4 ms·
Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz vs. Intel Pentium III 1.0 GHz (2001)
- jasonwen 11y agoLove that the logos from Pentium 3 to 4 went, from flat to embossed glossy https://youtu.be/88ancHxItOc?t=24s https://youtu.be/88ancHxItOc?t=24s
- cordite 11y agoLooks like they were ahead of the vista revolution
- Sanddancer 11y agoLies, damn lies, statistics, and benchmarks. I'm curious as to how much of the jerkiness and slowness in that test was due to comparing the integrated graphics on the P3 machine with dedicated graphics on the P4. Hooray for rigged demos.
- sjwright 11y agoThe benchmark is definitely misleading because the Powerpoint workload is playing on a continuous loop. This means that when the test is over, the Pentium III ends up performing more overall work than the Pentium 4.
- hodwik 11y agoAny time you have operating systems running in a test of this kind, you're dealing with the same thing, a difference in work done the longer the test runs.
- gamedna 11y agoDon't discount the difference in ram speed and bus architecture as well.
- agumonkey 11y agoWe don't, that video does.
- ryao 11y agoI do not think there was graphical acceleration for videos back then. It is probably doing well from the SSE2 instructions that Intel's marketing made certain the video player was using for decode. If it were not for that, the Pentium 4 would not have done as well.
- Sanddancer 11y agoThere was. Way back in the day, I even had an mpeg-2 accelerator card that passed through a signal to do its magic. The card used in the P4 was a Geforce 2 GTS, which did have mpeg acceleration. The onboard graphics of the P3 accelerated certain primitives, like motion compensation, but not to the degree of the P4.
- frik 11y agoI would be interested in a benchmark of a 2004 Pentium 4 3GHz HT against the single core performance of a 2016 i7 3 GHz. (To make it compareable, the memory modules have to be as slow as in the 2004 era, also the hdd.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- redtuesday 11y agoYeah, that would be interesting. I would not be surprised if some people did that already with Cinebenchs single thread mode.
- redtuesday 11y agoSince I can't edit my post anymore - the closest thing I could find was Cinebench R10 32 Bit (Single Core) comparisons (unfortunately without deactivated turbo boost and adjusted clock and RAM speeds): Intel Pentium 4 660 - 3.60 Ghz - 2245 Points AMD Athlon X2 6000+ - 3.00 Ghz - 2848 Points Intel Core2 Duo E8400 - 3.00 Ghz - 3647 Points AMD Phenom II X6 1075T - 3.00 Ghz - 3820 Points AMD FX 8320E - 3.20 Ghz - 4056 Points Intel Core i7 950 - 3.06 Ghz - 4353 Points Intel Core i7 3930 - 3.20 Ghz - 6268 Points Intel Core i7 5960X - 3.00 Ghz - 6950 Points It's sad to see that AMD could compete in single core performance until Sandy Bridge (i7 3930) came along. Would be nice if Zen can at least get Sandy Bridge numbers paired with good efficiency so we get more competition in the x86 space again. Numbers taken from: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Overall-Performance-4311159?col0=cinebench-10-32-single http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Overall-Performanc...
- bubuga 11y ago> It's sad to see that AMD could compete in single core performance until Sandy Bridge (i7 3930) came along. Well, an AMD FX 8320E sells for less than 110€, while the Intel Core i7 3930 sells for over 500€. Sounds like AMD has a very competitive offering, both in terms of price and price/performance ratio.
- meric 11y agoHow does a single core i5 2.0 ghz compare to a P4 2.0 ghz?
- Dagwoodie 11y agoI wouldn't be surprised if it was 10x as fast at some things. The original P4 should never have seen the light of day.
- ytch 11y agoEven Atom can beat Pentium 4 in most cases. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-d510-pentium-4-nettop,2649-5.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-d510-pentium-4-nett...
- dopeboy 11y agoJust curious - can you elaborate on your second statement?
- Matthias247 11y agoI think he meant that the P4 (netburst) architecture wasn't very good. It was optimized for high clock rates und utilized a long pipeline for that. I had some fellow students back in those days that overclocked their P4s to 4Ghz and beyond, which was quite insane compared to other architectures (P3 and AMD). However as a tradeoff the architecture was not very efficient. With the Core2 line Intel then moved into a completely different direction with higher efficiency and lower clock cycles. Core2 was considered to be a massive success compared to P4.
- santaclaus 11y agoSo in 2031, what pitch videos from 2016 will we mock?
- agumonkey 11y agoFair. Nice music though.
- ytch 11y agoI still remember the NetBurst v P6 microarchitecture debate.
- redtuesday 11y agoAh, the good old times when AMD could beat Intel in performance and efficiency with it's XP series.
- raverbashing 11y agoOh it's an Ad This is all you need to know about PIII vs P4 http://emulators.com/pentium4.htm http://emulators.com/pentium4.htm (But granted, if it was a 2.0GHz P4 it was a Northwood one, not a Willamette, which was ok)
- IE6 11y agoWe knew something was wrong with the P4s when a Tualatin P3 could out-pace it at a lower frequency.