Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Centrino Mobile Equals Desktop Pentium 4 in Speed

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Jan 22, 2005 09:19 AM
from the six-on-one-hand dept.
Spy Handler writes "On Wednesday during the launch of its new Sonoma Centrino Mobile, Intel put on a demonstration running a video game on a laptop. It matched the performance of a high-end Pentium 4 desktop running the same game, declared Intel. The contenders were a laptop sporting a 2.13 GHz Pentium M processor, 1GB RAM, and the Alviso chipset versus a desktop with a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, 1GB RAM, and the Grantsdale chipset. Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Both! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Theovon (109752) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:21AM (#11440937)
    Intel's finally learning the lesson everyone else knew about 5 years ago. Too little, too late? Or can Centrino save them?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's a valid point. the question: "Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?"... I'd say the latter. The pentium mobile architecture hasn't come a long way, it's been dragged along by AMD's use of similar technology (hell, and even IBM with its PPC970) to run better at lower clock speeds.

      It's a sad comment on how damned long the clockspeed-pushing went on for.
    • Re:Both! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0111 1110 (518466) on Saturday January 22 2005, @10:26AM (#11441181)
      Exactly. The only news here is Intel essentially admitting their mistake with the marketing driven P4. For those who are surprised by these results see previous [slashdot.org] stories [slashdot.org] on the subject. See this Doom3 and Far Cry benchmark [gamepc.com] from the link in the first slashdot article and this [extremetech.com] extremetech article and this [x86-secret.com] French benchmark. And these are not the only sources. The fact is that on a modern platform the Pentium M is quite competitive with not only a P4 at nearly twice the clock speed, but also with Athlon64 chips at nearly half the power of even a 90 nm Winchester Athlon64 with a max TDP of either 21 or 29 Watts for the older and newer chips respectively.

      That's not to say that it is competitive in every domain, but for gaming it is tough to beat. And, yes, many modern games do scale with CPU power.
  • Not CPU-limited. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Temporal (96070) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:23AM (#11440947) Journal
    Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?

    I think it's a testament to the fact that whatever game they were running doesn't bottleneck at the CPU. Most video games are not CPU-limited beyond a GHz or two.
    • by gl4ss (559668) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:36AM (#11440993) Homepage Journal
      maybe they were using intels graphic chips too? that would explain it.

      also. what kind of idiot they got in marketing? the whole comparision is just saying "look, our top of the line desktop chip is shit for gaming!"(not totally true even).
      • Not really. It says: "Don't cry if we phase out the Pentium IV line. Pentium M processors will be a valid alternative, and we might even ramp them up to Pentium IV clock speeds with further increased performance."
    • Benchmark time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld (263942) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:44AM (#11441029) Homepage
      I think it's a testament to the fact that whatever game they were running doesn't bottleneck at the CPU. Most video games are not CPU-limited beyond a GHz or two.

      Its time to do what we used to do back in 1990 before the Pentium arrived, run benchmarks to determine how fast the machine is.

      The only interesting thing about using a game as a benchmark is if the thing will run. Its not unusual to find that a game simply does not run on a laptop.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:52AM (#11441048)
      The sad thing is, they were testing using Solitare.
  • by holymoo (660095) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:24AM (#11440949)
    hmm I would like to know which video game it ran to get equal performance. Also, was the game software rendered or was there a graphics chipset involved?
  • by MarcoPon (689115) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:26AM (#11440956) Homepage
    > Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?

    No, it's probably only a testament on not showing enough info about the benchmark system/conditions to provide any useful technical data, but only marketing data.
    Who know? Maybe the game was simply framerate limited by the similar integrated graphics chipset.

    I'm not saying that the Pentium M isn't fast, or as fast as a desktop P4; only that probably that demo don't prove that.
    Just my 2c.

    Bye!
    • Here

      http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/55276

      support Intel pretty well.

      If you don't get the German, don't worry, it's all Geek to me.

      Now please give me fast disks on a laptop. One gig on mine plays away as a RAMdrive (heavy P'shop load) and it runs way too hot for comfort.
      • Most interestingly they state that the Pentium M performs as good as a Pentium 3,8 GHz or Athlon 64 4000+ when running the SPEC-benchmark CINT2000.

        So this really seems to be more than a marketing trick.

        I wonder if they'll merge the desktop and mobile brachens sometime. Afterall power consumption on desktop systems really is out of all proportion to speed. Since I'm quite sure that people won't buy slower systems (even if they don't need faster ones) it's rather obvious that they'll have to use more effici
    • Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?"

      What about "both"?

      Or, of course, as the parent points out, perhaps the bottleneck is somewhere completely different. Maybe the processor speed is less important than something else (gasp!).

      Personally, I'm much more excited by increases in network, disk and bus bandwidth than CPU. I don't spend much time waiting for my CPU; I spend time waiting for data to ge

  • Drivers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StevenHenderson (806391) <stevehenderson@@@gmail...com> on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:35AM (#11440987)
    Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?"

    I am sure that they got together with NVidia and came up with some crazy optimized drivers (read: cheating).

    Sounds like Intel is ready to write off the P4 as done for, and is putting all of thier eggs in the Centrino basket until the launch of their dual-core chips...

  • ...Intel confirms that its desktop chips and chipsets suck?!

  • that your mature, fast chip that people have been designing for for the better part of a decade combined with spanking new memory and hardware works well! my god, it boggles the mind! carl not like that's stopping me from representin with a wack AMD64 chip and gear that makes the inside of my tower a good substitute for a microwave oven(tea, anyone?))
  • by SharpFang (651121) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:38AM (#11440997) Homepage Journal
    ...with the fan attached or without?

    I had the "pleasure" of performing a heavy number crunching on a P4 laptop. Luckily it was winter and one of the rooms in my house is unheated. Leaving the laptop there (temp. about +3C) with bottom lifted off the floor by some books to allow free access to the built-in fan prevented it from entering thermal throttling mode and allowed it to run at full speed...
  • by Spacejock (727523) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:38AM (#11440998) Homepage
    I 'upgraded' from a P3-1 ghz to a P4-2.26 ghz and noticed hardly any difference. I upgraded from my P4 to an Athlon64 3400+ and it not only smokes it, it also has a variable clock speed which only ramps up when needed.

    I've been a loyal intel user since the Pentium 90 came out, but after building several cheap and stable AMD systems for friends and family I took the plunge myself, and I'm more than happy.
    • Sounds like typical system bottlenecks to me, as others have posted.

      For a long time now, CPUs have not been the bottleneck in a typical computer setup. Even more so with laptops.

      Generally, you'll get much better ROI if you upgrade the following components/subsystems in this order:

      Disk latency
      Disk throughput
      Memory throughput
      Memory latency

      This all depends on what you use your system for, of course. But for the average computer performing a mix of home/office tasks, this is roughly where things need to g
      • by sh0dan (762382) on Saturday January 22 2005, @10:08AM (#11441102) Homepage
        It isn't just an issue of clock speed, but also CPU core voltage. Throttling the clock speed from 2Ghz to 400Mhz can also be combined with a lower CPU voltage. So you are not only running the CPU slower, but also supplying it with a lower voltage.

        I don't know about P4, but on AMD systems this allows for the CPU fan to completely stop when the CPU is idle (on desktop systems).
  • As an earlier poster mentioned, most newer games depend more on the GPU than the CPU; anything over 2Ghz is almost overkill.
    Intel and AMD are in the awkward position of needing to create a market for new processors in a world where a 1Ghz processor will do most office tasks brilliantly. They pushed speed, speed and more speed for so long that the average consumer doesn't give a whit about HyperThreading or anything else. Tech heads and researchers and universities are different, but is that enough to support to very large chip manufacturers forever?
    • Very true, and one of the main reasons i care more about power consumption/heat dissipation that performance lately. For a x86 desktop, any modern offering from either AMD or Intel does an excellent job. Both VIA and Transmeta have some very nice low power x86 chips, but their performance leaves a bit to be desired. They do lovely cheap servers though :)

      In any case, outside the P-M, Athlons completely blow Intel out of the water, in performance, price and power consumption. I'd love to get a P-M based
    • Intel and AMD are in the awkward position of needing to create a market for new processors in a world where a 1Ghz processor will do most office tasks brilliantly

      Don't worry, Microsoft has that covered... when Longhorn (eventually) comes out! ;p

      This position reminds me of how once-quality consumer electronics companies like Sony found out they had to start producing crap that breaks down quickly, or else people would wait like 15 years before purchasing their products again.

  • by The Munger (695154) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:42AM (#11441018) Homepage
    Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?

    Or perhaps a testament to how fill-rate limited the game was? Honestly, what was the game? Doom 3? Or Monkey Isnald 3? It makes a difference.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:43AM (#11441026) Homepage Journal
    They don't really mention any of these factors about the laptop. What good is having good performance if it weighs 10 pounds and has a battery life of an hour?
  • Answer (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?

    Yes.
  • by StandardCell (589682) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:54AM (#11441056)
    As I had mentioned in a previous comment [slashdot.org], the front side bus speed is the biggest limiting factor on Pentium M processors. The day we see an 800MHz FSB Pentium M is the day the direct MHz comparisons will apply (i.e. 1.8GHz P-M vs. 1.8GHz A64). Even the Tom's Hardware Guide review [tomshardware.com] of the new Sonoma chipset for P-M shows fairly marginal gains and proves the FSB is the limitation, PLUS they do the stupid thing here and put in DDR-2 which does little for performance but increases system costs.
    • by pla (258480) on Saturday January 22 2005, @10:39AM (#11441238) Journal
      the front side bus speed is the biggest limiting factor on Pentium M processors.

      Thank you... So far, I consider this the only "insightful" comment in this entire topic.

      In terms of raw performance, though, Anand and Tom (of which you mention the latter) have both done "real world" tests that don't include the GPU as the bottlenext, and found that, for heavily CPU-bound tasks (such as compression, which also eats memory but mostly just CPU), the Pentium-M (Dothan, in particular) holds its own against both the Prescott (P4) and the Athlon 64. On some tasks any of those three would take the lead, though the Dothan does only take 2nd or 3rd most of the time (but still beats the Athlon XP and the Northwood P4).

      For second best, and less than a quarter of the power consumption (less than a tenth when idle) for comparable performance, I fully plan to get a Pentium M as my next desktop upgrade. I care about raw performance, but I also care about my electric bill and about having something that sounds like a jet engine three feet from my head (lower power = less cooling needed = quieter).


      PLUS they do the stupid thing here and put in DDR-2 which does little for performance but increases system costs.

      Strange opinion... Yes, it increases the system cost a tad, but consider it from two POVs...First, since the Centrino line primarily targets laptops, 2.5V vs 1.8V means significantly lower power consumption (and correspondingly less need for active cooling, making battery life even better). And second - DDR2 picks up where DDR stops, FSB-wise... You could just as well say the original P4s did nothing for performance over the best-of-breed PIIIs, but after three core gens and a doubling of the clock speed, no one would now claim a "modern" PIII will outperform a modern P4.
      • Isn't the Pentium-M based off the PIII core? In that case a PIII that is modern as you put it is the Pentium-M which matches or outperforms the P4.
        • Isn't the Pentium-M based off the PIII core?

          No. Or at least, not proveably so.

          Intel has released very few architectural details of the Centrino line. From what little the public actually knows about it, it does seem more similar to a PIII than a P4, but by all (credible) accounts, it uses a complete core redesign, optimized based on different criteria than most desktop CPUs. As a result, it consumes a reasonable amount of power, and the performance seems like almost an unintended perk.
    • PLUS they do the stupid thing here and put in DDR-2 which does little for performance but increases system costs.

      Well presumably DDR-2 will decrease in price eventually. At the moment cost is certainly an issue. But don't forget that DDR2 is lower voltage and saves power, which for a mobile chipset is extremely important. Whether it makes sense for a desktop chipset is another question. I just hope Aopen continues to release desktop motherboards for the Pentium M. It would be nice to see one based on this
  • The poser of the question (that started this thread) signals his ignorance of microprocessor design and underscores what AMD has said all along, and everyone else who hasfollowed the industry since when there was much more competition in the microprocessor, namely you can't juxtpose microprocessors on clock frequency alone. Anyone remember the Intel i860? Or when MIPS was a stand alone company competing against Intel (seemingly). If you say no to these things, that probably explains why you're even ponderin
  • by heffrey (229704) on Saturday January 22 2005, @10:07AM (#11441094)
    One area where Pentium M is fantastic is in scientific and engineering simulation software. My company produces such a piece of software called OrcaFlex (www.orcina.com). The code is mainly old fashioned 8087 FPU instructions doing 3 dimensional vector operations.

    In the past few years clock speed has become much less important than memory architecture in determining how fast the simulations run. Of current architectures P4 stinks and is comprehensively stuffed by Opteron. However, PM even beats Opteron. Our fastest machine for OrcaFlex is a DELL Centrino notebook! This just edges out our top of the range Opteron workstation.

    Has anyone else out there seen anything similar with other applications?
  • by cjc1103 (787208) on Saturday January 22 2005, @10:08AM (#11441099)
    So what.. if Intel is going to compete with AMD, they need to make a 64 bit version of the P-M chip. AMD already has a mobile Athlon 64.
  • by TheSunborn (68004) <tiller&daimi,au,dk> on Saturday January 22 2005, @10:12AM (#11441125)

    Here is a link to a benchmark [gamepc.com] that show that intel might be right.

    This benchmark shows that a Pentium M 2.3 (Yes it is overclocked) is as fast as a AMD Athlon64 FX-53 (2.4 GHz) in many games


  • Is this a testament to how far the Pentium Mobile architecture has come, or a sad comment on the clockspeed-pushing design of the Pentium 4?

    The Pentium III has veen embarassing the Pentium 4 as long as the Pentium 4 has been shipping. This is merely another act in the continuing Greek Tragedy that is the Pentium 4.
    • Yes. Hell, i would put two, but they're still to damn expensive (and so are the motherboards for it). I hope that changes in the near future though, the P-M is a terrific processor.
    • Centrino is the Pentium-M with a wi-fi chipset. I think the article was meant to highlight the pentium-M's performance versus the pentium *4* performance
    • Would someone explain to me the point of having a wifi device inside the processor? Does it vastly improve performance or reduce power consumption? I personally would think a typical addon card is preferrable. If your network changes usb standards, you don't have to replace your processor.
    • by illumin8 (148082) on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:39AM (#11441003) Journal
      Centrino is fine and dandy, but I still want a little bit more speed than that. I want a Pentium M, but I also want to know how it really is vs that desktop. I would really like to have the fastest thing for a new laptop, as judged by experienced people. So Intel, come on and test all your chips against that 'fast' desktop!

      FYI, Centrino is the same thing as Pentium M. Centrino just means you bought a laptop with a Pentium M processor and Intel's wireless chipset. bundled together. Why, oh why does Intel insist on giving everything some crappy marketing name and confusing customers?
    • Centrino is fine and dandy, but I still want a little bit more speed than that. I want a Pentium M, but I also want to know how it really is vs that desktop. I would really like to have the fastest thing for a new laptop, as judged by experienced people. So Intel, come on and test all your chips against that 'fast' desktop!

      The Pention M is using much less power than P4 for comparable performance, and thus has much less cooling requirements. I for one won't mind cheaper and more available Pentium M with

    • Intel has been pushing a "Get the most GHz for you über-boxen !!! Our competitors don't have that much of those !!!" marketing strategy for years.

      So much, that :
      - It hurts their sale of Pentium M processor, because customer will prefere Pentium 4 "Because there's more GHz inside", as Intel has taught them,
      - It will hurt them more when the next generation of desktop processors won't have a pipeline as deep as the current one, and will have less GHz for the same effective speed. (Intel said they wanted
    • It's a shame all the benchmarks disagree. Have a look at Benchmark [gamepc.com]

      This benchmark also shows that a Pentium M 2.3 (Yes it is overclocked) is as fast as a AMD Athlon64 FX-53 (2.4 GHz)

    • I call douchebag of the day on you.

      Why don't you look up the various articles posted on /. about the Pentium-M platform and read the arcticles linked therein? You will find many benchmarks that will demonstrate that, yes Virginia, there's plenty of FPS to be gained by a faster CPU. Hell, feel free to read any CPU article that compares game performance.
    • You do have a point here: for most games all you need is a decent graphics card; I mean, in some cases you don't even need that: fable on the XBox look very good and is fun to play. However I must say that my IBM T42p (dothan) laptop just feels much more responsive than my P4 2.6 desktop, especially for scientific applications having a 2MB cache makes all the difference!
      • Re:try this (Score:3, Informative)

        Also you can generally turn off HT in the bios, if you're really interested in seeing what effect it has.

        I tried it with 3DMark2003. Turning off HT makes a very small increase in performance.
    • Bah. I have a 10 pound laptop, plus accessories, an external drive and a leather case, the whole package comes out to around 18 pounds; HT'd 3.0 P4m or whatever runs games okay; it's just when you need to do anything that involves shuffling a lot of memory around that you notice how goddamn slow laptops are. I proudly walk a mile to work each day with that thing slung over my shoulder. You'll never hear me complain about laptop weight.



      ...cos I'm too busy complaining about perpetually sore shoulders. I sl
    • If you remember your history, the Pentium-M is based off of the Pentium-III. You know, the same P3 that kicked the crap out of the P4 when it came out, despite the fact that the P3 was topping out around 1.0Ghz and the P4 started at 1.4Ghz.

      Unless you mean that the the Pentium M has no hyperthreading, which I suppose is a valid point, as hyperthreading is about all the P4 has going for it right now.