Final Words

With the 570J being the last desktop Pentium 4 launched in 2004 (once again, not counting the Extreme Edition), it looks like AMD will close out this year on top, which is fitting considering how strong AMD has been throughout the entire year.

Looking at the performance of the Pentium 4 570J it's clear that had Intel launched the 4GHz Pentium 4 things would have been much more competitive than we first thought. AMD would still hold the crown in gaming performance, but Intel would have been able to pick up a lot of lost steam in other areas and continue to solidify leads in content creation, 3D rendering and encoding applications.

We're still being cautiously pessimistic about the types of performance gains we'll see from the upcoming 600 series of CPUs from Intel. As you may have already read, Intel is planning on doubling the L2 cache of Prescott and launching a new 600 series of CPUs next year. With twice the L2 cache Intel will attempt to get most of the benefits of an on-die memory controller, mainly reduced memory access latencies, without actually implementing one. We've seen the positive impact this can have with Intel's Extreme Edition chips, but even then, it may not be enough. Raw clock speed is what the Pentium 4's architecture was designed for, and only that will give Intel a commanding lead - unfortunately for them 3.8GHz does seem to be the end of the road for quite a while.

The performance paradigm will eventually shift to being more depending on multithreading capabilities, but that transition is far from being complete, especially on the desktop. It may end up being that Longhorn in 2006 is when we start to reap the benefits of more than just clock speed with every processor release.

Right now we couldn't be happier with AMD, they are more on top of their game today than they ever were with the Athlon XP and the Athlon 64 platform is by far the most attractive platform AMD has ever had. We've seen AMD offer leading performance in the past, but never have they commanded such a strong lead for such an incredible length of time. If AMD could have repeat of 2004 next year the few companies that still don't take them seriously enough may finally come around.

Power Consumption Comparison
Comments Locked

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    Aha! Thx guys!
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    I meant #8 not #6 for the above post sorry
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    #6 You are right probably since they didn't mention 754 and that would give more parameters for the test. Good catch. They simply downclocked the 130nm 939 3500+.
  • Glassmaster - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    #6: I'm pretty sure they downclocked a 130nm 939 3500+ for those measurements.

    Glassmaster.
  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    Quote:
    "[...]We also included power consumption figures from 130nm Socket-939 Athlon 64 3200+ and 3000+ chips, which as you may know, do not exist.[...]"

    Mea culpa...
  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    Hmmmm so 2CH isn't like dual channel or? coz afaik 754 is single channel!
    Thx for the info :)
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    #4. They are using the 754 130nm core 3000+. That is why they say 90nm beside the 3500+ and not any of the other AMD64's
  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    I don't understand how the A64 3500 90nm consumes less power then the A64 3000 (512/2CH) that is supposed to be also a 90nm part...
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    The power consumption at load is a tad high for the 3.8 at being nearly twice as high as the 3500+. 226 vs. 114. That trend is obviously why Intel killed the 4.0 and beyond and the Tejas I would imagine. I wonder how much the 600 series chips from Intel will be with the extremely expensive L2 cache vs the current 3.6 and 3.8 chips.
  • AtaStrumf - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    I've probably said this before, but I really like those tables with % numbers. You might wonna switch everything over to it. It gives a much more precise picture of diffence than those graphs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now