P4 Prescott 3.2GHz compared to P4 Northwood 3.2GHz

[SM-Bot]

The Inquirer: Intel's Prescott 3.2GHz compared to Northwood 3.2GHz


It's already known that this CPU has a longer pipeline and more cache memory, with 16KB of L1 and 1MB of L2 cache, and that it's warmer than a Northwood based P4 at the same clock speed. It's cooled with an Intel traditional top line cooler but it ends up 10 or even more Celsius degrees hotter than the Northwood core. The machine we tested was stable, but it will be hard, probably impossible to clock these chips at 3.8GHz.

Both CPUs are close to each other as will see below, but in Comanche and Quake 3, the old Northwood core has a significant lead. Northwood renders faster while Prescott is faster in Professional OpenGL applications.

Aquamark 3 also likes Northwood more than Prescott, though the CPUs are very close in performance. The Cinebench CPU test shows Prescott ends up a little slower. In PC Mark 2004, Prescott ends up marginally faster.


Full Article

[Omega65]

The numbers say it all, but a 3.4GHz Northwood compared to a 3.2GHz Prescott would make the comparisons odious.

[Thrax]

A rather bland successor for such a dramatic change in manufacturing technology.

I had expected it to be atleast slightly faster than a Northwood, but less than that of a Hammer. What happened in Sunnyvale? SSDD happened. Good on paper, bad in application.

[Enverex]

Hmm, the Prescott gets beaten well in all but the CPU only tests. Doesn't that seen strange to anyone else (graphics issue in the Prescott machine).

[Geeky1]

iirc, the Prescott has a longer pipeline than the Northwood, though. If that's the case, the results come as no surprise to me.

[keto]

Exactly so, G1. There are some new instructions but most software won't be optimized for them yet. Looking like there'll be no reason to upgrade my 2.6C at this point. Hurry up, socket 939 :)

[kanezfan]

didn't they increase this thing to a 30 stage pipeline or something? in ten years they'll have a 5000 Ghz chip with a 30,000 stage pipeline that'll still be slower than an athlon xp at 2.5 Ghz. intel still sucks. smoke and mirrors, that's their game. the public doesn't know any better sadly, and never will until amd spends money on marketing.

[muddocktor]

The Northwood actually shined when it was produced; it actually let the P4 be fully competitive with anything AMD produced up to the hammer series and it's still pretty much neck and neck with today's .13 hammers. This Prescott release reminds me a lot of the P4 willie release in that it is no real upgrade path to what Intel has presently been producing; just another way for them to sell something under the "new" banner. :-/ I'll stick with my present northwood proc myself as I can at least do some decent overclocking on air. The prescott is pretty much going to have to have at least watercooling to do any overclocking at all and the idea of adding 10 more stages of pipeline just to get the POS out the door leaves me stone cold. :shakehead

[Gobbles]

really glad I did not switch.. For along time I was on the fence so to speak but looking at things long term... Intel is a sinking ship. They need to drop the prescott and concentrate on the best thing they have come up with in along time. Banias..

anywho... gonna be AMD for me till Intel gets something working.

[Geeky1]

Kanezfan, I hate to burst your bubble ( :D ) but the only Intel chips that suck are the P4 and P4-based ones, and those only suck compared to AMD's stuff.

The P3, especially the Tualatin core P3s and Celerons, and the Pentium M, are all excellent CPUs.

[MediaMan]

I think you'll find that the top end PRESCOTT processors will not be surfacing in great quantities for review sites. Prescott will be a softer launch and INTEL will be putting it's muscle behind the EE counterparts.

[MJO]

They have a lot of good articles at overclockers.com.
Covering AMD64 and Prescott.
According to one of those articles, there is no justifiable reason to upgrade until late 2004, early 2005. Unless you simplay cannot wait.
2004 is considered a bad year for the overclocker.

I'll dig up the links to those articles if you guys are interested?

[Thrax]

The P4 sucks, Xeon sucks, Itanium sucks...

The only thing that doesn't suck is their low-volume entry into the low-volume mobile market. Some win. :rolleyes:

[drasnor]

Well, initially I was waiting for Prescott to come out so I could make a decision between that or Opteron, but I got impatient and went with the latter. It's good to know I made the right decision.

-drasnor :fold:

[Geeky1]

Thrax: You're right, I forgot about the (t)Itanic err I mean Itanium. But the Xeons are now P4-based, so I covered them with that. Their older (pre-P4) chips were fine.

[gtghm]

The P4 sucks, Xeon sucks, Itanium sucks...

The only thing that doesn't suck is their low-volume entry into the low-volume mobile market. Some win. :rolleyes:

Its easy to say something Sucks when you don't have them or have never used them...

I personally like my Xeons and I would not trade them for any thing.
Bench tests don't mean squat to me.

"g"

[kanezfan]

Kanezfan, I hate to burst your bubble ( :D ) but the only Intel chips that suck are the P4 and P4-based ones, and those only suck compared to AMD's stuff.

The P3, especially the Tualatin core P3s and Celerons, and the Pentium M, are all excellent CPUs.


aye, i agree, however, they're not making PIIIs anymore, won't be making them anymore, and out of the chips you mentioned, will only be making centrinos from here on in, and only it seems for laptops. so i stand by my initial post, intel sucks, they are all smoke and mirrors at this point. I can stick a ferrari body on a ford escort, it don't make it a ferrari. that is what intel does with their chips.

[kanezfan]

Its easy to say something Sucks when you don't have them or have never used them...

I personally like my Xeons and I would not trade them for any thing.
Bench tests don't mean squat to me.

"g"


if it does the job for you then cool. benchmarks arent' everything. the thing is, AMD beats intel in real world usage tests, so we're not saying intel sucks blindly. but I have to agree with you, if I had a dualie xeon setup, I wouldn't be complaining.

[Thrax]

It's also easy to say that they don't suck, despite every shred of quantitative evidence being against you.

[MJO]

http://www.intel.com/labs/features/mi02031.htm?iid=sr+prescott&

Look at intels evil marketing ploy.

Intel's next-generation desktop platform, based on the Intel® NetBurst™ architecture and code-named Prescott, illustrates how Intel is extending Moore's Law, overcoming challenges in process technology, circuitry, and microarchitecture design, to continue gains in performance, frequency scaling, and efficiency.
According to numerous sources Intel have big problems with the technology and design, thier die shrink wasn't easy. And it is not without sacrifice.
The new strained silicon is giving them a nasty headache.

Doing More, Faster
As processor components continue to get smaller, the challenges to improving performance grow. For instance, you either engineer the processor to handle more instructions per clock cycle (doing more work per cycle), increase frequency (the time it takes for a cycle to complete itself), or perform some combination of both.
Intel is talking about IPC?
IIRC I believe they have the lowest IPC?
And it is even lower with the new Prescott.

In summary, Prescott represents advancement in many ways. Furthermore, there are several new ideas Intel is exploring for the next generation to allow processors to reach 15-20 GHz by 2010.
Well what else could they say.
Those 15-20 GHz processors probably have 500 stage pipelines and is thoroughly beaten by an Athlon64 at 8-10 GHz. :bigggrin:

[drasnor]

I don't want a 15-20GHz processor. Just think of the EM radiation that thing is putting off. Lessee... 20GHz would be in the microwave range. Now we're cookin!

-drasnor :fold:

[gtghm]

Ummm thought this thread was about the Prescott vs Northwood not AMD vs Intel...

Becides who cares that argument is so passe nowadays anyways...

Its apples to oranges stuff, both AMD and Intel CPUs get the job done... At anything above 2ghz is more CPU power than any normal application needs to run. At 3ghz the Intel can dally all day long and still process faster than whats required for office or most games... So who gives a crap if the AMD can process 4 more instructions... BFD... you can't tell the difference unless you do a bench mark, sorry I don't play benchmarks or use them to process my photos and design websites... Get what you like/can afford and be happy caus its all gonna change anyway...

I'm outtie,
"g"