Intel Pentium 4 6xx and 3.73EE: Favoring Features Over Performance
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on February 21, 2005 6:15 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
So what conclusions do we draw from all this?
The 600 series is more about feature set than performance. Decreasing the cache miss rate and increasing the cache latency isn't exactly the best path to follow in the consumer market. Most PC workloads don't push enough threads or large enough data to really take advantage of the larger cache. We can see the potential improvement in the 43% increase under Maya, and looking back at the Irwindale benchmarks, it's obvious that strapping 2MBs of higher latency cache onto NetBurst has its place. But that won't be the draw of the 600 series on the desktop.
The introduction of EIST and EM64T on the desktop (from the mobile and server space respectively), is a point in the 600 series' favor. Dropping very powerful processors into SFF boxes is more of a possibility with the better heat management features. Of course, the faster the chip, the larger the differences in power as all of the processor models drop to the same frequency and voltage. As for EM64T, we still don't have a 64bit OS from Microsoft. We are on a release candidate, so hopefully we will see a shipping product soon.
The value of these new processors isn't terribly greater than that of the 500 series. If 32bit performance is your only worry, than the 600 processors are not the place to look until the 3.8GHz model becomes available. For those who are interested in the new technology from Intel, it may do to wait and see if prices on the new parts fall after being on the market for some time. Intel wants both of these lines to coexist, but, without a 64bit Windows, there just isn't enough to sell the 600 series over the 500 series yet.
The new 600 series isn't as much of a step forward in performance as it is a step sideways for Intel. As the 600 series core will be the one on which dual core chips are based, it does make sense for Intel to introduce power saving features and a larger cache. Our advice is to look at your favorite application and pick the part that offers the performance you need at the best price. For those who need EIST and EM64T now, even though there is a price premium, performance under the 600 series is generally on par with (or better than) the 500 series.
And if you feel like paying for Intel's 65nm fab plants, feel free to buy the new Pentium 4 3.73GHz Extreme Edition, but if you want the same performance and still want an Intel CPU, the Pentium 4 660 will do just as well.
With dual core coming this year, performance where it is, and street prices showing up higher than we would like to see them, we have trouble recommending the Pentium 4 600 series to anyone who doesn't need it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
#30 90mm SOI= lower wattage.Brian23 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
Look at the power consumption graph for the A64. Why is the 3500 winchester doing so much better than the 3000 and 3200 winchesters?L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
#28 saw almost the same thing at PCPER too.Aenslead - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
I could ALMOST swear I saw the VERY same bencmarks last night @ xbit labs... fancy that.bldckstark - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
227 WATTS!!... My daughter has a crayon maker. It uses a 60W light bulb in a plastic box to melt 3 crayons and pours them into a mold. It melts the wax in about 5 minutes. If I buy a P4 I can melt 11.35 crayons at once. It uses 3.78 times as much energy as is necessary to light my computer room. This is not efficient use of resources.L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
sorry to go off topic, but are the forums down or does this terminal suck?LoneWolf15 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
From a price/performance standpoint, I can't see many good reasons to buy a P4 six series, and in many cases, a five series either (exceptions being high-end 3D rendering apps and heavy video encoding). Not just because of what price of processor (which doesn't seem to net a huge speed increase) but the increased power draw means a heavier power supply, plus more expensive cooling. Compared to the lower power draw of the Athlon 64 CPU's, as well as a lower price at least at the entry-to-mid level CPU's, I think Intel really needs to go back to basics and create a new CPU architecture.mlittl3 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
Okay, I have an addition to my last comment made about the Extreme Edition being a scam. I did some calculations that were left out my anandtech to see if the 3.73EE is truely better than the 3.46EE.Everyone knows the differences between the two processors. The 3.73EE has an 8% increase in CPU speed, less total cache overall but 4x the lower latency L2 cache when compared to L3 cache (the XD-bit and EM64T are also added but that will not effect performance at all with 32-bit OS).
With these added features, the 3.73EE should be better than the 3.46EE especially since the Prescott core is supposed to scale well with clock speed versus the Gallatin/Northwood and the 1066 MHz FSB is supposed to give better performance at higher clock speeds. Well, let's look at the numbers.
Using Anandtech's results, I calculated the % difference between the two processors. They varied between -10 (worse) and 30 % (better). I then added up all the scores (I took the inverse of the less is better scores) and divided them by the introduction price ($999) and the MHz of each processor. Here are the results.
Performance per $:
3.46EE - 20.69
3.73EE - 20.61
Performance per MHz:
3.46EE - 5.96
3.73EE - 5.52
You can do the calculations yourself by using all the benchmark numbers from the two extreme edition CPUs in the review. As you can see, the 3.73EE is worse on a per dollar and per MHz basis compared to the 3.46EE (even though the margin is small, it is still worse for the higher clocked CPU). The Prescott core is a failure IMHO. The 3.73EE is a total scam and the extreme edition processors in general are poor performers. Remember these were released just to offset the marketing of AMD FX processors when Intel got wind of them 1.5 years ago. I don't think Intel was ever going to release them and they keep getting worse and worse.
A scam alert should be issued. Buyer beware!
L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
Ho Hum, intel is still stagnating. 227 watts load? Jeezus, thats incredible.mlittl3 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link
Just a quick, possible correction.I don't know if you meant to or not, but the comparison of the Prescott vs. Prescott 2M table is missing Windows Media Creator HD and Visual Studio results.