Intel’s Pentium 4 2.53GHz and 850E chipset

THEY’VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH for months. These high-end processor comparisons we do have been a brutal back-and-forth battle between Intel and AMD for x86 performance supremacy. Intel took the lead briefly at 2GHz, then AMD introduced the Athlon XP and pulled back in front. The Pentium 4 “Northwood” hit the scene at 2.2GHz with a larger, 512K cache, and AMD countered on the same day with the Athlon XP 2000+.

The result? A tie.

It’s been like this for months now, and I’m running out of ways to say, “Yeah, they’re pretty much tied, except sometimes one is much faster than the other, depending on what you want to do.” Last time out, we had more of the same at 2.4GHz versus 2100+.

Today, however, is different. While AMD struggles to deliver its first 0.13-micron version of the Athlon to the world, Intel is unleashing a new breed of Pentium 4 chips along with a new chipset to support them. These new processors will talk to the new chipset over a 533MHz front-side bus, which is, as we say in the industry, “really frickin’ fast.”

Also frickin’ fast is the newest high-end Pentium 4, which clocks in at 2.53GHz. So has Intel finally found the magic formula for defeating AMD’s finest? We’re about to find out.

The new chips
Intel is introducing three new Pentium 4 chips capable of running on a 533MHz bus. They’re clocked at 2.26GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.53GHz. Because there’s already a 2.4GHz version of the Pentium 4 out there that runs on a 400MHz bus, the new chip at that speed will be designated “2.40B”. There’s really nothing new about these processors except their clock multipliers. They are Pentium 4 Northwood chips, and not much else is changed.


The Pentium 4 2.53GHz. Yep, it’s a Pentium 4.

The new chipsets
Similarly, the new 850E chipset is very much like its predecessor, the 850 chipset. The big difference is that there “E” on the end of the name, which denotes “enhanced” or “extra bus speed” or maybe “extra nifty,” because the 850E supports a 533MHz front-side bus.

Moving from 400MHz to 533MHz increases peak bus bandwidth from 3.2GB/s to 4.2GB/s. To keep the processor fed on the other side of that bus, the 850E supports dual channels of PC800 RDRAM, which are good for up to 3.2GB/s. Although Intel claims the 850E isn’t yet officially validated for it, the 850E can also support two channels of PC1066 RDRAM, which should peak out at 4.2GB/s. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to obtain any PC1066 memory for testing just yet.

The 850E MCH chip is, like the 850 and the 845, paired with Intel’s ICH2 system I/O chip (generally known in these parts as a south bridge chip). It offers support for ATA-100 disk drives and most of the other usual suspects.


Intel’s 850E memory controller hub


A block diagram of the 850E chipset (Source: Intel)

According to this report at DigiTimes, Intel has a couple more chipsets up its sleeve in the coming weeks, including the 845E, 845G, and 845GL. The 845E is—you guessed it—a version of the 845 chipset with support for a 533MHz bus. The 845G is basically an 845E with integrated graphics, while the 845GL is the same thing with no external AGP slot. Of course, Intel doesn’t tend to comment on unreleased products, so we’ll have to wait and see whether DigiTimes is 100% accurate. Since both 845E and 845G boards are starting to show up at online vendors, I expect we’ll know soon.

Also showing up at online vendors are the new Pentium 4-based Celerons, which are reportedly Willamette chips with 128K of L2 cache. With the move to a 533MHz bus for the Pentium 4, Intel now has room in its lineup for this racy new Celeron. These Celerons will no doubt be paired up with the 845GL chipset and sold by the boatload in corporate desktop systems.

 

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:

  Athlon XP Pentium 4 845 Pentium 4 850 Pentium 4 850E Pentium 4
SiS 645
Processor AMD Athlon XP 2100+ 1.73GHz Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHz
Front-side bus 266MHz (133MHz double-pumped) 400MHz (100MHz quad-pumped) 400MHz (100MHz quad-pumped) 533MHz (133MHz quad-pumped) 533MHz (133MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard Shuttle AK35GT2/R Abit BD7-RAID Intel D850MD Intel D850EMV2 Abit SD7-533
Chipset VIA KT333 Intel 845 Intel 850 Intel 850E SiS 645
North bridge VT8367 82845 MCH 82850 MCH 82850E MCH SiS 645
South bridge VT8233A 82801BA ICH2 82801BA ICH2 82801BA ICH2 SiS 961
Chipset drivers VIA 4-in-1
4.38(2)v(a)
Intel Application Accelerator 6.22 Intel Application Accelerator 6.22 Intel Application Accelerator 6.22 N/A
Memory size 512MB (2 DIMMs) 512MB (2 DIMMs) 512MB (4 RIMMs) 512MB (4 RIMMs) 512MB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Micron PC2700 DDR SDRAM Micron PC2100 DDR SDRAM Samsung PC800 Rambus DRAM Samsung PC800 Rambus DRAM Micron PC2700 DDR SDRAM
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600 128MB (Detonator XP 28.32 video drivers)
Sound Creative SoundBlaster Live!
Storage Maxtor DiamondMax Plus D740X 7200RPM ATA/100 hard drive
OS Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates None

Note that we’ve included an SiS 645-based system so we can get a sense for the performance of the P4s with a 533MHz bus and DDR333 memory. Although the SiS 645 chipset doesn’t officially support a 533MHz bus, Abit’s wondrous (and aptly named) little SD7-533 motherboard offers all the right divisors for PCI, AGP, and memory to allow operation with a 533MHz front-side bus without running anything else out of spec. In fact, the board performs flawlessly with the bus at 533MHz. SiS has recently released its 645DX chipset with official 533MHz bus support and a slightly improved memory controller, and we’ll have one in-house for testing soon. Nevertheless, what you see from the SD7-533 shouldn’t be far off what you can expect from other DDR333 solutions for these new Pentium 4 chips.

I should also note that we’re using the Intel Application Accelerator drivers instead of the older Ultra ATA drivers. We elected to go this route because Intel is replacing its Ultra ATA drivers with IAA. In addition to providing support for Ultra ATA modes, the Application Acclerator does some prefetching to improve I/O throughput, so products based on Intel chipsets may have a slight advantage as a result. But then, that’s the point. We’re hopeful other chipset manufacturers will incorporate similar performance-boosting measures in their drivers, as well—if they haven’t already.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1024×768 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:

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Memory performance
Since the big change we’re examining today is a faster front-side bus, memory performance is key. SiSoft Sandra’s synthetic memory bandwidth tests will give us a peek at how effective the higher bus speeds are in delivering more throughput.

Sure enough, the 533MHz bus delivers a good chunk more bandwidth than the “old” 400MHz bus, especially with dual-channel RDRAM. Although the 400MHz bus theoretically was fast enough to accommodate 3.2GB/s, in practice, it was a bottleneck.

Speaking of bottlenecks, the Athlon XP 2100+ delivers almost no more memory bandwidth here, with DDR333 memory on a KT333 chipset, than it did last time out, when we used DDR266 on a KT266A. The limiting factor is clear: The Athlon XP’s 266MHz bus. The Athlon XP’s bus is now effectively half the speed of Pentium 4’s new 533MHz bus (although AMD’s bus is probably a little more efficient). Unless and until AMD raises the speed of the Athlon XP’s front-side bus, the Athlon XP will be at a disadvantage in scenarios where memory or bus bandwidth is critical.

We’ll use Linpack to illustrate memory performance with a little more precision. Check out the funky graph:

You can see here how the L1 and L2 caches of the processors help performance when handling small data matrices, but once we get past about 512K, main memory access is the name of the game. The Athlon XP is fastest when it’s crunching numbers stored in its 64K L1 cache. After that, though, it’s all Pentium 4. The P4’s big, fast L2 cache delivers more peak performance than the Athlon XP, and the P4 never relinquishes the lead.

 

Business Winstone
Now we get to see what happens when the rubber meets the road. Does the 533MHz bus really help in pedestrian tasks like running everyday business applications?

The 850E chipset brings a slight but measurable performance increase over the 850 and 845, even in Business Winstone. The SiS 645 turns in an outright lousy performance here, but low performance in Business Winstone is a quirk we’ve come to expect in the SiS 645; it doesn’t seem to rear its head in other tests.

As for the Athlon XP, it’s near the bottom of the pack.

Content Creation Winstone
We’re using the newest version of CC Winstone, version 2002, but not without some reservations, which we expressed here. Ideally, we’d have time to run both the 2001 and 2002 versions of CC Winstone to provide a little perspective. Ideally, we’d be retired in the Cayman Islands right now, too, but it ain’t happening.

The Pentium 4 systems are bunched up pretty tightly here. The systems with 533MHz FSBs take the top four spots, but only by a hair. The Athlon XP, meanwhile, just can’t keep up.

 

POV-Ray 3D rendering
This time around, we decided to try out a beta version (RC3) of the new POV-Ray 3.5. For continuity’s sake, however, we’re rendering the same test scene we’ve used with POV-Ray 3.1 for some time now.

Even with an 800MHz clock speed advantage, the Pentium 4 can’t keep pace with the Athlon XP. The Athlon XP’s underlying computational abilities are formidable, and 3D rendering of this sort doesn’t really tend to stress things like bus bandwidth.

Interestingly enough, on both processor architectures, the 3.5 beta version of POV-Ray is much faster than version 3.1, but it’s slower than the recompiled version of 3.1 we used in previous tests.

Lightwave 3D rendering
To keep things interesting, we’ve added NewTek’s Lightwave to our test suite. Lightwave is used by Hollywood animation studios and the like, and it offers a unique chance to test 3D rendering speed in an application that’s optimized for SSE2. In fact, NewTek released Lightwave version 7.0b concurrently for PCs and Macs, offering SSE2 optimizations on the Pentium 4 and AltiVec optimizations on the G4.

With code specifically optimized for the Pentium 4, Lightwave runs much faster on the P4 than on the Athlon XP. Note that vectorizing code to take advantage of SIMD instruction sets isn’t as simple as using a new compiler; there’s a reason NewTek released SSE2- and Altivec-enhanced versions of Lightwave at the same time. Still, once the optimizations are in place, the performance gains are notable.

Lightwave is the only case I’ve seen where the Pentium 4 could beat the Athlon XP in 3D rendering performance. The SSE2 optimizations help, no doubt, but the P4’s margin of victory is just gaudy. And I’m not clear on some of the particulars here. Why didn’t NewTek use 3DNow! or SSE if it’s available, instead of supporting only SSE2? (I’m sure hordes of knowing readers are preparing an e-mail deluge for me on that question already. Pre-emptively, let me say: I’ve not been able to find documentation of AltiVec’s ability to handle double-precision floating-point calculations like SSE2, yet they used Altivec.)

Also, some folks have reported slowdowns with Athlon XPs when moving from 7.0 to 7.0b code. Update: The test results in this article, which seem to have been the foundation for those claims, show only minor slowdowns with the Athlon XP on a few tests and faster render times on others. It is true that the Athlon XP turned in slower times here with 7.0 than with 7.0b in both of the benchmarks that we used above (raytrace and reflective radiosity). However, the actual time increases were very small–only a few seconds. Nothing to fret over.

Finally, just as we finished our testing, we found out NewTek had recently released version 7.5 of Lightwave. We’ll try the newer release next time around and see if that has any effect on relative performance.

 

LAME MP3 encoding
Our previous LAME test setup was simply being run over by high-speed CPUs; they were crunching through an entire 50MB audio file in about 20 seconds, with only fractions of a second separating the fastest times. So this time around, we’ve beefed things up by using a 101MB source audio file and asking LAME to encode a high-quality variable bit rate MP3. The exact command-line options we used were:

lame -v -b 128 -q 1 file.wav file.mp3

This encoding task produced the following results:

For high-quality VBR encoding, the Pentium 4 is fastest. MP3 encoding with LAME doesn’t rely heavily on bus or memory bandwidth; there’s very little difference between a 400MHz and 533MHz FSB or between different memory types. Any way you cut it, though, the Pentium 4 leads here, and the 2.53GHz version is fastest of all.

DivX video encoding
We’ve finally decided to complement our audio encoding tests with a video encoding test. Xmpeg can encode video files using the popular DivX format, which produces very high quality video in relatively small amounts of space. For this test, we took a 279MB video file, encoded in MPEG2 format at DVD quality, and converted it to a 37MB DivX file.

Xmpeg supports all the various x86 SIMD instruction sets, including MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2—even various flavors of 3DNow!, like 3DNow! Enhanced. Most importantly, perhaps, Xmpeg makes good use of the Pentium 4’s SSE2 instruction set, which offers potentially higher performance than the SSE or 3DNow! instructions supported by the Athlon XP.

With the aid of SSE2 and gobs of memory bandwidth, the Pentium 4 wins this one handily. If you plan on doing video editing work, by all means, consider a Pentium 4 system.

 

Codecreatures Benchmark Pro
Here’s another new addition to our test suite. The Codecreatures benchmark builds and renders scenes with an absolutely insane number of polygons in real time. It’s one of the best looking things we’ve seen in real-time graphics on a PC.

AMD’s supposedly outmatched processor pulls a win out this time around. Obviously, Codecreatures leans pretty heavily on the video card, because the performance differences here are miniscule. Still, Codecreatures is quite likely a good indicator of graphics performance in future games, and as such, it bodes well for the Athlon XP.

3DMark 2001 SE

3DMark scores scale up very gradually as processor speeds and bus speeds increase. Once again, the faster bus speeds provide a slight but real performance advantage.

Serious Sam SE

Serious Sam has always favored Athlons over Pentium 4s—until now. The 2.53GHz systems take the lead.

Comanche 4
Comanche 4 is a true DirectX 8 game that makes use of our graphics card’s pixel and vertex shaders. It’s also one heck of a punishing load on a CPU.

As in most of the other tests, the combination of the 850E chipset and the Pentium 4 2.53GHz can’t be beat. Notably, though, there’s very little difference in performance between the Pentium 4 2.4GHz on the 850E chipset and the same speed P4, with a slower bus, on the 850 chipset.

 

Speech recognition
The Sphinx speech recognition software has been fun for us to test over the past months because we’ve been dancing around on the border between real-time and less-than-real-time speech recognition. We’ve been waiting for the P4 with a 533MHz bus to see if we couldn’t decidedly shatter that barrier once and for all. And the verdict?

Not a problem! All four of our P4 systems with the faster bus speed easily process speech at rates faster than real time, regardless of which compiler was used to generate the Sphinx executable.

The next big barrier is 0.8 times real time, at which point Sphinx will execute fast enough to allow real-time, high-quality speech recognition applications to work really well.

ScienceMark
We’ll finish up our testing with ScienceMark, which measures performance in several real-world scientific computing scenarios.

ScienceMark has always been the domain of the Athlon, and even now, the AMD processor leads the field. Some of ScienceMark’s individual tests tell an intriguing story here.

The Athlon XP is far and away fastest on the Liquid Argon routine, over 12 seconds faster than the nearest Pentium 4.

Primordia, however, likes fast memory subsystems. The Pentium 4 dominates here.

QMC is again faster on the Athlon XP.

 

Conclusions
There’s no reason to mince words about this one. Intel has clearly and unambiguously taken the performance lead away from AMD now. The faster front-side bus speeds are helpful, as is the clock speed boost to 2.53GHz. Combined, the Pentium 4 has enough extra performance to beat out the Athlon XP 2100+ in all but a few of our tests.

For the 850E chipset and its RDRAM memory, the future is a little murky. Even this move to a very fast bus hasn’t made DDR memory much less competitive, as RDRAM advocates have claimed would happen over time. Our overclocked SiS 645 motherboard put in a very respectable showing against the 850E. PC1066 RDRAM, when it becomes available, will give the 850E a boost. But as Intel, SiS, VIA, and others prepare official DDR333 and even dual-channel DDR chipsets for the 533MHz-bus Pentium 4 chips, the 850E will have a real fight on its hands.

What’s ominous for AMD is the way Intel has positioned itself with the Pentium 4. Right now, the move from a 400MHz to 533MHz bus looks kind of underwhelming in most of our tests. But the faster bus speed gives the Pentium 4 loads of headroom for the future; all Intel has to do is turn up the clock now. Given the overclocking successes we’ve seen with Pentium 4 Northwood chips, there’s no reason to believe Intel can’t be at 3GHz by fall. Heck, they could probably get there sooner if they really pushed.

But there’s no reason to push, because it doesn’t seem likely to me that clock speed increases alone—in the form of the forthcoming Thoroughbred chip—will deliver the performance crown back into the hands of AMD. AMD will have to come up with something—a larger cache, a faster bus, architectural improvements—in order to keep pace. It might well be early next year, when AMD’s Hammer chip finally bows, before AMD challenges Intel for the outright x86 performance lead once again.

Then again, maybe none of that matters to AMD. From a price-performance standpoint, the Athlon is still far and away the leader. Intel’s pricing for the new Pentium 4 chips looks like so:

Pentium 4 2.53GHz: $637
Pentium 4 2.40B GHz: $562
Pentium 4 2.26: $423

For $637, you can put together the core of a nice Athlon XP-based system with a motherboard, memory, and a graphics card. (We’re talking Athlon XP 2100+ processor, KT266A motherboard, 512MB PC2100 memory, and a GeForce4 Ti 4200 graphics card for that price.) Yeowch!

At the end of the day, having the very fastest comes with a steep price. And the Pentium 4 2.53GHz on a 533MHz bus is definitely the very fastest x86 processor you can buy. 

Comments closed
    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #65 I never claimed to be able to spell worth a damn, and I see no ubb tags to slam my posts through ispell or something similar, so, you’ll just have to put up with my less than optimal grammar… ayunh!

    I am the Mad Midnight Anonybomber, what posts anonymously at midnight!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    First off, those thing-a-ma-jigs you refer to as periferals, is correctly spelled peripherals. I can tell by your reply, that you are well educated. Do you suck on a toothpick when you drive you gas powered pick-up truck ?

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #62 – Comparing two ‘differing’ -> PC <- platforms, where the differing is clock speed/cpu, but they are still ia32 platforms, with identical or as close to identical perifials is perfectly valid when the two are the best you can get from each camp at that point in time. We’re looking for PEAK performance available now, not 6 months ago. So seeing the best AMD can do vs the best Intel can do is perfectly legit.

    Now, if you want to compare on Bang for the Buck, that turns the tables on Chipzilla, and AMD walks away with the crown, but that wasn’t what was being covered here.

    Put it this way, based on your logic, when looking for the most powerful pickup I can buy now, and I’ve narrowed it down to a gas powered Chevy or Dodge (I don’t like diesel, not much fun in Maine), I shouldn’t consider the Dodge V10 just ’cause Chevy doesn’t make a V10, screw that!

    I am the Mad Midnight Anonybomber, what posts anonymously at midnight!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    What is a MAC ?

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Is this guy blind, stupid, or both ? Why even make a comparison between the XP2xxx and a P4 2.5ghz ? There is no comparison between the two. There are so many huge differences between the two, they cannot be compared. It’s like comparing a Jaton 4MB PCI video card with a PNY GF4 TI4600, then concluding, “Well, it looks like Jaton has some real competition on it’s hands here!” ” After a week’s worth of running benchmarks, we have come to conclusion that the GF4 is faster!” What an idiot.
    There is such a huge difference between clock speeds and physical attributes, they cannot be compared. I didn’t have to begin reading the review, before knowing the outcome.
    Any reviewer with common sense, will put equal clock speeds, cache speeds and cache sizes against the same. We already know AMD owns the performance market when compared equally, and even more so in value.
    I don’t know how much time this moron spent on this review, but I hope he had time to empty the waste baskets when he was through.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    -Rambus memory-

    PC800 16bit memory 184pin
    PC1066 16bit memory 184pin
    PC1066 32bit memory 232pin
    PC1200 32bit memory 232pin

    If intel would made board dual channel PC1066/PC1200
    a: It will be 32+32=64bit memory

    Equivalent to Single channel 64bit DDR memory.

    —————————————————————————–
    But if Rambus will realese PC1600Mhz/PC2000Mhz 64bit

    It will be 64+64=128bit memory.

    Equivalent to Duel channel 64bit DDR memory.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #59 –

    Bah, thats too bad. Finally get a platform where we can see the tech start to work as designed, and it’s going to get canned. (I’d still like to see what the i850 could have been if they put as much silicon into it’s ram controller as the i845.) Pardon me while I go track down the Rambus lawyers and perform vile acts on them.

    I am the Mad Midnight Anonybomber, what posts anonymously at midnight!

    • Unanimous Hamster
    • 18 years ago

    AG 55 –

    AFAIK, 850E is basically just 850 validated to run 533MHz FSB, with no improvements to the mem controller. Since Intel is dropping Rambus after 850E, I don’t think there was much financial incentive for them to pour funds into improving a dead-end RDRAM-based platform.

    nVidia has shown that dual-channel DDR is feasible. Intel already has a dual-channel P4 platform for servers in the E7500. I suspect that sooner or later E7500 will trickle down to the desktop… hopefully sooner rather than later.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    #56: If you are talking about i850/dual RDRAM ‘walking away’ from DDR WRT the Sandra Benchmarks, then you are right. However, I do not get hot about theoretical numbers that Sandra Mem benchmark throws out. Real-world apps are where it’s at, and even now a PC2700 single-channel solution like the SiS 645 can hang with dual PC800. Maybe not PC1066, but then you have to get ‘good’ modules to run at PC1066 anyway.

    I recently bought a system using PC2700 on a ASUS P4S333. Why not go RDRAM? It’s a dead-end, Intel-only solution. I can use this RAM in an AMD system too, if I choose, and AFAIK Intel is not going to develop RDRAM beyond the 850E. Anyone know different?

    • BabelHuber
    • 18 years ago

    [quote]
    we care about whats available NOW. In this case, current PC800 is walking away from all DDR can offer.
    [/quote]

    yeah, good point. so if anybody wants a 133MHz FSb P4, go for RDRAM 1066! but if you want to /oc your FSB to >150MHz, RDRAM isn

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #54 – Yeah, will win hands down except for cost. Dual DDR is ALOT harder to impliment, and requires ALOT more traces. You should be able to do 4 way RDRAM (Dual 32bit banks) and still not have as much board complexity as DDR. And who cares about when bandwidth is equal, we care about whats available NOW. In this case, current PC800 is walking away from all DDR can offer. PC1066 has been demo’d as being just that much quicker, most PC800 modules will hop up, so other than Rambus’s boneheaded legal department which for the most part has been muzzled by the court, why wait for the more expensive option when the faster more scaleable one is right here?

    I am the Mad Midnight Anonybomber, what posts anonymously at midnight!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the buffers/queues were deepened in the i850E over the i850 to help it any? Last I knew when you compared the i850 vs the i845, the i850 looked like a red headed step child that noone loved when Intel was handing out perf tweaks.

    I am the Mad Midnight Anonybomber, what posts anonymously at midnight!

    • BabelHuber
    • 18 years ago

    [q]
    What’s going to be so great about dual-DDR
    [/q]

    RDRAM has higher latencies than DDR-SDRAM. This is the reason why lower bandwith DDR systems can compete with higher bandwith RDR systems.

    If the bandwith is equal (e.g. Dual Channel PC266 vs. Dual Channel PC1066), the DDR solution should win hands down.

    • technophile
    • 18 years ago

    OK, I’m hearing some cries for dual-channel DDR, and at least one comment about DDR-2. But don’t all the reviews of these new chips make anyone hungry for RDRAM? I’m sure dual-channel DDR will be good when it’s here, but will it be better than 1066 RDRAM? And will it be so much better that it’s worth it to not just run some PC800 at 1066?

    I know many people are still holding a grudge against Rambus, but in all honesty, it seems like a much, much more viable option these days. Price / performance is now totally on par with DDR. What’s going to be so great about dual-DDR and DDR 2?

    • technophile
    • 18 years ago

    Pete,

    I just want to say that I got your reference the first time, and it almost knocked me out of my chair, I was laughing so hard. So don’t be discouraged, and keep on quoting the movies I grew up with. =)

    • Unanimous Hamster
    • 18 years ago

    I agree with MadManOriginal.

    As the P4 scales in clock speed, it’s going to need memory bandwidth to back it up. Dual-channel DDR will provide the bandwidth the P4 needs for the forseeable future, at least until DDR-II.

    • EasyRhino
    • 18 years ago

    Well, strangely, i was thinking of waiting for the new mobos, but this review yesterday made me decide to go ahead and buy an “old” Abit 850 board, and a 1.8A… because:

    There’s not PC1066 RAM yet.

    I can’t afford a fast CPU

    The high FSB doesn’t help (actually hinders) overclocking.

    I can probably get just as crazy wit an Abit 850 board as an Abit 850E board (which I don’t know if they’re even gonna make).

    So, uh, thanks Damage. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ER

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    ยง[<http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/p42533/page10.asp<]ยง A review that clearly shows a P4 2.53 w/ PC800 RDRAM and one with PC1066 RDRAM side-by-side. An ~7% increase for the PC1066 is nothing to sneeze at. For the third time: BRING ON DUAL CHANNEL DDR!

    • Pete
    • 18 years ago

    [q]Pete– Although it’s sometimes pronounced “jigawatts”, it’s spelled “gigawatts”. But what are you talking about anyway? Not really topical, is it?[/q]You learn something new… I just assumed “jiga” was larger than “giga,” rather than an alternate pronunciation (thought the French i{

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    I would hold on the $637 and get a upgraded motherboard, memory, and video card..ouch.

    • Unanimous Hamster
    • 18 years ago

    [quote]
    Never. Macs are supahcompyoodahs. Everyone knows that.
    [/quote]

    LOL! I hope for Apple’s sake that the engineers at Intel and AMD never figure out how to build a “supahcompyoodah” too, or else Apple is toast!

    PS – Forge, thanks for the info.

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    Hamster – I saw some yesterday while shopping, forget which site, though.

    The RAR benchmark would likely hit the HDD first, though. If not on read in, definately on write out.

    • Unanimous Hamster
    • 18 years ago

    Does anyone know when the 533MHz 845E is being realeased? I’d like to see how the 845E performs with DDR, given that Intel appears to have abandoned RDRAM.

    • sativa
    • 18 years ago

    how does he make sure all the winrar’s spawn at the same time.

    • primitive.notion
    • 18 years ago

    How about some WinRAR benchmarks?
    Like Accelenation does:

    “In the first case I ran five copies of WinRAR and unrar’ed a 75MB file at the same time. I recorded the time it took from the beginning of the process to the moment when the final WinRAR had completed. The second test is identical but I increased the number of WinRAR’s to ten. This is a sort of impromptu way of simulating heavy multi-tasking.”

    ยง[<http://accelenation.com/?doc=2&page=4<]ยง (They even mention Tech-Report.) Was unRARing several huge multi-part archives the other day and it was KILLING my proc. Let's see how the new P4s cope!

    • Coldfirex
    • 18 years ago

    I thought I heard upto 1.8? Im prob wrong tho

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    It is sucky for consumers though because while the Celeron line might appear to go 1.2->1.3->1.4->1.5 (P4 core) that 1.5GHz P4 core is probably slower than the 1.2. Oh well, no more good Celeron luvin here. ๐Ÿ™
    ——–
    I think I read on The Inq that they are jumping straight to 1.8GHz when they release the new Celly.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    [q]The P4 Celeron is a good idea for Intel because they don’t have to maintain distinct Pentium and Celeron production lines–[/q]

    It is a good idea (for them) but for another reason: they don’t have to waste .13 micron prduction lines on the Celeron and the PIII will be dead (as in out of production) in six months anyway. It is sucky for consumers though because while the Celeron line might appear to go 1.2->1.3->1.4->1.5 (P4 core) that 1.5GHz P4 core is probably slower than the 1.2. Oh well, no more good Celeron luvin here. ๐Ÿ™

    • Steel
    • 18 years ago

    Perhaps Intel will do like they did with the Coppermine – just disable half the L2 on the Willamette. They may already have a boatload of unusable P4 cores that would work fine as a Celeron…..

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    [quote]
    My question is this: Are those Celerons on 0.18 like the original Willamettes, or are they die-shrunk to 0.13? If it’s the former, why is Intel willing to sacrifice margins by selling expensive chips in the value market?
    ———
    Intel can really ramp up on the clock speed with the p4 design, so that’s what they’re betting on. That’s my best guess as to why they’d want to move to something that is actually a lot more expensive to make. Also current celerons seem to be stuck with SDRAM, which is getting long in the tooth.
    [/quote]

    also, i’m pretty sure they still have the existing infrastructure for the .18 process, which means that it would be cheaper to use an older / established process – they’d be getting more use out of the facilities they had converted to the .18 williamete production.

    • h0rus
    • 18 years ago

    Hehe,

    Maybe I will upgrade next year, when the current stuff is cheaper, and just in time for DOOM3, too!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Alanzilla, but they’re making those pesky xbox chippies anyway. Why not stick with good ol’ cheap celeronia for the desktop for a while longer ๐Ÿ™‚

    The budget market could do with a quiet, low power & cheaaaaaap chip for a while. At least to compete with VIA’s offerings in that area, if nothing else…

    *sniff*
    Poor ol’ celeron is on its last legs, to be replaced with the evil bigger, faster p4 celeron. *sniff*

    • Alanzilla
    • 18 years ago

    The P4 Celeron is a good idea for Intel because they don’t have to maintain distinct Pentium and Celeron production lines–the processors are all basically the same at the core, so you don’t have to retool to do a run of one or the other.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Yes, it was… but should we stop telling da TRUTH?

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    That was low.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    [q]A mouse with 3 buttons![/q]
    Yeah, but when you have users with only one brain cell, the other two buttons end up being only for show.

    • Thresher
    • 18 years ago

    My sources tell me that Apple will introduce some impressive new products at the WWDC this week.

    Here’s what they have in store:

    A mouse with 3 buttons!

    I kid because I love.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    you think this SOB will finally beat a Mac??? heheheh

    Never. Macs are supahcompyoodahs. Everyone knows that.
    I’d like to know what Motorola has got up its sleeve for Apple, tho…

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    you think this SOB will finally beat a Mac??? heheheh

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    My question is this: Are those Celerons on 0.18 like the original Willamettes, or are they die-shrunk to 0.13? If it’s the former, why is Intel willing to sacrifice margins by selling expensive chips in the value market?
    ———
    Intel can really ramp up on the clock speed with the p4 design, so that’s what they’re betting on. That’s my best guess as to why they’d want to move to something that is actually a lot more expensive to make. Also current celerons seem to be stuck with SDRAM, which is getting long in the tooth.

    Apparently, the last current celeron will be a 1.4GHz…

    • dmitriylm
    • 18 years ago

    Yeah, morrowind runs like shit on a gf2….

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • BabelHuber
    • 18 years ago

    [quote]
    I hope Abit releases a BIOS update that will allow me to use one of these chips on my TH7-II.
    [/quote]

    You can already use them – ABIT BD7 and TH7-II support 133MHz FSB. I even read somewhere that you can use PC1066 with it – but I don

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • shaker
    • 18 years ago

    R2P2: I could be wrong, here, but aren’t all the new 0.13 Celerons equipped with 256K L2 cache? I understand that they’re really PIII’s, which were “demoted” to Celerys when the PIV hit the scene.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Sanders: – Hector, quick – give me that Hammer. The P4-bug is starting to get some legs. We have to squash it NOW!

    • R2P2
    • 18 years ago

    According to Anand’s article, the i850E doesn’t officially support PC1066. And Intel gave him RAM that could run at PC1066 anyway. Such a decisive company.

    • R2P2
    • 18 years ago

    EasyRhino — Stuff gets from RAM to the CPU over the FSB. Apparently, the old 400MHz FSB couldn’t get stuff from the RAM to the CPU as fast as the RAM could send it, so the 533MHz FSB lets it get closer to its actual maximum speed.

    AG16 — Even if Intel’s using .13micron for the new Celerys, they’re still a lot cheaper to produce than Northwoods, since they’ve only got 1/4 of the L2 cache.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    can someone tell me why Intel always seems to get away with pricing their premium chips ridiculously? I’m assuming there are people out there that buy them at this price, right? Because they always do it.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Good article, Scott, even if the AMD boosterism was a little thick in places.

    My question is this: Are those Celerons on 0.18 like the original Willamettes, or are they die-shrunk to 0.13? If it’s the former, why is Intel willing to sacrifice margins by selling expensive chips in the value market?

    • BabelHuber
    • 18 years ago

    If the RAM still runs at the same speed than with 100MHz FSB, the 133MHz are in no way impressive. I know a lot of people who let even Williamettes run at 133 FSB…

    • EasyRhino
    • 18 years ago

    okay, dumb question.

    If the RAM isn’t running any faster, how does a faster FSB help speed things up?

    ER

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Man, it wasn’t too long ago that 533MHz was smokin’ fast for a core CPU speed! Now that I realize that most of my CPUs are slower than the new bus, I’m really depressed.

    I don’t think that either AMD or Intel has anything to permanently take the CPU crown, so why even talk that way? Healthy competition benefits the consumer, and today’s fastest will be pitifully slow all too soon. [i]C’est la vie[/i].

    Pete– Although it’s sometimes pronounced “jigawatts”, it’s spelled “[b]g[/b]igawatts”. But what are you talking about anyway? Not really topical, is it?

    • EasyRhino
    • 18 years ago

    At first, I didn’t realize that the RDRAM on the new mobo was still running at old PC800 speeds.

    To be honest, that makes the speedup from the FSB even more impressive.

    ER

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    Bah it is late. Totally OT, I am using a windows XP theme called ‘Aquawhistler’ available, along with a freeware final beta version of StyleXP, here: ยง[<http://members.home.nl/djp/<]ยง hehe, after all the Mac bashing I am using a Mac-ish theme on my computer. But *damn* it is pretty. /me runs to put on my leotards and prance about in a field of wildflowers...lol

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    I figured as much Damage, please do not think I was dissing your review. Pure oversight on my part, and if you had it, I know you would have benched it.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    OK, I hate to even mention this, and in the charts the platform is a bit less than obvious, but tomshardware also has their review up and they used an ASUS P4T-533E for the RDRAM motherboard. I *think* they ran the RDRAM at PC1066 speeds, but they don’t differentiate it on their charts, though in the test setup they do say they use PC1066. So who knows?

    • Damage
    • 18 years ago

    MadManOriginal:

    I would have to have one of those boards in order to run it on one of those boards.

    All in due time.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    Heh, my bad Damage, it is late. So, you are saying Intel motherboards have no overclocking options? ๐Ÿ™‚ Seriously though, what about trying it on, say, an ASUS P4T-E?

    Also, to be technically correct, I should say why 845E over SiS 645DX, though my SiS 645 motherboard runs great at 133 FSB.

    • Pete
    • 18 years ago

    As GamePC showed in their Rambus 1066 vs DDR 400 comparo, Rambus can perform _significantly_ better at higher speeds. Of course, other factors may be involved (the P4 architecture may use more FSB speed better than the Athlon’s), but Serious Sam benches swung astonishingly in Rambus’ favor.

    • Damage
    • 18 years ago

    MadManOriginal:

    You did see that this was an *Intel* motherboard, right? Overclock what??

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    Yes indeed #1. Wait for dual-channel DDR. Then Rambus will truly die on the PC platform.

    Forge: why 845E over SiS 645? Just curious…

    Damage: You claim their is no PC1066 RDRAM readily available, fair enough. But, uh, did you even *try* your PC800 at the higher speed? From what I understand, most RDRAM can OC to 1066. Would be nice to at least see whether the extra bandwidth to match the new FSB.

    Too bad Intel is in the lead now, because they won’t be as aggressive with their price cuts. ๐Ÿ™

    • Pete
    • 18 years ago

    <Clutches temples> “1.21 jigawatts? 1.21 jigawatts?!” <Stumbles around room>

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    i845E is much sweeter, IMHO. Nothin like 166/333 DDR.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    DIE RAMBUS DIE!!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This