Intel Xeon Silver 4208 vs Intel Pentium 4 631 Benchmarks, Specs, Performance Comparison and Differences
|
|
|
|
|
Intel Xeon Silver 4208 vs Intel Pentium 4 631
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Processor | Intel Xeon Silver 4208 | Intel Pentium 4 631 | ||||||
| Market (main) | Server | Desktop | ||||||
| ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
| Microarchitecture | Cascade Lake | Netburst | ||||||
| Core name | Cascade Lake-SP | Cedarmill | ||||||
| Family | Xeon Silver 4200 | Pentium 4 | ||||||
| Part number(s), S-Spec |
BX806954208, |
BX80552631, |
||||||
| Release date | Q2 2019 | Q1 2006 | ||||||
| Lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm | ||||||
| Transistors | — | 188. 000.000 |
||||||
| Cores | 8 | 1 | ||||||
| Threads | 16 | 2 | ||||||
| Base frequency | 2,1 GHz | 3,0 GHz | ||||||
| Turbo frequency | 3,2 GHz | — | ||||||
| High performance cores |
8 Cores 16 Threads @ 2,1 / 3,2 GHz |
1 Core 2 Threads @ 3,0 GHz |
||||||
| Cache memory | 11 MB | 2 MB | ||||||
| Max memory capacity | 1 TB | 2 GB | ||||||
| Memory types |
DDR4-2400 |
DDR2-SDRAM |
||||||
| Max PCIe lanes | 48 | 16 | ||||||
| TDP | 85 W | 86 W | ||||||
| Suggested PSU | 600W ATX Power Supply | 600W ATX Power Supply | ||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | None | None | ||||||
| Socket | LGA3647 | LGA775 | ||||||
| Compatible motherboard | Socket LGA 3647 Motherboard | Socket LGA 775 Motherboard | ||||||
| Maximum temperature | 78°C | 64. 1°C |
||||||
| AI accelerator |
Deep Learning Boost |
— |
||||||
| Crypto engine |
AES New Instructions |
— |
||||||
| Security |
Trusted Execution Technology, |
Execute Disable Bit |
||||||
| CPU-Z single thread | 336 | 69 | ||||||
| CPU-Z multi thread | 2.733 | 137 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 single thread | 116 | 58 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 1. 087 |
48 | ||||||
| PassMark single thread | 1.816 | 956 | ||||||
| PassMark CPU Mark | 11.151 | 833 | ||||||
| (Windows) Geekbench 4 single core |
2.987 | 989 | ||||||
| (Windows) Geekbench 4 multi-core |
13.772 | 1.110 | ||||||
| (Linux | Windows) Geekbench 5 single core |
871 | 154 | ||||||
| (Linux | Windows) Geekbench 5 multi-core |
5.662 | 190 | ||||||
| (SGEMM) GFLOPS performance |
246,7 GFLOPS | 5,76 GFLOPS | ||||||
| (Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio |
162 pts / W | 13 pts / W | ||||||
| Amazon | ||||||||
| eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
The processor Intel Xeon Silver 4208 has more cores, the maximum frequency of Intel Xeon Silver 4208 is greater, that the PDT of Intel Xeon Silver 4208 is lower. The Intel Xeon Silver 4208 was designed earlier.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench.
| CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon Silver 4208 |
336 2.733 |
| Intel Pentium 4 631 |
69 137 |
In single core, the difference is 387%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1895%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
| Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon Silver 4208 |
116 1.  087 |
| Intel Pentium 4 631 |
58 48 |
In single core, the difference is 100%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 2165%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
| PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon Silver 4208 |
1.816 11.151 |
| Intel Pentium 4 631 |
956 833 |
In single core, the difference is 90%.
In multi-core, the differential gap is 1239%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
On Windows:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon Silver 4208 |
2.987 13.772 |
| Intel Pentium 4 631 |
989 1.110 |
In single core, the difference is 202%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1141%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
On Windows:
| Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon Silver 4208 |
612 3.723 |
| Intel Pentium 4 631 |
154 190 |
In single core, the difference is 297%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1859%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Equivalence:
Intel Xeon Silver 4208 AMD equivalentIntel Pentium 4 631 AMD equivalent
See also:
Dual Intel Xeon Silver 4208
Intel Pentium 4 630
Intel Xeon Gold 6230 vs Intel Pentium 4 1.9
Comparative analysis of Intel Xeon Gold 6230 and Intel Pentium 4 1.9 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark.
Intel Xeon Gold 6230
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Pentium 4 1.9
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Xeon Gold 6230
- CPU is newer: launch date 17 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- 19 more cores, run more applications at once: 20 vs 1
- Around 105% higher clock speed: 3.90 GHz vs 1.9 GHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 14 nm vs 180 nm
- 160x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
- 80x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
| Launch date | 2 April 2019 vs August 2001 |
| Number of cores | 20 vs 1 |
| Maximum frequency | 3. 90 GHz vs 1.9 GHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 180 nm |
| L1 cache | 1.25 MB vs 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 20 MB vs 256 KB |
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium 4 1.9
- Around 81% lower typical power consumption: 69.2 Watt vs 125 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 69.2 Watt vs 125 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Xeon Gold 6230
CPU 2: Intel Pentium 4 1.9
| Name | Intel Xeon Gold 6230 | Intel Pentium 4 1. 9 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2107 | |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 44697 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Xeon Gold 6230 | Intel Pentium 4 1.9 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture codename | Cascade Lake | Willamette |
| Family | Xeon Gold | |
| Launch date | 2 April 2019 | August 2001 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1894, $1900 | |
| Place in performance rating | 461 | not rated |
| Processor Number | 6230 | |
| Series | 6200 | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
| Vertical segment | Server | Desktop |
| Status | Discontinued | |
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 2. 10 GHz |
1.90 GHz |
| Bus Speed | 4 × 8 GT/s | 400 MHz FSB |
| L1 cache | 1.25 MB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 20 MB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 27.5 MB | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 180 nm |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 87 °C | 73 °C |
| Maximum frequency | 3. 90 GHz |
1.9 GHz |
| Number of cores | 20 | 1 |
| Number of threads | 40 | |
| Number of Ultra Path Interconnect (UPI) Links | 3 | |
| Unlocked | ||
| Die size | 217 mm2 | |
| Maximum core temperature | 73°C | |
| Transistor count | 42 million | |
| VID voltage range | 1. 570V-1.75V |
|
| ECC memory support | ||
| Max memory channels | 6 | |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 131.13 GB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 1 TB | |
| Supported memory frequency | 2933 MHz | |
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR1, DDR2 |
| Sockets supported | FCLGA3647 | PPGA478, PPGA423 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 125 Watt | 69. 2 Watt |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | |
| Package Size | 53.3mm x 53.3mm | |
| Max number of PCIe lanes | 48 | |
| PCI Express revision | 3.0 | |
| Scalability | 4S | |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Run Sure Technology | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
| Mode-based Execute Control (MBE) | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
| Instruction set extensions | Intel SSE4. 2, Intel AVX, Intel AVX2, Intel AVX-512 |
|
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions 2 (AVX2) | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
| Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
| Intel® TSX-NI | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
| Intel® Volume Management Device (VMD) | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Speed Shift technology | ||
Turbo Boost Max 3. 0 |
||
| FSB parity | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Xeon Gold 6230 with others
Intel
Xeon Gold 6230
vs
AMD
EPYC 7371
Intel
Xeon Gold 6230
vs
Intel
Xeon Gold 6152
Intel
Xeon Gold 6230
vs
Intel
Xeon E-2278G
Intel
Xeon Gold 6230
vs
AMD
EPYC 7402P
Intel
Xeon Gold 6230
vs
AMD
EPYC 7272
Intel
Xeon Gold 6230
vs
Intel
Xeon Gold 6122
Hot Pentium 4 and people’s love / Sudo Null IT News 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 technology : 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 preserving 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 “extra-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 technology : 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 GHz or more, the Pentium 4 of the second generation should be compared not with the outdated Pentium 3, but with AMD’s competitor, 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 processor (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, many variants of motherboards and CPUs would have to be mined. 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 technology : 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 won’t be able to 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: « Prescott core is generally slower than Northwood «.
If the situation of 2000-2002 were repeated, then this would not be a problem: we quickly reach the 4-5 gigahertz line, and leave 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.
When assembling a Pentium 4 as a retro system, I want to portray something like that, and find 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.
I’m starting to enjoy building a retro computer from retro components. In the next article: a slightly more elite Pentium 4 configuration, more benchmarks, and an attempt to bring back my 2005.
Comparison Intel Pentium 4 2.26 vs Intel Xeon 3.06 which is better?
| General | |
|
Type |
|
| Desktop | Server |
|
Architecture code name |
|
| Northwood | Gallatin |
|
Cores A large number of cores improves performance in multi-threaded applications. |
|
| 1 | 1 |
|
Threads More threads help the cores process information more efficiently. Real performance will be noticeable in very specific tasks (video editing, databases). |
|
| 1 | 1 |
|
Process |
|
| 130 nm | 130 nm |
|
Chip size |
|
| 146 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
|
Number of transistors |
|
| 55 million | 286 million
231 million (420%) better than |
|
Maximum frequency Higher clock speed processors perform more calculations per second and thus provide better performance. |
|
| 2.26GHz | 3.07 GHz
Better than at 0. |
