor from AMD.
This is what I meant by stark choices.
AMD doesn’t offer a low-end dual-core processor and apparently doesn’t plan to do so in the near future. For many single-threaded tasks, one of the Pentium D 820’s 2.8GHz cores should be sufficient, but it’s hardly quick by current standardsespecially when you consider that the long pipeline of the Prescott/Smithfield cores means lower clock-for-clock performance. Intel also offers the Pentium 4 640 at the same basic price, but there’s no way a single-core Pentium 4 at 3.2GHz can match the Pentium D 820 overall. I’m getting ahead of myself, though. We’ll let the benchmarks tell that tale.
The Pentium D’s companion: Intel’s 945 Express chipsets
Intel’s dual-core chips won’t work without a new core-logic chipset, so naturally, the Pentium D is arriving with a couple of friends, the 945P and 945G Express chipsets. Yes, Intel has retained the dorky “Express” in the name of the chipsets to remind everyone that these puppies support PCI Express. Fortunately, they’ve also retained all the snazzy features of the 915/925 Express series, including dual channels of DDR2 memory, High Definition Audio, and all the rest.
We recently looked at the high-end, enthusiast-oriented 955X chipset in our Pentium XE 840 review. The 945 series is a higher volume, lower priced version of the 955X with most of the same features. There are, however, two versions of the 945: the 945G with integrated graphics, and the 945P without.
A block diagram of the 945G chipset (Source: Intel)
Like the 955X, the 945 series can handle front-side bus speeds up to 1066MHz and DDR2 memory up to 667MHz, but the 945 is missing what Intel calls Memory Pipeline Technology. Under this fancy marketing name lies a rather commonplace reality: Intel is binning its north bridge chips, picking out the ones that most eagerly run with tighter timings in the memory controller and selling those as 955X chips. Everything else becomes a 945P. This segmentation of north bridges is familiar from the 915/925 series and from the 865/875 products before that. The 955X will perform a little bit better than the 945, and it will cost a little more.
The primary speed difference between the two will come in the form of imperceptibly higher memory access latencies on the 945 series. We’ll quantify that difference in our benchmarks.
Intel’s D95GTP motherboard sports a VGA port and a single PCI-E x1 slot
The 945 series’ ability to support DDR2 667 memory may be most beneficial to the performance of the 945G, whose built-in graphics core will have access more memory bandwidth. In the 945G, Intel has massaged the GMA 900 graphics core from the 915G and given it a new name, the GMA 950. The GMA 950 still has a four-pipe design, but clock speeds are up from 333MHz to 400MHz. These tweaks are sufficient for Intel to claim a 100% performance improvement over the GMA 900 in 3DMark05. The GMA 950 also adds the ability to connect to a media expansion card, useful for such things as adding a TV tuner to one’s system. (The 945P lists for $38 in quantities of 1000, and list price on the 945G in 1K quantities is $42.
So the price of a GMA 950 is effective $4. That, folks, is how Intel got the be the world’s #1 graphics supplier in terms of volume.)
The other end of the chipset equation has changed, too, with the introduction of Intel’s ICH7 and ICH7R south bridge chips. The ICH7 series has two more PCI Express lanes than the ICH6, bringing the total up to six. Both ICH7 chips also support Serial ATA’s new 300MB/s transfer rates (or 3Gb/s, if you must), but only the ICH7R has Intel’s Matrix Storage. The Matrix Storage package includes RAID capabilities, new RAID levels 5 and 10, and support for the AHCI specification. Without AHCI, the non-R version of the ICH7 will be devoid of support for Native Command Queuing (NCQ) and hot-plugging of devices. For that reason, I’d expect even some mid-range 945P-based motherboards to use the ICH7R, as Intel’s D945GTP does.
Test notes
We have focused our testing today on the question of thread-level parallelism, in part because we believe that is the most important performance question one can explore in relation to multi-core processors.
However, we are excited about the possibilities for better multitasking that may come with dual-core CPUs, and we’d be glad to take your suggestions for testing multitasking scenarios.
Also, we have included results for the Pentium D 840 in our testing, which we obtained by disabling Hyper-Threading on our Extreme Edition 840. Since the Pentium D 840 is just an Extreme Edition 840 sans HT, the numbers should be valid. Similarly, the Athlon 64 3500+ scores you’ll see in the following pages were obtained by underclocking an Athlon 64 3800+ (with the new “Venice” core) to 2.2GHz. The performance should be identical to a “real” 3500+.
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 | Pentium D 820 2. 8GHz |
Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz Pentium D 840 3.2GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 840 3.2GHz |
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz | Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (Venice) Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz (Venice) Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz |
| Pentium 4 670 3.8GHz | ||||
| System bus | 800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped) | 800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped) | 1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped) | 1GHz HyperTransport |
| Motherboard | Intel D945GTP | Intel D955XBK | Intel D955XBK | Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe |
| BIOS revision | NT94510J. 86A.0897 |
BK95510J.86A.1152 | BK95510J.86A.1234 | MCT2/dualcore |
| BK95510J.86A.1452 | ||||
| North bridge | 945G MCH | 955X MCH | 955X MCH | nForce4 SLI |
| South bridge | ICH7R | ICH7R | ICH7R | |
| Chipset drivers | INF Update 7.0.0.1019 | INF Update 7.0.0.1019 | INF Update 7. 0.0.1019 |
SMBus driver 4.45 IDE driver 4.75 |
| Memory size | 1GB (2 DIMMs) | 1GB (2 DIMMs) | 1GB (2 DIMMs) | 1GB (2 DIMMs) |
| Memory type | Corsiar XMS2 5400UL DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz | Corsiar XMS2 5400UL DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz | Corsiar XMS2 5400UL DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz | Corsair XMS Pro 3200XL DDR SDRAM at 400MHz |
| CAS latency (CL) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| RAS precharge (tRP) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Cycle time (tRAS) | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
| Hard drive | Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150 | |||
| Audio | Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5 with SigmaTel 5.  10.4456.0 drivers |
Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5 with SigmaTel 5.10.4456.0 drivers |
Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5 with SigmaTel 5.10.4456.0 drivers |
Integrated nForce4/ALC850 with Realtek 5.10.0.5820 drivers |
| Graphics | GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 71.84 drivers | |||
| OS | Windows XP Professional x64 Edition | |||
| OS updates | – | |||
All tests on the Pentium systems were run with Hyper-Threading enabled, except where otherwise noted.
Thanks to Corsair for providing us with memory for our testing. Their products and support are both are far and away superior to generic, no-name memory.
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:
- SiSoft Sandra 2005 SR1 10.50 64-bit
- ScienceMark 2.0 64-bit
- Compiled binary of C Linpack port from Ace’s Hardware
- POV-Ray for Windows 3.6 64-bit
- SMPOV 4.3
- 3ds max 7.0
- Cinebench 2003
- LAME MT 3.97a 64-bit
- Xmpeg 5.0.3 with DivX Video 5.21
- Windows Media Encoder 9
- Sphinx 3.3
- picCOLOR v4.0 build 545 64-bit
- DOOM 3 1.1 with trdelta1 demo
- Far Cry 1.3 with tr3-pier demo
- Unreal Tournament 2004 v3355 with trdemo1
- 3DMark05 v120
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
We’ve tested the Pentium D with the 945 chipset because that’s the platform this CPU will generally use. The rest of the Pentium processors were tested on the 955X chipset. As a result, these synthetic benchmarks give us a fix on the difference between the 945 and 955X chipsets: about 12 nanoseconds of access latency and 200-300 MB/s of memory bandwidth.
Gaming performance
Up next are some gaming tests, which will essentially serve to illustrate the futility of running a dual-core processor in a single-threaded application. Notice that we’ve included above each result a little graph generated by the Windows Task Manager as the benchmark ran on our dual Opteron 275 system (with four total CPU cores.) This should give you some indication of the amount of threading in the application. In some cases with single-threaded apps like the games below, the task will oscillate back and forth between one CPU and the next, but total utilization generally won’t go above 50% for a dual-core or 25% for a quad-core (or quad-front-end, in the case of the XE 840 with Hyper-Threading) system.
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.
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.
Unreal Tournament 2004
Our UT2004 demo shows yours truly putting the smack down on some bots in an Onslaught game.
The stark choices I’ve been talking about are illustrated vividly here. The Pentium D 820 trails the pack in all three of these games. Sure, Doom 3’s frame rates are still crazy high and Far Cry isn’t bad, but UT2004 is looking a little shaky. I have expressed reservations in the past about playability in UT2004 with lower speed grades of the Prescott core, and those reservations were based on my experience with 3.2GHz processors that achieved higher average frame rates than the Pentium D 840 did here.
Those seeking creamy multitasking smoothness from the Pentium D 820 may get it, but they’ll likely sacrifice some smoothness when playing single-threaded games. Of course, a pokey performance here and there from the Pentium D 820 can be forgiven, given its price. The diamond-studded Pentium 4 670 has no excuse for getting shown up by the Athlon 64 3500+. Yes, the P4 670 is the fastest Pentium 4 for gaming, just edging out the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz, but it’s still not very quick compared to the competition.
3DMark05
Any of these CPUs can pretty much drive a GeForce 6800 Ultra to its limits in 3DMark05’s default resolution, but the multithreaded 3DMark CPU tests are something else. They use the CPU as a software vertex shader, and multi-core CPUs can benefit from that arrangement. The Pentium D 820 nearly manages to match the much more expensive Pentium 4 670 as a result.
POV-Ray rendering
POV-Ray just recently made the move to 64-bit binaries, and thanks to the nifty SMPOV distributed rendering utility, we’ve been able to make it multithreaded, as well.
SMPOV spins off any number of instances of the POV-Ray renderer, and it will bisect the scene in several different ways. For this scene, the best choice was to divide the screen up horizontally between the different threads, which provides a fairly even workload.
You might want to get used to seeing the Pentium D 820 outrun the Pentium 4 670 as we step through our rendering benchmarks. Thanks to Hyper-Threading, the Pentium 4 670 benefits from adding a second rendering thread, but not like a dual-core CPU does. The P4 670 trails its competitor, the Athlon 64 FX-55, by over 30 seconds of render time, while the Pentium D 820 trounces the Athlon 64 3500+. Note, though, that with only a single thread, the Pentium D 820 is mighty slow.
3dsmax 7 rendering
We tested 3ds max performance by rendering 20 frames of a sample scene at 320×240 resolution. This particular scene makes use of a motion-blur effect that requires extensive multi-pass rendering.
We tried two different renderers: 3ds max’s default scanline renderer and its built-in version of the mental ray renderer.
Both of 3dsmax’s rendering engines produce results relatively similar to those we saw in POV-Ray. The Pentium D 820 outperforms AMD’s fastest single-core CPU, the Athlon 64 FX-55, while the P4 670 finishes in the lower part of the field.
Cinema 4D rendering
Cinema 4D’s rendering engine does a very nice job of distributing the load across multiple processors, as the Task Manager graph shows.
The P4 670 looks relatively stronger in Cinebench, but the Pentium D 820 still leads it.
Cinebench’s shading tests are single-threaded, and it shows. The Pentium 4 670 handles these tests well enough, but the Pentium D 820 is practically outclassed by the rest of the field, including the Athlon 64 3500+.
LAME audio encoding
LAME MT is, as you might have guessed, a multithreaded version of the LAME MP3 encoder.
LAME MT was created as a demonstration of the benefits of multithreading specifically on a Hyper-Threaded CPU like the Pentium 4. You can even download a paper (in Word format) describing the programming effort.
Rather than run multiple parallel threads, LAME MT runs the MP3 encoder’s psycho-acoustic analysis function on a separate thread from the rest of the encoder using simple linear pipelining. That is, the psycho-acoustic analysis happens one frame ahead of everything else, and its results are buffered for later use by the second thread. The author notes, “In general, this approach is highly recommended, for it is exponentially harder to debug a parallel application than a linear one.”
We have results for two different 64-bit versions of LAME MT from different compilers, one from Microsoft and one from Intel, doing two different types of encoding, variable bit rate and constant bit rate. We are encoding a massive 10-minute, 6-second 101MB WAV file here, as we have done in our previous CPU reviews.
With but one thread, the Pentium D 820 chugs through the audio encoding process, but with two, it picks up some steam. The P4 670 benefits quite a bit from multithreading, as well.
Xmpeg/DivX video encoding
We used the Xmpeg/DivX combo to convert a DVD .VOB file of a movie trailer into DivX format. Like LAME MT, this application is only dual threaded.
Windows Media Encoder video encoding
We asked Windows Media Encoder to convert a gorgeous 1080-line WMV HD video clip into a 640×460 streaming format using the Windows Media Video 8 Advanced Profile codec.
Both of the new Intel processors outdo their single-core rivals from AMD when it comes to video encoding, and the Pentium D 820 makes a strong argument for favoring two slower cores over one faster one in Windows Media Encoder.
ScienceMark
We’re using the 64-bit beta version of ScienceMark for these tests, and several of its components are multithreaded. ScienceMark author Alexander Goodrich says this about the Molecular Dynamics simulation:
Molecular Dynamics is lightly multithreaded – one thread takes care of U/I aspects, and the other thread takes care of the computation. The computation itself is not multithreaded, though Tim and I were looking into ways of changing the algorithm to support multi-threading programming a couple years ago – it’s a lot of effort, unfortunately. When MD [is] running there [is] a total of 2 threads for the process.
Here are the results:
The Primordia test “calculates the Quantum Mechanical Hartree-Fock Orbitals for each electron in any element of the periodic table.” Alex says this about it:
Primordia is multithreaded. Two main tasks occur which allow this to happen. Essentially, we identified 2 parallel tasks that could be done. We could probably take this a step further and optimize it even more. There is an issue, however, with the Pentium Extreme Edition that we’ve identified.
The second computation thread gets executed on the logical HT thread rather than the 2nd core, so performance isn’t as good as it could be. This will be fixed in the next revision. This doesn’t effect [sic] the regular Pentium D. A workaround could include disabling HT on Pentium EE. There are 3 threads for primordia – 2 threads for computation, 1 thread for U/I.
Although the Molecular Dynamics test is lightly multithreaded, the Pentium D 820 can’t overcome its lower clock speed by using its second CPU here. Primordia is another story, though. The Pentiums all perform well in the Primordia test, beating out all of the single-core Athlons.
SiSoft Sandra
Next up is SiSoft’s Sandra system diagnosis program, which includes a number of different benchmarks. The one of interest to us is the “multimedia” benchmark, intended to show off the benefits of “multimedia” extensions like MMX and SSE/2. According to SiSoft’s FAQ, the benchmark actually does a fractal computation:
This benchmark generates a picture (640×480) of the well-known Mandelbrot fractal, using 255 iterations for each data pixel, in 32 colours.
It is a real-life benchmark rather than a synthetic benchmark, designed to show the improvements MMX/Enhanced, 3DNow!/Enhanced, SSE(2) bring to such an algorithm. The benchmark is multi-threaded for up to 64 CPUs maximum on SMP systems. This works by interlacing, i.e. each thread computes the next column not being worked on by other threads. Sandra creates as many threads as there are CPUs in the system and assignes [sic] each thread to a different CPU.
We’re using the 64-bit port of Sandra. The “Integer x16” version of this test uses integer numbers to simulate floating-point math. The floating-point version of the benchmark takes advantage of SSE2 to process up to eight Mandelbrot iterations at once.
This is another place where the Intel processors look quite strong. Once more, though, the dual-core chips steal the show. 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. However, the versions of Sphinx we’re using are only single-threaded.
For once, the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz reaps the benefits of its faster bus to nudge out the P4 670 for the top spot. The Pentium D 820 again grinds its way through a single-threaded app.
picCOLOR
picCOLOR was created by Dr. Reinert H. G. Müller of the FIBUS Institute. This isn’t Photoshop; picCOLOR’s image analysis capabilities can be used for scientific applications like particle flow analysis. Dr. Müller has supplied us with new revisions of his program for some time now, all the while optimizing picCOLOR for new advances in CPU technology, including MMX, SSE2, and Hyper-Threading. Naturally, he’s ported picCOLOR to 64 bits, so we can test performance with the x86-64 ISA.
At our request, Dr. Müller, the program’s author, added larger image sizes to this latest build of picCOLOR. We were concerned that the thread creation overhead on the tests rather small default image size would overshadow the benefits of threading. Dr. Müller has also made picCOLOR multithreading more extensive. Eight of the 12 functions in the test are now multithreaded.
Scores in picCOLOR, by the way, are indexed against a single-processor Pentium III 1GHz system, so that a score of 4.14 works out to 4.14 times the performance of the reference machine.
Dual-core wins again in this multithreaded test, with the Pentium D 820 easily surpassing the Athlon 64 3500+and the Pentium 4 670, for good measure.
Power consumption
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 SMPOV and the 64-bit version of the POV-Ray renderer to load up the CPUs. In all cases, we asked SMPOV to use the same number of threads as there were CPU front ends in Task Managerso four for the Pentium XE 840, two for the Opteron 175, and so on.
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 processors and the Pentium D 840 and Pentium XE 840 CPUs, the C1E halt state is always active, even in the “no power management” tests.) Sadly, the beta BIOS for our Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe mobo wouldn’t support Cool’n’Quiet on the Athlon 64 X2 processors. AMD says all of its dual-core chips will support power management once the proper BIOS support becomes available.
The Pentium D 820 doesn’t support power management, as we’ve noted.
The AMD processors simply consume less power, both at idle and under load, than the Pentiums do. That’s been the case for some time now, although Intel has made progress with Speedstep and the like. Interestingly enough, the Pentium D 820’s pair of 2.8GHz cores consume almost exactly as much power under load as the Pentium 4 670’s single 3.8GHz core. This is one of the main reasons why Intel is moving away from higher clock speeds towards multi-core CPUs. We’ve already seen that the Pentium D 820 can often outperform the P4 670 in multithreaded applications, though they share the same basic power needs.
I sure wish the Pentium D 820 supported lower multipliers for use with Speedstep, though. There’s no good reason why this CPU should consume as much power at idle as it does.
Conclusions
The Pentium 4 670 is, I think, a good example of why the single-core approach wasn’t working so well for Intel. Despite its high clock speed, the P4 670 struggles in some single-threaded applications, particularly games. The comparably priced Athlon 64 FX-55 is much faster, and so is the much cheaper Athlon 64 3500+. Multithreaded apps do take advantage of Hyper-Threading and make the P4 670 more competitiveperhaps on par with the Athlon 64 FX-55 overall when multiple threads are in use. Even so, a Pentium 4 670-based system consumes about 45 more watts under load than an FX-55 system. Intel has managed to tame the Prescott core’s heat and power needs somewhat through power management schemes and better manufacturing, but it’s still rather hungry when going full tilt. The Pentium D 820 typifies Intel’s new approach, which looks very appealing given the numbers we’ve seen here today. In multithreaded applications, the Pentium D 820 races by the Athlon 64 3500+, which is a more expensive CPU. In fact, the Pentium D 820 frequently outperforms the Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Pentium 4 670, and our Pentium D system consumes no more power under load than our Pentium 4 670 rig.
Still, Pentium D 820’s performance does present some rather bold contrasts. It’s the slowest CPU in the pack whenever we throw a single-threaded test at it. The 820’s gaming performance especially raises some red flags for us, as we’ve noted. Eventually, games will most likely make the conversion to multithreading, but in the interim, I worry that the newest, most intensive game engines may not run terribly well on a Pentium D at 2. 8GHz. Many games will work just fine, no doubt, but those that use lots of AI or physics may be a strain. Hard-core gamers will want to stay away, as will others who extensively use one single-threaded application at a time. The Athlon 64 3500+ is the better choice for them.
With that caveat noted, the Pentium D 820 is still a hellvua bargain at $241, and it’s not even the true sweet spot for the Pentium D line. I’d probably pay the $60 or so premium for the extra 200MHz per core offered by the Pentium D 830, personally, just to be sure that my single-threaded performance was snappy enough to satisfy.
I expect the Pentium D processor, teamed up with the 945G chipset, to dominate the mid-range PC market once folks discover its virtues. For everything from corporate desktops to boxes for power users, from video editing workstations to home theater PCs, the Pentium D looks tough to beat. (AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 is an amazing CPU, but with prices starting at over $500, it will be a high-end choice only. ) Even casual gamers will want to take a long, hard look at the Pentium D. It fuses the creamy smoothness of true symmetric multiprocessing with the simplicity and affordability of commodity desktop PC componentsa combo that’s awfully hard not to like. What’s more, the Pentium D, P4 670, and the 945 chipset should all be available starting today, according to Intel. Make mine twins, please.
Intel Pentium D 820 vs Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium D 820 and Intel Pentium 4 HT 630 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.
Intel Pentium D 820
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium D 820
- CPU is newer: launch date 3 month(s) later
- 1 more cores, run more applications at once: 2 vs 1
- Around 7% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 179 vs 168
- Around 43% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 307 vs 214
| Launch date | May 2005 vs February 2005 |
| Number of cores | 2 vs 1 |
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 vs 1 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 179 vs 168 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 307 vs 214 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
- Around 7% higher clock speed: 3 GHz vs 2.
8 GHz
- Around 4% higher maximum core temperature: 66.6°C vs 64.1°C
- Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 84 Watt vs 95 Watt
| Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz |
| Maximum core temperature | 66.6°C vs 64.1°C |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 84 Watt vs 95 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Pentium D 820
CPU 2: Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|
||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
|
| Name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 HT 630 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 179 | 168 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 307 | 214 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 HT 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture codename | Smithfield | Prescott |
| Launch date | May 2005 | February 2005 |
| Place in performance rating | 2713 | 2718 |
| Processor Number | 820 | 630 |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 2. |
3.00 GHz |
| Bus Speed | 800 MHz FSB | 800 MHz FSB |
| Die size | 206 mm2 | 135 mm2 |
| Front-side bus (FSB) | 800 MHz | |
| L1 cache | 28 KB | 28 KB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 2048 KB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 64. |
66.6°C |
| Maximum frequency | 2.8 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Number of cores | 2 | 1 |
| Number of threads | 2 | |
| Transistor count | 230 million | 169 million |
| VID voltage range | 1.200V-1.400V | 1.200V-1.400V |
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Package Size | 37. |
37.5mm x 37.5mm |
| Sockets supported | PLGA775 | PLGA775 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 84 Watt |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
| FSB parity | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
| Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 32-bit | |
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Pentium D 820 with others
Intel
Pentium D 820
vs
Intel
Pentium 4 HT 630
Intel
Pentium D 820
vs
Intel
Pentium 4 HT 541
Intel
Pentium D 820
vs
Intel
Pentium 4 HT 531
Intel
Pentium D 820
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Intel
Pentium D 820
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 2000+
Intel
Pentium D 820
vs
AMD
Phenom II 42 TWKR Black Edition
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Full Specifications
The Intel Pentium D 820 is a Desktop processor with 2 cores, launched in 2005. It is part of the Pentium D lineup, using the Smithfield architecture with Socket PLGA775. The core-count is effectively doubled, to 2 threads. Intel is building the Pentium D 820 on a 90 nm production process. You may freely adjust the unlocked multiplier on Pentium D 820, which simplifies overclocking greatly, as you can dial in any overclocking frequency up to 3.1GHz. With a TDP of 130 W, the Pentium D 820 consumes a lot of power, so good cooling is definitely needed. Intel’s processor supports DDR2 memory with a dual-channel interface.
The Intel Pentium 4 630 is a Desktop processor with 1 cores, launched in 2005. It is part of the Pentium 4 lineup, using the Prescott 2M architecture with Socket PLGA775. The core-count is effectively doubled, to 1 threads. Intel is building the Pentium 4 630 on a 90 nm production process. Intel’s processor supports DDR2 memory with a dual-channel interface.
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 General
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Series | Pentium D | Pentium 4 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Achitecture codename | Smithfield | Prescott 2M |
| Release date | on May 2005 | n/d |
| Place in performance rating | 1184 | 1066 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 90 nm |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Compatibility
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | — |
| Socket | PLGA775 | PLGA775 |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Benchmarks
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Hyper-Threading | — | + |
| L1 cache | 28 KB | — |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | — |
| Maximum frequency | 2. |
3 GHz |
| Turbo Boost | — | — |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Memory Specifications
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | — |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Technical Specs
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Bus support | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Demand Based Switching | — | — |
| Die size | 206 mm2 | — |
| Maximum core temperature | 64 °C | 67 °C |
| Number of cores | 2 | 1 |
| Number of threads | 2 | 1 |
| Transistor count | 169 million | — |
| VID voltage range | 1. |
1.2V-1.4V |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Security Technologies
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| EDB | + | + |
| TXT | — | — |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Technologies and Extensions
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | — | + |
| FSB parity | — | — |
| Idle States | + | — |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Virtualization Technologies
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| VT-d | — | — |
| VT-x | — | — |
Pentium D 820 vs Pentium 4 630 Other
| Pentium D 820 | Pentium 4 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| PAE | 32 Bit | — |
Comparison of Intel Pentium D 820 and Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium D 820 and Intel Pentium 4 HT 630 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 D 820
versus
Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Pentium D 820
- Newer processor, 3 month(s) difference in release dates: 1 more applications to run simultaneously
- vs 1
- About 7% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core benchmark: 179 vs 168
- About 43% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core benchmark: 307 vs 214
| Issue date | May 2005 vs February 2005 |
| Number of cores | 2 vs 1 |
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 2 vs 1 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 179 vs 168 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 307 vs 214 |
Reasons to choose Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
- About 7% more clock speed: 3 GHz vs 2.
8 GHz
- About 4% more maximum core temperature: 66.6°C vs 64.1°C
- About 4% more max core temperature: 66.6°C vs 64.1°C
- % less power consumption: 84 Watt vs 95 Watt
| Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz |
| Maximum core temperature | 66.6°C vs 64.1°C |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 84 Watt vs 95 Watt |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: Intel Pentium D 820
CPU 2: Intel Pentium 4 HT 630
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
| Name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 HT 630 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 179 | 168 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 307 | 214 |
Performance comparison
| Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 HT 630 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Smithfield | Prescott |
| Production date | May 2005 | February 2005 |
| Place in ranking | 2713 | 2718 |
| Processor Number | 820 | 630 |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 2. |
3.00 GHz |
| Bus Speed | 800 MHz FSB | 800 MHz FSB |
| Crystal area | 206 mm2 | 135 mm2 |
| System bus (FSB) | 800MHz | |
| Level 1 cache | 28KB | 28KB |
| Level 2 cache | 2048KB | 2048KB |
| Process | 90nm | 90nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 64. |
66.6°C |
| Maximum frequency | 2.8 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Number of cores | 2 | 1 |
| Number of threads | 2 | |
| Number of transistors | 230 million | 169 million |
| Permissible core voltage | 1.200V-1.400V | 1.200V-1.400V |
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Package Size | 37. |
37.5mm x 37.5mm |
| Supported sockets | PLGA775 | PLGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 84 Watt |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
| Parity FSB | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
| Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 32-bit | |
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) |
Comparison of Intel Pentium 4 HT 531 and Intel Pentium D 820
Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium 4 HT 531 and Intel Pentium D 820 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 HT 531
versus
Intel Pentium D 820
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Pentium 4 HT 531
- Newer processor, 1 month(s) difference in release dates: 3 GHz
- about 7 GHz faster GHz
- About 6% more max core temperature: 67.7°C vs 64.1°C
- About 13% less power consumption: 84 Watt vs 95 Watt
| Release date | June 2005 vs May 2005 |
| Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz |
| Maximum core temperature | 67.7°C vs 64.1°C |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 84 Watt vs 95 Watt |
Reasons to choose an Intel Pentium D 820
- 1 more core, the ability to run more applications at the same time: 2 vs 1
- L1 cache is about 75% larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- Cache L2 is 2 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- Performance in the Geekbench 4 — Single Core benchmark is about 7% higher: 179vs 168
- About 43% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 307 vs 214
| Number of cores | 2 vs 1 |
| Level 1 cache | 28 KB vs 16 KB |
| Level 2 cache | 2048 KB vs 1024 KB |
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 2 vs 1 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 179 vs 168 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 307 vs 214 |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: Intel Pentium 4 HT 531
CPU 2: Intel Pentium D 820
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
| Name | Intel Pentium 4 HT 531 | Intel Pentium D 820 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 168 | 179 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 214 | 307 |
Performance comparison
| Intel Pentium 4 HT 531 | Intel Pentium D 820 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Prescott | Smithfield |
| Production date | June 2005 | May 2005 |
| Place in the ranking | 2717 | 2713 |
| Processor Number | 531 | 820 |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 3. |
2.80 GHz |
| Bus Speed | 800 MHz FSB | 800 MHz FSB |
| Crystal area | 112 mm2 | 206 mm2 |
| Level 1 cache | 16KB | 28KB |
| Level 2 cache | 1024KB | 2048KB |
| Process | 90nm | 90nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 67.7°C | 64.1°C |
| Maximum frequency | 3 GHz | 2. |
| Number of cores | 1 | 2 |
| Number of transistors | 125 million | 230 million |
| Permissible core voltage | 1.200V-1.425V | 1.200V-1.400V |
| System bus (FSB) | 800MHz | |
| Number of threads | 2 | |
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 1 | 2 |
| Package Size | 37. |
37.5mm x 37.5mm |
| Supported sockets | PLGA775 | PLGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 84 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
| Parity FSB | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 32-bit | |
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) |
Compare Intel Pentium D 820 vs Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.
0
| Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0 |
|---|---|
| System bus data Intel Pentium D 820 — 800 MHz FSB | Pentium 4 P4 3.0 is very much inferior in terms of the number of cores, 1 vs. 2 1 vs 2 |
| Pentium D 820 is significantly superior in terms of manufacturability, its process technology is 90 nanometers, compared to 130 nm for Pentium 4 P4 3.0 | Pentium 4 P4 3.0 is 130nm |
| The Pentium D 820 thermal output is slightly higher than the Pentium 4 P4 3.0, its TDP is 95 watts | is 89W |
| Pentium D 820 supports x64 architecture | N/a |
Comparison of instructions and technologies
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3. |
Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turbo Boost | — | Intel auto overclocking technology. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep) | — | Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Energy Saving Technology. | |
| Stop Grant state | — | Energy saving status. | |
| Extended HALT state | — | Extended stop state. | |
| Idle States | — | Idle states. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMX (Multimedia Extensions) | — | Multimedia extensions. | |
| SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) | — | Streaming SIMD processor extension. | |
| SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) | — | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 2. | |
| SSE3 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 3) | — | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 3. | |
| EM64T (Extended Memory 64-bit Technology) | — | 64-bit extended memory technology. |
|
| NX (Execute disable bit) | — | Execution inhibit bit. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| TXT (Trusted Execution Technology) | — | Trusted Execution Technology. | |
| EDB (Execute Disable Bit) | — | Execute trip bit. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| VT-x (Virtualization technology) | — | Virtualization technology. |
|
| VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O) | — | Virtualization technology for directed I/O. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Pentium D 820 | Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hyper-Threading | — | Hyperthreading technology. | |
| Dynamic FSB frequency switching | — | Dynamic FSB frequency switching. | |
| DBS (Demand Based Switching) | — | Switching on request. | |
| PAE (Physical Address Extension) | 32 bit | — | Physical address extension. |
Benchmarks
Overall performance rating
The overall rating is calculated by the formula, taking into account the indicators: test results in benchmarks, frequency, release year, temperature, architecture, instructions, socket, number of cores and threads, overclocking technologies, and also much more. The results of the overall rating showed that the Pentium 4 P4 3.0 outperforms its rival Pentium D 820 in most parameters. The Pentium D 820 barely gains 432 points in comparison with the competitor.
PassMark CPU Mark
This is perhaps the most common benchmark tester on the Internet. Almost all CPUs presented on our site have been tested in PassMark. The benchmark has a large pool of tools for a comprehensive assessment of the performance of a personal computer, in particular a processor. Among the tests there are floating point calculations, game physics calculations, extended instructions checking, integer calculations, compression, encryption, multi-threaded and single-threaded tests. In this case, you can compare the received data with other configurations in a common database.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Single threaded test
The ray tracing method is used. The basic mode of passing performance tests is multi-level reflections, spatial light sources, working with light, simulating global illumination, photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, and procedural shaders. It is possible to test many processor systems. Released by MAXON, it is based on the 3D editor Cinema 4D. Single in its test uses only one core and one thread for rendering. The test is carried out on Mac and Windows operating systems. This benchmark for video cards and processors is outdated in our time.
Cinebench 10 (32bit) Multi-threaded test
Multi Core is another test option in Cinebench R10 that already uses multi-threaded and multi-core testing mode. Please note that the number of threads in this version of the program is limited to 16.
Cinebench 11.
5 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
64-bit version of CINEBENCH 11.5 benchmark — can load the CPU at 100% using all threads and cores. It differs from older versions, 64 threads are already supported here.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Excellent fully functional Cinebench 11.5 from Maxon. In this case, Single-Core tests are performed using one core and one thread. His tests have not lost their relevance today. In testing, as before, the ray tracing method is used, a highly detailed three-dimensional room is calculated with a large number of glass and crystalline and translucent spheres. The result of the test is the value «frames per second».
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
Multi-Thread Cinebench R15 — will test your system to the fullest, demonstrating everything it is capable of. All CPU cores and threads are involved in rendering complex 3D objects. It is ideal for new multi-threaded CPUs from Intel and AMD. it can use 256 computation threads.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Cinebench 15 is the most up-to-date benchmark from the Finnish Maxon development team. A complex 3D scene is being rendered with a large number of light sources, highly detailed objects and reflections. It checks the system: both video cards and processors. For the CPU, the result of the calculation will be the number of PTS points, and for video cards, the number of frames per second. FPS. In the Single Core version of the program, 1 thread is involved in rendering.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded benchmark
Geekbench 4 64-bit multi-threaded benchmark. It’s multi-platform support for various devices and operating systems makes Geekbench benchmarks the most common now. This is
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
The Single-Core test uses one processor thread. The program, like its earlier versions, can still be run on systems: Linux, Windows, Mac OS. For the first time, iOS and Android mobile devices are also supported in this version. The latest single-threaded version of Geekbench 4 to test laptops and desktops.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Multi-threaded test
The Multi Core version of the Geekbench 3 benchmark — can allow you to make a strong «reliability» test of your build and show how stable your OS is.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single-threaded test
The Geekbench cross-platform tester is often used to test the system under Mac, but it can be run on both Linux and Windows. The basic purpose is to test the performance of processors. The Single Core version of the program loads only one thread and one CPU core.
Geekbench 2
Today there are more recent updates, fourth and fifth. An outdated version of the Geekbench 2 tester. We have up to two hundred CPU models on our site that have test results in this program.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1
In fact, this is a practical test of system performance by transcoding HD files to H. 264 format, the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. Frame rate processed in sec. — result of checking. An ideal benchmark for multi-core and multi-threaded CPUs. This test is faster compared to Pass 2, because encoding occurs at the same speed.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2
This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression. The resulting value is also measured in frames per second. The result is better video quality. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, however encoding is already happening at a variable rate. It is important to be aware that a very real task is being performed, and the x264 codec is used in many video programs. Therefore, the test results realistically reflect the efficiency of the system.
3DMark06 CPU
Benchmark to evaluate the performance of the CPU and video system. Created using the DirectX 9.0 library by Futuremark. CPUs are tested in 2 ways: the game AI does pathfinding and another test simulates the engine using PhysX.