Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 Benchmark Result Confusion

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 1, 2005 6:40:17 PM

I checked out Tom's Hardware Report titled, (The Mother of All CPU Charts Part 2 ) and focused on the Intel CPU's (550, 640, 540, and 630). I'd like to purchase one of these four.
These Benchmark Charts are confusing me. In almost every Encoding Video, Audio, and Synethetic Chart... it shows the 540 beating the 640. How can that be? In one of the last charts, it shows the 540 beating, in order (The 560,550, 640, and 630). The 540 beating the 560 and 550, that's got to be wrong, those CPU's are of the same class, what the heck?? That chart is labeled (Wstream Memory Performance - "Add"), if you want to check that one out.
So my question is, are these results correct? I would really like to purchase one of these four processors, but these charts have me so confused. The only charts that make since in this report, are the first eight or nine charts that refer to 3D game performance. These 3D-Game charts show the 550 and 640 beating the 540 and 630 (that makes more since to me.)
May 1, 2005 7:46:04 PM

The 600 series has 2mb L2 cache. The 500 series has 1mb L2 cache. This extra cache on the 600 series is a bit slower than the 500 series. Not very much though. In benchmarks that can utilize a buttload of cache the 600 wins. Others that are designed not to need tons of cache the 500 series wins. One selling point of the 600 is the EMT(AMD)64 compatibility.

you should read

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/index.html&lt;/A>

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
May 2, 2005 1:59:50 AM

Your question is a good one, and its understanable why it woud confuse you. There are different factors that play into the reason that one would outperform the other. The charts are correct IMO and are very informative. If you could tell us more about what you eill be using the sytem for then we could help you in your choice. How much do you have to spend? Do you currently have a MOBO for a socket 775 and if you do which one? I have the 550 myself and it is one fast CPU. I have OCd it to 5Ghz and run it at 4.2 most of the time. For my personal use, I would take the fastest clock that my money would buy. If that means getting a 500 series then thats what I would do, but to give you a answer that would apply directly to your situation I would need to know more about what you doing with the system.

:eek:  If I would have shot you when I had the chance, I would be out by now :eek: 
Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
Related resources
May 2, 2005 2:29:48 AM

The cache is not a little slower. It runs 17% slower and since most progrmas dont take advantage of the extra cach, the 600 series is slower in a lot of apps.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
May 2, 2005 7:42:30 AM

Yes and no. The cache is a fair bit slower in reads but faster in writes. You pay a much bigger penality for writes than reads. A cache copy ends up being faster on the 600s. All in all the numbers are very close when the tax man comes to get his money.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
May 2, 2005 9:45:16 AM

It'd be good if you can tell us what purpose you're using the PC for. I can then advise you accordingly.

Gary Hendricks
<A HREF="http://www.digital-music-guide.com" target="_new">Digital-Music-Guide.com</A>
May 2, 2005 5:16:19 PM

Thanks Mozzartusm,
For your responce and the article. Yes, I have already purchased an Intel motherboard with a LGA775 socket. It's the Intel D925XEBC2, running the 925XE chipset. It will be my home machine, and more for personal use, such as games, etc. (I got a pretty nice PCI-E video card). But I will also be using it to monitor the Network at work from time to time, using Citrix, and a VPN. I may also do some audio/video editing for work. But mostly, home use and games.

I believe I've eliminated the 630 as a possibility, so now just focused on 540J vs 640 vs 550J. I don't really want to spend much more then $300 for a CPU. The 550J, being the most expensive, the cheapest I could find it for was $311.
Thanks again for your future help!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by junior311 on 05/02/05 03:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 2, 2005 5:26:49 PM

Also...
Thanks Timberwolf1, Schmide, K8man, for your help and articles so far. This is really helpful.

Schmide... I did notice in the Tom's Article, there was yet another confusing Benchmark Result. It shows the 640 beating the 650 and 660 in the test labled: "SiSoft Sandra 2005 Pro (Memory Bench)".
Thanks again!
May 2, 2005 11:39:09 PM

Are you in the states? if you are I can help you get the 550J cheaper than that. BTW the 550 is the one that I have.

:eek:  If I would have shot you when I had the chance, I would be out by now :eek: 
Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
May 3, 2005 4:09:57 AM

Wow, that would be nice. Yes, I live in the States. I've just been using price searches like (pricewatch.com, bottomdollar.com, shopzilla.com, and pricegrabber). Since the last posting, I've found 550J at TigerDirect.com for $298.68 after shipping, but I think it maybe a non-retail box version.

So, do you recommend the 550J over the 640? Some people mention that the 640 runs a little cooler, and how it has EMT64.

Would I be able to overclock my P4, if I have an Intel Motherboard? Someone told me that Intel motherboards won't let you overclock the CPU.
Thanks again!
May 3, 2005 4:40:47 AM

Guess thats not a j version though

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
May 3, 2005 6:23:41 AM

Boy, we sure should be discouraging people from buying those crappy Amd chips.
I just compared a 4000+ to the 3.8ghz 570, using Tom's handy guide. The Intel chip won 19 benches, while the Amd only won 11. The Intel chip must be almost twice as good as the Amd chip.
May 3, 2005 4:18:32 PM

Im still not convinced one way or the other about the benchmarks. I am convinced that I have some serious questions about some of the inconsistencies that I see. Ive been seeing how the 570 has been producing some really high scores in THG'd comparisons. What really makes me merevous about this is that although it scores very high most of the time when it does score low it scores really low. Im just not sure about this chart.

:eek:  If I would have shot you when I had the chance, I would be out by now :eek: 
Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
May 3, 2005 4:23:11 PM

Ill get you some links, I saw the 550J yesterday for $265.00 now I just need to remember where. I dont know how you feel about E-bay, but that is where you will get the best deal. I bought mine brand new in the factory sealed box for $200.00 and that was around 6 months ago.

:eek:  If I would have shot you when I had the chance, I would be out by now :eek: 
Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
May 3, 2005 4:39:05 PM

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but this discussion of slower cache leads me to ask a question. I am currently debating the purchase of a Venice AMD64 vs. a San Diego AMD64; Venice has 512kB of L2 cache, San Diego has 1 MB of L2 cache. Does anyone happen to know if the San Diego cache is slower than the Venice and if so, by how much? Is it purely a function of cache size, or can the materials/transistors/whatever used in the cache affect its speed? Thanks.
!