P3's better than early P4's? is it true or false?

[lindochico]

Hi y'all...

I think I read somewhere sometime ago that Pentium 3 processors were better performers than 1st generation Pentium 4 processors. Is it true? If so, can you tell me where can I find more info. about this issue?

A friend of mine is a big Intel fanboy and I want to give him a "present", if you know what I mean...

Thanks.... :!:

 

[Zoron]

Yes, it's true. A 1.4GHz Williamette P4 only performed as well as ~1.1GHz P3. The whole "more work per clock" thing that had AMD leading in performance up until Northwood C.

 

[dvdpiddy]

Yup, it's true in lots of cases. Intel with the high clocks on the P4, to sell them, that's probabl then main reason.

But, why talk about the past, we can talk AM2 and Conroe, not P3 and P4.

Cause the p3 was great and didnt generate alot of heat like the p4

 

[YO_KID37]

The Pentium 3 was a better and more efficient Arcetecture than the Pentium 4, But Intel got greedy and just wanted to Follow "Moores Law" and they gave up Efficiency and performance for heat and Speed

But seems like they've realised that performance is'nt everything it's efficiency and workload
A thing that AMD has been following for the entire Pentium 4 legacy

 

[spud]

The Pentium 3 was a better and more efficient Arcetecture than the Pentium 4, But Intel got greedy and just wanted to Follow "Moores Law" and they gave up Efficiency and performance for heat and Speed

But seems like they've realised that performance is'nt everything it's efficiency and workload
A thing that AMD has been following for the entire Pentium 4 legacy

Moores Law has nothing to do with greed it was a claim that every 18 months performance of IC's should increase by 2x.

 

[K8MAN]

I dont know why you only mention the 1 low-end p4 there. The 1.4 tualy was nearly as fast as a 2ghz willy.

 

[YO_KID37]

Arrrrggg Shiver me Timbers! K8MAN be speaking the Truth~ arrrggg!!!!! I also found a P3~1.6Ghz that performs about as good as some of the 1.8GHz to the 2.2GHz P4s

 

[Qwertyleo]

Arrrrggg Shiver me Timbers! K8MAN be speaking the Truth~ arrrggg!!!!! I also found a P3~1.6Ghz that performs about as good as some of the 1.8GHz to the 2.2GHz P4s

I was under the impression they capped at 1.4, it a special contract model?

 

[YO_KID37]

Ever hear of Overclocked Pentium 3s, hehe sorry i forgot to mension this one was a lil'overclocked :lol:

 

[lindochico]

Thank you guys for all your replies.

I was hoping to get some references to sources in the industry that might have detailed documentation about this topic, so that my friend can't deny this fact.

Anyway, you already confirmed what I was investigating, so you've been very helpful!

Thanks again...!

 

[Acert93]

Moores Law has nothing to do with greed it was a claim that every 18 months performance of IC's should increase by 2x.

I believe Moores Law is only loosely related to performance; namely that Moores law is related to the density of transistors in a given die space would double every 18-24 months.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html

The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's Law to hold for at least another two decades.

Also: http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/silicon/moores-law-0405.htm

 

[jap0nes]

netburst can handle high clock speeds at the cost of performance. if we had a p4 and p3 with exactly the same clock speed, the p3 would be a lot faster.
but the market likes high numbers, like 2, 3ghz... that's why amd came up with the PR stuff, coz if they were selling based on their mhz, people would think that a 1.8 ghz amd is slower than a 2ghz p4 for example.

by the way, p3 is so much better than p4, that core architecture is based on... p3

 

[ejay]

The P3 Tualatin with 512 cache were superb processors. They really challenged the early Willamette processors. Tom's published an excellent article here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2001/09/19/last_passing_maneuver/

Unfortunately they were overpriced and in direct competition with the P4's. They were cool and efficient. I had the 1.26 Ghz version and while SSandra gave my P4 2.0 Ghz C a significant "performance" advantage, I couldn't see it in real world gameplay.

 

[dirtyberty]

I used 2 different PIII chips and was so discusted with how bad all of Intel's netburst products have been that for my desktop computing needs i've used AMD chips of late, though i'm very interested to see just how good Conroe will be, but hey, i'm digressing a little, thats right - the PIII.

The first I used was the PIII 500E (coppermine core) which overclocked really nicely and with it's on-die CPU speed L2 cache it was also very effective, I ran it on a VIA Apollo Pro 133 chipset as the aging BX chipset wouldnt clock properly to 133 (BX only supported a 3x divider for the PCI bus, running it above 112MHz FSB wasnt really possible) and the less said about the i820 chipset the better - it plainly didnt work!

The second PIII I used was the 1.4GHz chip that used Intel's superb Tualtin core (it was one of the first processors to be based on a 130nm process). I benchmarked this against a mate's then brand new 2GHz P4 Prescott based machine and the PIII won convincingly, so the later PIII's were only really beaten once netburst's clock speed got into the range of being a full 1000MHz faster!

The Tualtin's life didnt end with the PIII though, it went on to become the basis of the Pentium M, which in turn is the basis of Intel's new Core arcitecture, conveniently brushing the whole netburst mistake under the carpet!

 

[theaxemaster]

No wonder my P3-800EB (512k, 133FSB) ran XP just about as well as my P4 1.8 did on the same ram/graphics card. PC800 RDRAM was this shit on that sys (f'ing expensive though) and I had a motherboard for both the slot 1 and the socket 478 that used it. Long gone now though...well, the P4 1.8 is still hanging around (HTPC).

 

[mesarectifier]

Socket 423 P4s all sucked.

What's the difference in performance between Katmai and Tualtin core'd P3s?

 

[TheMaster]

My old p3 at 800 mhz didnt even need a heatsink fan... :lol:

though, I would never trade it back for my northwood c.
When you add 2 ghz of headroom on a p4 it leaves the p3 in the dust.

 

[Pain]

as the aging BX chipset wouldnt clock properly to 133 (BX only supported a 3x divider for the PCI bus, running it above 112MHz FSB wasnt really possible)

Probably splitting hairs here and getting off the subject, but the BX supported 4x devider at 133. It did not however support anything but 1:1 and 2/3 AGP, so at 133 the AGP ran at 83.

I have several BX boards overclocked, so that's the only reason I know that. 2 of them I've had for over 8 years and they still work well, for what they are (1.1 celerons oc'd to 1.45G)

 

[dhlucke]

Those first P4's were terrible. I remember having a 1Ghz Athlon and it running circles around 1.4 Ghz P4's. It felt like I was working on an "old" computer on brand new P4's.

 

[dirtyberty]

RDRAM - that was a fiasco bordering on conspiracy which was driven by nothing more than Intel's greed and was totally oppposed to consumer demand. The story goes that Intel forged a deal with RAMBUS whereby if Intel could push thier RDRAM standard to the biggest share of the market they would get a 50% stake in the company and various other favourable deals.

The first attempt that this was Intel's i820 chipset for the PIII-E with a 133MHz FSB. This platform was originally designed to work with RDRAM and RDRAM only. Unfortunately for Intel, board makers and consumers were not prepared to purchase RDRAM which at the time was extremely expensive and had very limited availability and appeal. In a rushed last minute gasp to try and save the i820 platform they converted the chipset to PC133, unfortunately they didnt do a very good job and users experienced horrific reliability problems which eventually led to a product recall, refunds for all purchasers and the canning of i820.

Wind forward to the release of the P4 - Intel now had a golden opportunity to monopolise RDRAM for thier own gains, so when the P4 was released the only RAM supported was RDRAM, which was not just expensive but also slow. Theres actually very little about RDRAM which was good, it had a very narrow bus, just 16bits, which meant to match SDRAM (64bit) it had to run 4x faster, but thats just the start. RDRAM was very difficult to manufacture and many manufacturers were reluctant to do so due to low yields and having to pay royalties to RAMBUS for the privelage. RDRAM was never popular with consumers, it was expensive, it was slow, it ran very hot, Intel tried to push it by bundling it with the Pentium 4 but in the end boards came to market for the P4 that supported SDRAM - SDR SDRAM at first too, which although a better and cheaper alternative to RDRAM was hardly state of the art as AMD platforms were already running DDR266 SDRAM. RDRAM faded away and in desperation RAMBUS tried to claim that they invented SDRAM (a complete fabrication) and tried to charge royalties to those who make it. Some of the companies stupidly paid up but others contested it - and won. The directors of RAMBUS have now been tried for fraud and Intel has tried to distance themselves from them ever since.

 

[dvdpiddy]

RDRAM - that was a fiasco bordering on conspiracy which was driven by nothing more than Intel's greed and was totally oppposed to consumer demand. The story goes that Intel forged a deal with RAMBUS whereby if Intel could push thier RDRAM standard to the biggest share of the market they would get a 50% stake in the company and various other favourable deals.

The first attempt that this was Intel's i820 chipset for the PIII-E with a 133MHz FSB. This platform was originally designed to work with RDRAM and RDRAM only. Unfortunately for Intel, board makers and consumers were not prepared to purchase RAM which at the time was extremely expensive and had very limited availability and appeal. In a rushed last minute gasp to try and save the i820 platform they converted the chipset to PC133, unfortunately they didnt do a very good job and users experienced horrific reliability problems which eventually led to a product recall, refunds for all purchasers and the canning of i820.

Wind forward to the release of the P4 - Intel now had a golden opportunity to monopolise RDRAM for thier own gains, so when the P4 was released the only RAM supported was RDRAM, which was not just expensive but also slow. Theres actually very little about RDRAM which was good, it had a very narrow bus, just 16bits, which meant to match SDRAM (64bit) it had to run 4x faster, but thats just the start. RDRAM was very difficult to manufacture and many manufacturers were reluctant to do so due to low yields and having to pay royalties to RAMBUS for the privelage. RDRAM was never popular with consumers, it was expensive, it was slow, it ran very hot, Intel tried to push it by bundling it with the Pentium 4 but in the end boards came to market for the P4 that supported SDRAM - SDR SDRAM at first too, which although a better and cheaper alternative to RDRAM was hardly state of the art as AMD platforms were already running DDR266 SDRAM. RDRAM faded away and in desperation RAMBUS tried to claim that they invented SDRAM (a complete fabrication) and tried to charge royalties to those who make it. Some of the companies stupidly paid up but others contested it - and won. The directors of RAMBUS have now been tried for fraud and Intel has tried to distance themselves from them ever since.

True so true if intel had kept the p3 and if it supported ddr man i would still be running with intel fanboys :lol:

 

[Ycon]

Early P4s were no match for P3s
When Northwood arrived, P4s finally managed to strike back but until then everyone went off to buy P3 instead of P4.
P6 is the best processor design on this planet and also other planets (*lol*).

 

[maury73]

Just consider this: a Pentium-M at 2.13GHz is quite as fast as an Athon64 running at 2.0GHz and the Pentium-M internal architecture is derived by the P3, not the P4!

Toms has published a benchmark review some months ago about this, making the tests with an adapter board that makes possible to mount a Pentium-M on a standard desktop ATX mobo (ASRock makes such boards): search for this of you need documentation.

 

[rushfan]

I had the good fortune of acquiring a matched pair of Pentium III-S (Tualatin) 1.26 GHz CPUs from a Dell server. The trouble is finding a motherboard that supports the Tualatin chips. Any suggestions? I would love to overclock 'em to see what they can do.

Interestingly - I popped one in my dad's Dell OptiPlex GX150 and it recognized the CPU properly in the BIOS and later I confirmed it using CPU-Z. Too bad that there's virtually no tweaking allowed by the Dell BIOS/mainboard.

 

[ejay]

You might have a tough time finding a dual cpu Tualatin motherboard. You can still find single processor motherboards, i.e.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813136111