THG Prescott Review is online! ~1% slower than NW!

[Mephistopheles]

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html" target="_new">Link! It's real!</A>

<i>Edit: this was about the german version, which was out some hours before the english one. The above link is now in english.</i>

It would seem that Prescott is roughly on par with northwood... actually, it is a northwood match.

But no better, no worse. Intel has a good card in their hands, if they can get SSE3 to good use and increase clock and enable 64 bit technology, and a bad one if not. Prescott is nothing stellar at this point, it's not above northwood... <b>Northwood beats prescott in 1/3 of benchmarks, and prescott beats northwood in 2/3 of benchmarks,</b> and there is no completely clear winner... When Northwood is faster than prescott, it's by a somewhat bigger margin, but it doesn't happen as often.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[taitertot]

Performance is well bellow expectations... Alas I hope all it requires is a recompileing of the software.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well, it's still new technology - SSE3, I mean.

It's below expecations, but at least it's not below Northwood.

I hope it turns out to be better when it matures.

<b>31 stage-pipeline in prescott is true, BTW.</b>

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[taitertot]

SSE3 isnt much in the end just helps things move along in the weaker areas of the core such as pur x87 and SSE-SSE2 streams, also some integer conversion instructions, and some more pack and stack instructions. Oh and I guess 1 instruction to synchronize threading on the Hyper Threading chips.

Perhaps new compiling will help since most code is designed around the idea of smaller trace l1 data and instruction, and l2 data caches.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well, here's the comparison: 3.2C vs 3.2E:

<font color=red>Quake 3 - Northwood still 3% faster.</font color=red>
<font color=green>SPECviewperf 7.1.1, drv-09 - Prescott 13% faster.
SPECviewperf 7.1.1, dx-08 - Prescott 5% faster.
SPECviewperf 7.1.1, light-06 - Prescott 1.5% faster.
SPECviewperf 7.1.1, proe-02 - Prescott 4% faster.
SPECviewperf 7.1.1, ugs-03 - Prescott 7% faster.</font color=green>
<font color=red>Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory - Northwood still 2% faster.</font color=red>
<font color=red>Comanche 4 - Northwood still 16% faster!</font color=red>
<font color=red>UT2003 - Northwood still 2.5% faster.</font color=red>
Splinter Cell - Both with differences inferior to 1%.
3dMark03 - Both with differences inferior to 1%.
X2 Rolling Demo - Both with differences inferior to 1%.
<font color=red>AquaMark 3 - Northwood still 2% faster.</font color=red>
Mainconcept MPEG Encoder 1.4.1 - Exact match. No difference.
<font color=green>Pinnacle Studio 9 - Prescott 7% faster.
XMPEG 5.0.3 / DivX 5.1.1 Pro - Prescott 6% faster.</font color=green>
Windows Media Encoder 9 - Within 1% of each other.
<font color=red>Windows Movie Maker 2.0 - Northwood still 3% faster.</font color=red>
<font color=green>Steinberg Nuendo - Prescott 5% faster.</font color=green>
<font color=red>Lame 3.95.1 - Northwood still 12% faster!</font color=red>
<font color=green>BAPCo SYSmark 2004 - Prescott 2% faster.
WinRAR 3.20 - Prescott 7% faster.</font color=green>
<font color=red>Newtek Lightwave 7.5c - Northwood still 3% faster.
Cinema 4D XL 8.503 - Northwood still 13.6% faster!
Discreet 3DStudio MAX 6.0 - Northwood still 4% faster.
Wolfram Research Mathematica 5.0 - Northwood still 7% faster.</font color=red>

This is the overall picture... So prescott is not earthshattering, but it's nothing to really, really laugh about. It has weaknesses... If it can, however, be brought to clock rates of 4Ghz and will eventually have activated 64-bit extensions, then it will make a difference for Intel alright. Plus, add another prescott @ 3.46Ghz and 1066Mhz FSB, and nobody will be laughing. So, while it is nothing revolutionary at all, it has its own merits.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[taitertot]

Averageing that shows the Northwood is still faster on the old code. Which is fine and dandy I want to see recompiled code running on the chip before I make a sound verdict on this stepping.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.

 

[Mephistopheles]

From these results, you could estimate that Northwood is still 0.2% (I did the math) faster than Prescott. Which is, of course, completely negligible...

So on the average, it can be said that Prescott is equal to Northwood... More or less. If you use lots of apps, on average, you'll get the same performance.

In any case, I think Prescott was built with circuitry in it that will prove it to be more than it's now. It is 99% likely that it has 64-bit circuitry in it...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[taitertot]

True.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.

 

[LordGibson]

My German's a little rusty, does the review talk about overclockability at all?

 

[Mephistopheles]

No, it does not. At all.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[pitsi]

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-tests.html" target="_new">X-bit Labs'</A> review, which seems very good in my opinion, is also out.

 

[speeduk]

So basically if your a gamer stay away from prescott. Comanche + unreal = shocking performance.

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[Snorkius]

I must say I'm disappointed. All the waiting and anxiety and... splat. It's not any better. Sure it will reach big Mhz, but I don't like the whole performance through clockspeed policy.

Really good deal if it really does OC to 4+ Ghz on air, once 400+ memory becomes cheaper.

<b>wooooow <font color=red> Killer Klowns </font color=red> ... from <font color=blue>outer space</font color=blue>... HOLY SH¡T!</b>

 

[kinney]

I thought Toms review said that there is no overclocking included because it wont due to heat issues(?)

I'll sum it up, the review basically shows that Prescott sucks.
And it is a major disappointment.
No reason for a Northwood owner to upgrade to it IMO.
It will be a good processor for people who dont know anything, it fits well in a Dell... and from the review it looks like a fitting "upgrade" for Mike Dell and company. :lol:
And that leaves AMD as the only real choice for an enthusiast as usual.

I'm glad all that hoop-la over this POS is finally over and we can forget about intel again until the next fanboy rally.

----
Support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
Who cares about HL2/D3 when we have Call of Duty today!!

 

[Mephistopheles]

Prescott is no big deal right now, but it doesn't suck. It's no groundbreaker at start. There is no reason to upgrade to it, and that is right, but this doesn't mean that prescott won't be capable of anything useful and that Intel is doomed.

And that leaves AMD as the only real choice for an enthusiast as usual.

Funny, I thought the OCed 2.4C or 2.6C was an excellent enthusiast's choice.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[Mephistopheles]

As an update: Anandtech's <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956" target="_new">prescott review</A> is the most interesting one I've found so far.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[kinney]

<b><i>Enthusiasts</i> used the <i>2500+</i></b>


I'm just giving you a hard time.
But really, you can find an 'ok' enthusiast chip from intel if you dig hard enough.
I meant for those in the know, I dont see any reason to choose Prescott over an A64.
Apologies on my using the word enthusiast, it might not have been the best choice.
I dont always equate enthusiast=overclocker, though I understand many do.

Intels not doomed... its just silly that it is their response to the A64.
Intel fanboys had <b>better</b> hope that Intel <b>really</b> is "holding back" on AMD... and no one really knows, but in either case (if they are/arent), this is pathetic.

So Prescott doesnt suck. Its just pathetic. :lol:

----
Support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
Who cares about HL2/D3 when we have Call of Duty today!!

 

[Mephistopheles]

BTW, <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=13" target="_new">check out</A> prescott's overclocking potential. This is a very strong indication that Intel can ramp up clock speeds with this processor. AMD cannot do that with its current line so easily at this point.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[kinney]

AMD doesnt need too as much. Its about IPC, not ramping up clockspeeds with 50 stage pipelines.
Especially when your not wanting a $300+ processor and maybe wanting something mid to low end...
processors with higher IPC (Athlons) just seem much 'snappier'.
You can tell the difference even in windows IMO.

I prefer AMDs chosen path, to pioneer AMD64 for the consumer market and design an overall better rounded processor than intels increased pipelines with marchetechure in mind.

----
Support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
Who cares about HL2/D3 when we have Call of Duty today!!

 

[Quetzacoatl]

It's not so much the performance loss, but the <b>heat</b> of the processor! Seriously, it's pushing up towards 103 watts for the 3.2ghz. Just imagine how *bad* it will get at 4ghz. Intel must have to package some serious coolers with their procs sooner than later, or they'll be pushing towards the 70 celsius built in temp limiter.

Wait for Tejas :lol:

😎 I run my AthlonXfx at 7.65 Exahertz 😎

 

[tlaughrey]

It's the same old Intel thing ... or at least, the same old Pentium 4 thing. Make the pipeline longer so you can get more MHz out of it to make up for the IPC deficiencies. I suppose it doesn't matter how you get performance, either through MHz or IPC, but I just don't like Intel's approach. I mean, how long can they make the pipeline to keep increasing the speed? I guess time will tell who's approach is better, but I'm sticking with AMD for now.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." </i>

 

[Mephistopheles]

Its about IPC, not ramping up clockspeeds with 50 stage pipelines.

Nope, it never was about IPC. IPC is useless.

It is about PERFORMANCE. Sorry, but this cannot be debated at all. IPC and clock alone don't mean squat.

Especially when your not wanting a $300+ processor and maybe wanting something mid to low end...
processors with higher IPC (Athlons) just seem much 'snappier'.

Prescotts are rather agressively priced. And as for what higher IPC seems, (snappier or whatever) I don't care what it seems. I care about how it performs.

This "feeling" that IPC is always the smart choice over clock rates is completely bogus (note: I said feeling, 'cause that's what it is). You'll feel right at home with a high IPC processor? Suit yourself, the pentium M has the highest IPC to date on consumer-level processors. Doesn't mean it is the fastest at all. You don't gave to feel at home with anything, you have to reason your way through this. This isn't a love affair, this is an objective field - hardware, that is.

Personally, I reason that a processor that performs better is snappier, be it from AMD or Intel.

In any case, I think that Prescott has yet to show its potential. Maybe within two months, when Alderwood and Grantsdale debut with DDR2-533 and a possible 1066Mhz, we'll get to know this architecture's capabilities.

Bear in mind that Prescott is still a great overclocker.


<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[Mephistopheles]

I mean, how long can they make the pipeline to keep increasing the speed? I guess time will tell who's approach is better, but I'm sticking with AMD for now.

While I understand your point, I just wanted to point a small thing out here: you're saying that you don't like Intel's approach because it is without a future, right? But, when you buy a processor, beware, you're not buying its future, you're buying that specific CPU. This is exactly why you won't go out and buy a Scotty right now - because it doesn't look good <i>just now</i>. This is exactly because, some 6 months ago, you'd have chosen a processor from the P4C line - because it excelled in performance and was faster than equivalent offerings from AMD. So sticking with AMD has little to do with saying that Intel's approach will turn out to be less effective in the future... CPUs have to be bought on an each-case basis, regardless of the company's policies for the future. So it wouldn't really be in your best interest to stick to a company solely because you believe its goals for the market for the future are more to your liking.

I hope I managed to express myself clearly here... 😱

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[kinney]

So it wouldn't really be in your best interest to stick to a company solely because you believe its goals for the market for the future are more to your liking.

No, I'm saying I think that AMD took the wiser path than Intel for today AND tomorrow.
That is true now and no longer debatable.

As far as my IPC "feeling", its not a feeling its very noticable. I could benchmark it if you would like, well I wouldnt do that really but I am 100% sure the "feeling" is relating to better PERFORMANCE.

I dont know why you would take intels side though as you are setting yourself up to battle against the hordes.
I dont see much reason to go Intel.

Prescott may not look good right now.. but its a big deal because this is Intels response to the A64, and its a lackluster response.

It appears little AMD is the superior semiconductor manufacturer.

----
Support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
Who cares about HL2/D3 when we have Call of Duty today!!

 

[jclw]

I don't know what you guys were expecting but don't think Prescott "sucks".

It was never meant to be faster then Northwood clock for clock - it was only supposed to allow faster clock speeds and that's what it does. If intel wanted it to be different they would have called it something different (ie: not a P4 2.8E). It was not meant to be an upgrade (ie: you wouldn't buy a 3.2E if you had a 3.0C). Reviews that up now are getting regular 3.6~3.7 overclocks on air, with some cores apparently even hitting well over 4GHz on air. That's not bad at all for the first public stepping using a brand new manufacturing technique.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=24" target="_new">Anand</A> points out that

Prescott 's enhancements actually give it a steeper increase in performance per increase in clock. Not only can Prescott be clocked higher than Northwood, but as its clock speed is increased, it will start to outperform similarly clocked Northwood CPUs.

The first stepping generally doesn't overclock well. What if the next stepping gives us 4.5 overclocks on air? You never know.

*Dual PIII-800 @900 i440BX and Tualeron 1.2 @1.74 i815*