Intel 3.2E vs. 3.2EE vs. 3.2C: Comparing Baseline Performance
by Wesley Fink on February 12, 2004 2:46 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Performance Test: Configuration
To provide a baseline for future motherboard tests, we tested all three 3.2GHz processors using our latest Motherboard tests. The same Socket 478 motherboard, the widely available and excellent performing Asus P4C800-E, was used for all tests. This is our standard Socket 478 motherboard for memory testing, and it is the motherboard recommended by both Corsair and OCZ for running their fastest DDR550 memory.| Performance Test Configuration - 3.2GHz Socket 478 | |
| Processor(s): | Intel Pentium 4 3.2E (Prescott, 1MB L2 cache) Intel Pentium 4 3.2EE (512kb L2 Cache + 2MB L3 cache) Intel Pentium 4 3.2C (Northwood, 512kb L2 cache) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd 2 x 512Mb Mushkin PC3500 Level II |
| Hard Drive(s): | Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | Intel Chipset Drivers |
| Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X) |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 4.1 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboard: | Asus P4C800-E (Intel 875P - 478) Rev. 2.00 |
| BIOS: | Release 1015 |
It has been reported on other sites that the P4C800-E will not run the Prescott processor. We had no problem at all with the 3.2E Prescott on our P4C800-E. This particular board has been at AnandTech for about 2 months and is a late model Revision 2.00. Asus tells us that all versions of the P4C800-E will work fine with Prescott as long as BIOS is updated to version 1014 or later. You can find a CPU compatibility list for Asus motherboards at http://www.asus.com.tw/support/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx.
All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32 unless otherwise noted. Results at 1280x1024 have also been provided where they are useful in comparing performance.
With the retesting required to compare Prescott, EE, and Northwood, benchmarks were updated with additional games and updates to other benchmarks.
Content Creation and General Usage
We have recently updated to the latest release of Winstone benchmarks. Veritest Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 and Veritest Business Winstone 2004 are now the standard tests for system benchmarking.Media Encoding
Divx 5.1.1 has added support for additional extensions on both Intel and AMD processors. As recommended by both Intel and AMD, we have updated to Divx 5.1.1. We also updated to the latest XMpeg 5.03 as the front end for Media Encoding. Encoding is now benchmarked as a common dual-pass setup, so the results reported with XMpeg 5.03/Divx 5.1.1 are not comparable to earlier Media Encoding results.Games
We have added several new benchmarks to our standard Gaming tests. These include Halo, Microsoft's Direct X 9.0b game; Splinter Cell, a DX9 game; X2 Benchmark, a DX 8.1 game that includes Transform and Lighting effects; the DX9 Aquamark 3; and the DX 8.1 Comanche 4 benchmark. Since we have found that Comanche 4 can become video card limited at higher resolutions, we will only include benchmarks that run with 4X anti-aliasing enabled to differentiate system performance better using our standard ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card.We have dropped Yeti Studios DX9 Gun Metal 2 from our standard motherboard and system benchmarks, since there are many other DX9 choices now available that measure system performance variations better.
Heat and Cooling
All of our testing was done on air with Intel's stock CPU cooler supplied with the 3.2E. There is absolutely no doubt that Prescott gets hotter than either Northwood or Extreme Edition in our benchmarks. We did not measure temperatures, but the Heatsink felt much warmer during benchmarking Prescott. This was also the case with other HSF, like the Zalman 7000, OCZ Eliminator 2, and Thermalright SLK900. However, we never experienced a shutdown or throttle during several days of testing, and we did not have to use water-cooling to keep temperatures under control.Our advice is to buy Retail with the Intel HSF or use only the best HSF with Prescott because it is definitely a hotter CPU than Northwood or EE. For those who will overclock, the Intel HSF is outpaced pretty quickly and you may need to consider water, phase-change, or other cooling methods. This should not be a concern for normal operation, however, since we had no real issues with the standard Intel heatsink.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
View All Comments
TrogdorJW - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
Pumpkinierre, I think you are totally wrong on the cause of the Prescott slowdowns. Without getting technical, let me just assure you that it has pretty much everything to do with the 31 stage pipeline in the Prescott compared to the 20 stage pipeline in the Northwood (and P4EE).The larger cache can help the Prescott overcome the effects of the long pipeline, but in certain types of code, you're basically screwed. Even the branch prediction can't help in some instances. Say a program has a lot of branches, and they're spread over a large enough area that the predictor can't track all of them. If you "overflow" the size of the branch prediction table, then the penalties of the longer pipeline are going to become very apparent.
It appears that games are quite capable of doing this, and Comanche 4 in particular seems to have a lot of unpredictable branch code. Really, though, who cares? Comanche 4? I tried it, and thought it was pretty lame. At least UT2K3 and Q3 are pretty fun to play, even if they're old now.
johnsonx - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
Cram says the P4 EE (aka the Piss-4 Enema Edition, according to Cram) is a $1000 pipe dream. Lets compare, shall we, using prices from NewEgg:Socket 478 Mainboard, ABit IC7: $119
Intel P4 EE 3.2Ghz: $880
2x512Mb PC3200, Corsair: $155
TOTAL PRICE FOR P4EE: $1154
-------------------------------------
Socket 940 Mainboard, ASUS: $205
AMD Athlon64 FX-51: $733
2x512Mb PC3200 Registered, Corsair: $258
TOTAL PRICE FOR A64 FX-51: $1196
Why is the P4EE more of a "$1000 pipe dream" than the FX-51? The P4EE is actually a touch cheaper, plus the board and ram are both standard types which many people may already have; with the FX-51, it all has to be purchased new yet will soon be obsolete.
Seems to me the FX-51 in it's current form is just silly... perhaps even a $1200 pipe dream.
None of this has much to do with the article these comments are supposed to be referring to, but Cram's comments never do either...
Pumpkinierre - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
The p4 northwood IS a good gaming chip. The equivalent a64 doesnt beat it in some games and only by < 10% in the others. If AT had included a stock cooled o'clocked 2.4c@3.2 in these benchmarks (and I believe they've got a good one in the cupboard) the story would be a lot different. The big problem here is Prescott. It's too hot to o'clock sanely with standard air and stock, it underperforms Northwood which has half the cache. Why? Is the fpu a dog? Is the double sized cache slower latency-wise? From all reports its both.Comanche4 gives it away- generally regarded as a cpu intensive benchmark. The p4 EE is the same as the Northwood up to the L2 cache but the P4EE has 2Mb of L3 which lowers memory latency in some apps. cf. to Northwood. So the difference in performance, 3.2c vs 3.2EE, cant be fpu related but must be dependent on memory sub system latency The same lowering of memory latency can be achieved by o'clocking a 2.4c. In the case of the Prescott you cant do this because of the heat, you are just stuck with a dog!
I think 512K L2/8K L1 caches is the optimum for gaming with the P4. Northwood is the better gaming and enthusiast P4 as well as still the best all round cpu (coolness, reliability, compatibility and M'board support). Prescott is relegated to workstation/encoding where sse3/HT play a bigger part and o'clocking/tweaking/ reliability are'nt of great importance. A poor fate for the P4 where Prescott should have been its crowning glory.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
The article pretty much confirms my gut feeling about Prescott after reading all the reviews on NDA day, which is that its every bit as good as the Northwood for non-gamers if you aren't going to overclock it and therefore not concerned with heat.As the Northwood is still considerably behind the A64 in all gaming type applications, its a non-issue that the Prescott is slower than the Northwood for games as no gamer would consider buying either anyway. As for the P4EE, systems built using it will only be purchased by those where cost isn't a concern -- I can't see many people who build their own box actually opting for it over an A64 (gamers) or P4 'E' (DVD-rippers).
Please don't mock Cram..., he may actually believe some of what he spouts and it sure gives me a good giggle whenever I get to read any of it (before mods delete it) :)
Icewind - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
Athlon 64 is just looking better and better every day.Can't wait to upgrade this summer.
cliffa3 - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
when anand publishes his article on how his mac experience goes, that's still going to be the "bottomline" according to cram...can we get a feature that auto-posts that as a comment to each new article to save him the trouble?.CRAMITPAL - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
Bottomline:Prescott SUCKS and PEEEEEE is a $1000 Pipe Dream.
Only a fool...
araczynski - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
Great article, very usefull and to the point.Good job :)
tfranzese - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
Nice article and I'm glad you guys went ahead and published it as is. I just wish I did encoding - then I'd have a good reason to put together an Intel system. I may just do it for fun someday to compliment my other boxes.Can you guys please included distributed.net RC5 crunching benchmarks? I would like to see that and benchmarks of overclocked Prescotts vs. overclocked Northwoods to better see the scaling @ 3.4/3.6 GHz and how big a gap will start to form.