Pentium M vs. Pentium 4 (s478) - need performance factor to compare

[winh8r]

Hi
As you probably remember mobile pentiums (centrino) were very efficient considering their low frequencies. and so were mobile celerons as they were only without the speedstep and some cache? (not sure of that)
Anyway I need to compare Celeron M ULV 383 1ghz (dothan, 400mhz FSB, 1mb cache) to celeron s478 2.0gz (400mhz, 128kb, probably northwood). Like: would the celeron M, be a little better or worse or comparable ? For now I would assume 180-200% performance of celeron M over the other celeron (when it would be the same frequency)
also Pentium 4 2.40 GHz (533 MHz, 512 KB, 478northwood) could be considered

It's hard to estimate but let's give it a try, also if there would be any relevant tests on the internet that you can suggest?

 

[r_manic]

Can't you just plop both CPUs on the same motherboard then run benchmarks? Or if they require different mobos, try to create similar conditions for both processors, benchmark performance, then compare.

Or have I missed the point of your post? I'm a bit new to this hardware game.

 

[joefriday]

They will be roughly equivalent in performance for many applications, but the Celeron 2.0 Northwood might be a bit quicker in audio/video encoding applications. The Pentium M and Celeron M had performance per clock very similar to that of the K8 Athlon64, which means it is roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 CPU running at 1.5 times the clock speed of a Pentium M/Celeron M, meaning the 1.0Ghz ULV Celeron you're considering would be quite similar to the 1.6A Northwood Petnium 4 in almost all applications. Do to the tiny L2 cache of the 2.0GHz Celeron Northwood, it performs much like a 1.6A Pentium 4 (or worse) in the vast majority of applications. The ONLY time the 2.0GHz Celeron surpasses a 1.6A P4 (or, in your case, the 1.0Ghz ULV Celeron) is when it comes to audio/video encoding, where clock speed matters much more than L2 cache. The Netburst architecture is quite strong in the area of audio/video encoding. Typically, a 2.0GHz Celeron Northwood would perform very similar to a 1.8A or even the 2.0Ghz Northwood P4, offering significant value for the money if all you did was do video or audio encoding.

If you're considering a new mini notebook with this Celeron M, you might also want to look into the netbooks using the Atom processor. The 1.6GHz Atom is hyperthreading enabled, which helps it achieve a performance level similar to the non-hyperthreading 1.6A Pentium 4, meaning it should perform pretty much the same as that 1.0GHz ULV Celeron while consuming the same or less power.

 

[megamanx00]

Despite it's rather crippled cache (the celeron Ds were such a huge improvement because they had twice that), the 2.0GHz Celeron will do a little better simply due to it's clock speed. As far as performance the 2.4 P4 would be greatly superior to both. Power consumption is a completely different story though.

 

[winh8r]

r_manic you would be right if you were not new
joefriday thanks for your input, this is what I wanted. The problem is that the celeron M processor is built-in to a passive-cooling touchscreen system (intel 915gm and it's on ddr2 so it's some another potential small + in performance to ddr on celeron 478 2.0ghz) and I don't have one at hand to test.

 

[Reynod]

joefriday is pretty spot on - good advice there.

 

[nocteratus]

I have a centrino 1.3Ghz and a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz, both laptop.

and the centrino is a little faster depending of the application, but overall they perform almost the same...

Both have 512 MB ram and on XP pro... sp1, sp2 and sp3 (upgraded when SP were release).

 

[winh8r]

Thanks Nocteraturus that is some relevant information however "overall" impression of the performance might be software dependent in your case as the XP's are old and also hard drive cache etc plays a role
Is the Centrino a pentium M ? Could you run -in some spare time -some short processor intensive benchmark on those machines while background applications are off (like anti-virus firewall etc) ? like Prime/orthos perhaps ?

 

[jaguarskx]

Centrino is a platform package that includes a Pentium M Processor (either Dothan or Banias), the chipset (called Napa, Santa Rosa, and one or two others) and the Intel/Pro wireless solution.

My good ol' IBM Thinkpad T40p has a 1.7GHz (maybe faster, I forgot) Pentium M, the Napa chipset, but lacks the Intel/Pro integrated wireless hardware solution. Therefore, it is not considered a "Centrino".

 

[r_manic]

r_manic you would be right if you were not new
joefriday thanks for your input, this is what I wanted. The problem is that the celeron M processor is built-in to a passive-cooling touchscreen system (intel 915gm and it's on ddr2 so it's some another potential small + in performance to ddr on celeron 478 2.0ghz) and I don't have one at hand to test.

Oh but I am. Trust me.

 

[amdfangirl]

Hi
As you probably remember mobile pentiums (centrino) were very efficient considering their low frequencies. and so were mobile celerons as they were only without the speedstep and some cache? (not sure of that)
Anyway I need to compare Celeron M ULV 383 1ghz (dothan, 400mhz FSB, 1mb cache) to celeron s478 2.0gz (400mhz, 128kb, probably northwood). Like: would the celeron M, be a little better or worse or comparable ? For now I would assume 180-200% performance of celeron M over the other celeron (when it would be the same frequency)
also Pentium 4 2.40 GHz (533 MHz, 512 KB, 478northwood) could be considered

It's hard to estimate but let's give it a try, also if there would be any relevant tests on the internet that you can suggest?

You might consider their more modern counterparts, the Core 2 Solo and the Core 2 Duo ULV. They are more efficient that the Pentium M.

 

[Reynod]

Not much different in IPC given the same FSB though ... bout on par at the same frequency.

 

[amdfangirl]

A bit more effiecent