64-bit Pentium 4 600-series launched

[Yousuf Khan]

Intel's Pentium 4 600 series processors - The Tech Report - Page 1
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1

This particular page in the article is pretty interesting, describes all
of the hoops Intel is having to jump through to get Pentium 4 to run
coolly. There's no less than three related technologies it's using, C1E
enhanced HLT, Enhanced SpeedStep, and TM2 thermal throttling. Just about
every one of them is an "enhanced" technology of some sort, because
quite obviously the regular technology isn't good enough for Prescott.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=2

Yousuf Khan

 

[Tony Hill]

Intel's Pentium 4 600 series processors - The Tech Report - Page 1
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1

This particular page in the article is pretty interesting, describes all
of the hoops Intel is having to jump through to get Pentium 4 to run
coolly. There's no less than three related technologies it's using, C1E
enhanced HLT, Enhanced SpeedStep, and TM2 thermal throttling. Just about
every one of them is an "enhanced" technology of some sort, because
quite obviously the regular technology isn't good enough for Prescott.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=2

This article seems like it should be decent except for one REALLY
stupid move that kind of invalidates the whole damn thing... They
tested the 5xxJ series chips on a different motherboard than the 6xx
series chips! Given that the whole idea of the article is to compare
these chips and they WILL run on identical boards, I really have NO
IDEA why the Tech Report people were so brain-dead as to do such a
thing. I can only guess it's because they were in a rush to get the
first review out the door or some such thing.

The end result is that their data tends to point to show the 6xx
series chips in a rather less encouraging light than reality, due
solely to the fact that the Abit board used for the 5xxJ chips seems
to push performance somewhat higher than the Intel board used for the
6xx chips (not at all surprising, Abit always strives for maximum
performance first and reliability second). Just how much this changes
things is really tough to say.

In any case, it looks like this new chip finally brings Intel up to
par with AMD's Athlon64.... Only a year and a half later!

 

[George Macdonald]

This article seems like it should be decent except for one REALLY
stupid move that kind of invalidates the whole damn thing... They
tested the 5xxJ series chips on a different motherboard than the 6xx
series chips! Given that the whole idea of the article is to compare
these chips and they WILL run on identical boards, I really have NO
IDEA why the Tech Report people were so brain-dead as to do such a
thing. I can only guess it's because they were in a rush to get the
first review out the door or some such thing.

Umm, recycled "results" I think. Note that the Ahlon64 config uses a VIA
AGP chipset mbrd, though he has also done a A64 PCI-Express review...
apparently not enough tests for the "comparison" though.

The end result is that their data tends to point to show the 6xx
series chips in a rather less encouraging light than reality, due
solely to the fact that the Abit board used for the 5xxJ chips seems
to push performance somewhat higher than the Intel board used for the
6xx chips (not at all surprising, Abit always strives for maximum
performance first and reliability second). Just how much this changes
things is really tough to say.

In any case, it looks like this new chip finally brings Intel up to
par with AMD's Athlon64.... Only a year and a half later!

Yes, they even run at lower power draw, for reasons "unknown", though still
a good bit more than A64s. Gaming still favors AMD and video processing
still favors Intel so the "balance" is still there. Hopefully we'll get
the promised 64-bit tests real soon now.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

This article seems like it should be decent except for one REALLY
stupid move that kind of invalidates the whole damn thing... They
tested the 5xxJ series chips on a different motherboard than the 6xx
series chips! Given that the whole idea of the article is to compare
these chips and they WILL run on identical boards, I really have NO
IDEA why the Tech Report people were so brain-dead as to do such a
thing. I can only guess it's because they were in a rush to get the
first review out the door or some such thing.

I barely ever pay attention to the test results anymore. Way too many of
them these days. I depend on people like you who's eyes don't yet glass
over when reading these sections of the reviews.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Alan Walpool]

George> Yes, they even run at lower power draw, for reasons
George> "unknown", though still a good bit more than A64s. Gaming
George> still favors AMD and video processing still favors Intel so
George> the "balance" is still there. Hopefully we'll get the
George> promised 64-bit tests real soon now.

George> -- Rgds, George Macdonald

Another advantage of AMD64 that is not discussed much is AMD64 cpu's are
cooler than Intel prescotts or norwoods.

I have found this advantage very nice in hotter environments.

Just another data point.

Later,

Alan

 

[Tony Hill]

George> Yes, they even run at lower power draw, for reasons
George> "unknown", though still a good bit more than A64s. Gaming
George> still favors AMD and video processing still favors Intel so
George> the "balance" is still there. Hopefully we'll get the
George> promised 64-bit tests real soon now.

George> -- Rgds, George Macdonald

Another advantage of AMD64 that is not discussed much is AMD64 cpu's are
cooler than Intel prescotts or norwoods.

I have found this advantage very nice in hotter environments.

Just another data point.

The new results for this latest and greatest P4 6xx series chips shows
that the difference between the two much smaller than before,
particularly if just looking at idle power.

Of course, these results are a bit, umm... off, since they have the
new 6xx P4 chips consuming less power than the 5xxJ chips, even with
SpeedStep turned off. Other than SpeedStep there are no changes
between these two chips that should affect power consumption except
that the 6xx chips have more cache and should therefore consume a
little bit MORE power, not less.

 

[Tony Hill]

Umm, recycled "results" I think. Note that the Ahlon64 config uses a VIA
AGP chipset mbrd, though he has also done a A64 PCI-Express review...
apparently not enough tests for the "comparison" though.

I was thinking about the same thing. There are a few other
comparisons out as well:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353


One thing that Anand noted is that the L2 cache latency went up from
23 clock cycles to 27 clock cycles when Intel doubled the cache. This
certainly helps to explain the rather lackluster improvements in
performance.

Fortunately these articles do test the P4 chips on the same
motherboards, and they do seem to indicate that, on average, the 6xx
series is probably worth the extra cost vs. a 5xxJ series P4.
Generally speaking it would seem that the 540J (3.2GHz) and the 630
(3.0GHz) should perform about the same and cost about the same, with
the latter having the advantage of 64-bit support. Of course, a
Socket 939 Athlon64 3200+ is cheaper still, and runs cooler, is just
as fast and has 64-bit support, but I guess some things don't really
change too much.

Yes, they even run at lower power draw, for reasons "unknown", though still
a good bit more than A64s.

The power consumption numbers seem a bit here and there, looking at
the various tests. All seem to indicate that the 6xx chips are better
at idle, but they're rather varied when the system is loaded down.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of this just amounts to the
statistical variability of one chip to the next.

Gaming still favors AMD and video processing
still favors Intel so the "balance" is still there. Hopefully we'll get
the promised 64-bit tests real soon now.

Hopefully we'll get the promised 64-bit Windows real soon now! :>

 

[George Macdonald]

Fortunately these articles do test the P4 chips on the same
motherboards, and they do seem to indicate that, on average, the 6xx
series is probably worth the extra cost vs. a 5xxJ series P4.
Generally speaking it would seem that the 540J (3.2GHz) and the 630
(3.0GHz) should perform about the same and cost about the same, with
the latter having the advantage of 64-bit support. Of course, a
Socket 939 Athlon64 3200+ is cheaper still, and runs cooler, is just
as fast and has 64-bit support, but I guess some things don't really
change too much.

I'm hoping that AMD isn't fumbling the ball here - they've had some nice
newer chips come out in the last 9months or so -- I'm very happy with my
3500+ 90nm -- but these are just really minor embellishments to the user
and pace seems to be lagging a bit - they needed SS3 on the desktop sooner
IMO. They tried to make a song & dance about their new server chipset last
week with duh, PCI-X... doesn't really cut it IMO. Why bother when the
world is switching to PCI-Express?... rather quickly in fact.

The power consumption numbers seem a bit here and there, looking at
the various tests. All seem to indicate that the 6xx chips are better
at idle, but they're rather varied when the system is loaded down.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of this just amounts to the
statistical variability of one chip to the next.

No reason, from what I see, not to use Cool'n'Quiet so that still puts the
A64s a touch ahead on idle... IF his wall power measurement means anything.

Hopefully we'll get the promised 64-bit Windows real soon now! :>

Speaking of which, I asked/paid for the CD 8 weeks ago - nary a sign yet!
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to get a RC or the final for the "free" issue
but they said "within 3-5 weeks of product availability".

 

[wizzzer]

Judging from what you guys have said about AMD vs Intel cpus, it sounds
like Intel's approach is inferior and kind of boneheaded. I get the
feeling Intel is like a chicken running with its head cut off. I read
something where Intel is planning future motherboards than can
dissipate 130 watts of heat, which sounds ridiculous. I always thought
Intel was the safe way to go, but I'm gonna go with Athlon 64 for my
new system soon. I want high performance mainly for games.