POST A COMMENT

47 Comments

Back to Article

  • - Saturday, October 24, 2009 - link

    http://www.goph3r.com/mh">http://www.goph3r.com/mh
    (air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
    lv, coach, chane bag $35
    COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
    christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
    edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
    Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
    AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31
    http://www.goph3r.com/mh">http://www.goph3r.com/mh
    Reply
  • BullCreek - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link

    Does anyone know where I can buy socket479 dothan core pentium Ms online? Newegg and various other places stock the socket 478 variety, but I haven't found anyone that has the socket 479 type. Reply
  • vl - Thursday, December 30, 2004 - link

    If you are using an IDE drive make sure DMA was enabled. To check you can use the hdparm command. Reply
  • Lynx516 - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

    Something is disasterously wrong with your setup. Have you tried using a live CD and try compiling with that?

    What command are you using to compile the kernel? Are you sure you have GCC installed correctly? What do you get if you type gcc-config -l?

    Are you sure nothing else is running (well major tasks)?

    Have you tried running it as root?
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

    Correct they are "user". Here are the results with GCC 3.4.3 on the same system on the second run.

    real 20m42.192s
    user 16m39.148s
    sys 1m21.287s
    dave:~/bench/gcc/linux-2.6.4 # cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz
    cpu MHz : 2105.068

    ... Not sure what is the problem here. The CPU clock is correct. If anyone else has any ideas as to why only the GCC benchmark would be affected I am all ears.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Yozza - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

    Results with gcc version 3.4.3 20041125 on the Banias 1.7GHz (DDR266/400FSB).

    run 1:
    real 4m40.758s
    user 3m58.039s
    sys 0m20.060s

    run 2: (after "make clean")
    real 4m24.759s
    user 3m58.409s
    sys 0m19.978s

    run 3: (again, after "make clean")
    real 4m27.728s
    user 3m58.233s
    sys 0m20.161s

    Of course, this is with gcc 3.4.3. I'd rather not install 3.4.1 on this system only to rollback to 3.4.3 straight after.

    I assume the kernel compile times you showed in the article were from "user" (or user + sys), rather than "real", as the latter is affected by other things happening on the system whereas the former gives the actual CPU time taken by the process.

    The results are impressive to say the least. It's certainly extremely puzzling that your results with Dothan were so disparate. One would expect it to do very well indeed based on my results with 1.7GHz Banias + DDR266.

    For comparison, my 3GHz NW P4:
    run 1:
    real 4m50.687s
    user 4m19.365s
    sys 0m25.261s

    run 2:
    real 4m46.675s
    user 4m23.775s
    sys 0m24.567s
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

    Yozzo, Can you please do kernel 2.6.4 like we did in the benchmark?

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Yozza - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

    Development on the 3.4 gcc branch has only recently stabilised, and the pentium-m cflag was indeed quite buggy/broken in earlier releases, hence why I stated that gcc 3.4.1 is "pretty old". Not in the absolute sense, but rather in terms of the amount of development work that has gone into the 3.4 branch since.

    Some quick benchmarks with gcc version 3.3.4 20040623:
    System was P-M Banias 1.7GHz, 768MB DDR266, i855PM; on a Dell D600.
    # time make
    ...
    real 9m36.940s
    user 8m40.395s
    sys 0m39.643s

    2nd run:
    real 9m35.056s
    user 8m40.515s
    sys 0m39.664s


    For comparison, my 3GHz NW P4, 1.5GB DDR400, i875P:
    1st run:
    real 10m0.508s
    user 9m0.929s
    sys 0m46.210s

    2nd run:
    real 9m58.564s
    user 9m3.107s
    sys 0m45.658s

    Kernel was 2.6.10-ck1-nitro1, with custom .config (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/yaoyaoliu/.config).

    I didn't have gcc 3.4.3 available on my laptop to test, but gcc 3.3.4 clearly shows the expected performance and hence that there is nothing inherently wrong with the P-M architecture that makes it slow at compiling -- indeed, the 1.7GHz Banias P-M (DDR266, 400FSB) is slightly faster than my 3GHz Northwood P4 (dual DDR400, 800FSB).

    I was also interested to see how much faster gcc 3.4.3 was compared to 3.3.4, and so decided to do a compile on my 3GHz P4 desktop machine (same kernel):
    real 6m34.443s
    user 5m52.910s
    sys 0m33.019s

    Interesting results indeed.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

    The GCC we used is the same GCC bundled with SUSE 9.1, our test platform. I don't think 6 months is too old for a processor architecture that has been available for close to 2 years. However, we will get a chance to revist these numbers in the very near future, and i will redo the tests with GCC 3.4.3 and GCC 3.4.1

    Hope that helps,

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • vaystrem - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

    From

    http://gcc.gnu.org

    The GCC Homepage:
    3.4.1 released July 2004
    3.4.3 released November 2004

    If you look at the changelist there have been a lot of improvements even between these few releases.
    Reply
  • Lynx516 - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

    What yozza says is true gcc 3.4.1 is old especially a pre release. As yozza said it has some bugs in it with respect to the pentiu_m march flag.I have been running gcc 3.4.3 for atleast 2 months and i definatly was not one of the first to use it Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

    Yozza: I made some corrections. Saying GCC 3.4.1 is "pretty old" seems pretty hard for me to swallow, but the rest of what you say seems correct. I would be interested in seeing your P-M compile time benchmarks.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Yozza - Sunday, December 26, 2004 - link

    The march=pentium-m flag was pretty broken on earlier gcc 3.4 releases, and it seems that you're using quite an early "3.4.1 (prerelease)" version, which could explain a few things, especially your TSCP benchmarks, where the Pentium-M is the only one to have its performance _decrease_ with optimised (march=pentium-m) compiler flags. This clearly indicates some issues with pentium-m optimisations in your gcc revision (3.4.1 is pretty old these days).

    The extremely slow kernel compile time is especially surprising though. I did some test just now on my 1.7GHz Banias P-M, and the kernel compile times do NOT appear to correspond with your results. So I guess something seems amiss with your system configuration.

    There was certainly some pretty impressive performance in the integer-dependent tests such as the database one -- we already know that the P-M's fp performance isn't that great, which explains some of the more fp-dependent benchmark results. I for one was pretty impressed by its performance in the majority of the benchmarks and by its scaling possibilities, both wrt FSB/memory and core freqs. If only Intel would upgrade the platform to 800MHz FSB with dual channel DDR400; such a configuration would be appear to hold a lot of promise.

    The argument that "Dothan is adherently a linear processor" doesn't hold water either (it should be "inherently" too), since the kernel compile uses one thread by default. Regardless, it should have been possible to test different CPU schedulers to determine how well Dothan deals with multi-tasking loads, particularly wrt compile times by comparing different "MAKEOPTS=-jX" settings. Behaviour under such loads is as dependent on the CPU scheduler as it is on the CPU itself anyway.

    Hence, clearly, the comment "When we stack multiple jobs on the processing queue, Dothan spends a huge majority of its time swapping around" is flawed and incorrect. The implication that the CPU 'swaps around' somewhat like memory paging to disk is rather inaccurate to say the least.
    Reply
  • larson0699 - Sunday, December 26, 2004 - link

    "...The only additional offering that the 855GME feature provides is a 64-bit PCI-X (not to be confused with PCI-Express) bus..."

    PCI-X is a "feature" of the 6300ESB ("Hance Rapids") southbridge, NOT the 855GME northbridge.

    Other makers used the standard ICH5 southbridge, hence no PCI-X slots.

    Such a system would be awesome for a mini RAID server. An adapter from 3Ware would be the perfect utilization of the PCI-X slot provided. Ahh...
    Reply
  • vaystrem - Sunday, December 26, 2004 - link

    Why not Gentoo?

    You could do two boxes - compile the entire OS optomized for the Pentium M with latest GCC revision and do the exact same for the Athlon 64 Box.

    That would be a lot more interesting comparison and useful than doing these benchmarks on top of Suse whose default optomizations are certainly hurting the PentiumM.



    Reply
  • bhtooefr - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    BTW, I mean that maybe Intel shut them down... Reply
  • bhtooefr - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    Hmm... maybe you're right... After all, it seemed that PowerLeap was dodging my questions about their P-M adaptor (and then tried to pimp the PL-AXP (basically a golden fingers card for Socket A) - if I wanted to unlock an AXP, I'd get a pencil ;-))...

    Here's the chat: http://cpu-museum.de/forum/download.php?id=334
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    Oh well, I just looked at SuSE 9.1 again and 9.2 has the ability with kpowersave to select easily the profiles it will use to run, and will say what processor speed it currently is throttling to. Reply
  • ElFenix - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    i'd like to point out that 'heat sink' is actually two words. thanks. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    bhtooefr: I am pretty sure intel wont let them do that.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • bhtooefr - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    Problems on the John the Ripper section:
    DES: Where's the 755?
    MD5: Where's the 400MHz FSB 765?
    Blowfish: Where's the 533MHz FSB 765?

    Also, for anyone who wants to know what the heatsink IS, x86-Secret reviewed this before the heatsink was available, and they used a MicroCool northbridge heatsink.

    FWIW, I don't know why nobody's coupled this thing to an i865/875. It's definitely possible, as Shelton (0K L2 Banias) has been coupled to an i845, and Banias has been coupled to an E7501. And, the fact that Alviso is "i915GL" says a lot. Mobo makers should be able to simply rework the traces leading to the socket, and reuse their P4 board designs for a P-M board design. Or, if they're REALLY lazy, they could just make an adaptor - put the processor in it, and drop it in the socket.
    Reply
  • ImSoHighRightNow - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    "Encode rate, more are better"? Some encoding rates can't be "more" than other encoding rates. They can be HIGHER, but not "more". I would suggest "Encoding rates, higher is better"

    You know what you need? A grammar handbook. Nothing annoys me more than someone who can't conjugate "to be" correctly. I learn conjugations for other languages, the least you can do is learn conjugations for one verb in English. Thanks
    Reply
  • ImSoHighRightNow - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    "Rendering time in seconds, less are better"

    Shouldn't that read more like "Rendering time in seconds, fewer is better" or "Rendering time, a shorter amount of time is better"? At least something remotely grammatical would be preferable. Thanks
    Reply
  • miketheidiot - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    dothan will need work before its ready for desktop. Simple as that. And make it cheaper two, that would be good. $500 + $250 for a mobo is quite a bit, even if it does OC well. Reply
  • DrMrLordX - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    Looks like the Dothan falls flattest when it's faced with multiple concurrent threads. Dual-core Dothan solutions might alleviate some of that problem, but, perhaps this is one of the reasons why Intel has been rather shy about pushing multi-core Pentium Ms for the desktop? Reply
  • Googer - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    It seemed to me that the extra performance 133mhz that the 533 bus provides is rather small. My suggestion is couple this with an 875 or 865 chipset @400mhz and let dual channel memory add the needed performance boost. Its probably the cheapest and most effective way to increase the performance of Pentium M. Reply
  • Pannenkoek - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    I believe that the price of the processor tested should have a more prominent position in the whole test. It's, after all, about the price/performance ratio for most of the consumers.

    If you plan on testing GCC vs ICC then I recommend to visit http://www.coyotegulch.com (though the site is "temporarily unavailable"), where you can find comparisons between the compilers, compile settings and more.

    The focus of the tests on the site is on scientific applications/algorythms which fit in cache, and is therefore more about how many micro-optimizations are not missed. Which explains why results can vary so much; and also why the ICC compiler, made by Intel for Intel processors, can be sometimes a lot faster than GCC, which does not share the intimate knowledge of the inner working of those processors and targets a zillion other architectures as well...
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    I wish though you included pics of the fully assembled system. I would like to see that HSF, since it appears AOpen simply uses a 478 type heatsink bracket. But looking at the board at newegg.com, the Aopen board comes with the heatsink, and has DUAL Marvell Gbe, plus it has a SATA controller on it as well, and costs $14 less. Reply
  • MDme - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    Anand and co: when will you guys do a full review of this chip against P4 and A64 across the different applications, games, etc? that would be a great gift to your readers at AT. Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    Page 6:

    "We also took the same POV-Ray benchmark and ran it against the Pentium M clocked at speeds from 1.0GHz to 2.4GHz."

    Should read 1.6GHz

    [shake 3.5c]"Although it holds up well against an Athlon 64 3200+"

    Doesn't seem like it. It took over 12 minutes longer.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    phaxmohdem: these were just linux tests, but i do believe we have all of those render benchmarks coming up in the Windows analysis.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • overclockingoodness - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    #44: The results could be better on the Windows platform, as stated in the conclusion. Reply
  • sprockkets - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    If you want to see the clock speed dynamically adjusted just roll your mouse over the kpowersave daemon running in the tray (at least it works for me under SuSE 9.2). Even my little Via C3 800mhz system will scale from 399 to 800mhz depending on load. It may even work in 9.1 (the part I couldn't enable was the suspend options). Hell, SuSE even can make my Hitachi Desktar drive go quiet to performance mode right in the OS! Reply
  • formulav8 - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    As this article shows, alot of people way overhyped this chip. Yes its not bad, but not the P4 Killer that alot of people claimed.

    It is interesting but it doesn't look like Intel will make a Desktop chip based on this cpu yet in the near future. Dual cores would be very interesting though.

    JAson

    Reply
  • phaxmohdem - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    This chip seems to be a god-send for the corporate IT directors needing machines for their monkeys to do Word and Excel documents on. As for me though, I don't think I could purchase a chip that has as spuratic performance levels as this. I do so many different things on my box, especially in content creation, that I much prefer the consistant performance of my current Athlon64 proc. across all applications.

    Just a suggestion, I would love to see some Adobe benchmarks on these chips... After Effects render times, Premeire Render times, Photoshop performance, etc as these are all applications I use nearly daily. Thanks.
    Reply
  • HardwareD00d - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    When someone does a full set of benchmarks of the Pentium M for all categories across the board vs A64 and P4, then I'll seriously consider if this chip is worth its salt. Until then, I am unconvinced that it is anything special. If it is so good, then why hasn't Intel made any attempt to push it as a desktop chip? Reply
  • segagenesis - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    It was looking pretty good until you mentioned the price :( Ouch. Reply
  • Ozenmacher - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    And go Vikings! Reply
  • Ozenmacher - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    Merry Christmas to you too! Reply
  • skunkbuster - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    merry christmas!

    Reply
  • Adul - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    stephenbrooks "superlinearly" even a word? Though I do understand what you mean. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    abakshi: Intel roadmaps say only DDR1 for 915GL.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    The Pentium M scales superlinearly with frequency in a few of the time vs. clock-speed benches (and I'm not talking about the 400->533 FSB improvement), which is pretty interesting. I wouldn't have expected a chip like this to get more efficient at _higher_ clocks. Reply
  • abakshi - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    Well FSB533 is here, but 800 would be a more significant move with Dothan. A P-M with FSB800, even DDR400 let's say (rather than the DDR2 that should be supported by using a 915 northbridge), and higher clockspeeds - maybe about 2.4-2.6 Ghz - would be amazing.

    Linux performance will of course depend on other factors such as those mentioned in the article, but the performance under Windows of even the FSB400 2.0 Dothan is awesome -- when overclocked to 2.4Ghz, it's able to keep up with, and at times beat, the latest P4 Prescott and EE's, and A64's, for tasks like gaming:

    http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dot...

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl...
    Reply
  • Lonyo - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    If Intel gave it a FSB and memory speed boost (ie: 533MHz or 800MHz FSB) and DDR533+, then Dothan could really be something.
    With Intels talk of dual core processors, a dual core Dothan, with its low heat output, would be awesome (but costly with 2MB of cache).
    2x30w = 60w = less than Prescott.

    It looks promising, if only Intel would bring it to the affordable desktop :(
    Reply
  • VortigernRed - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    "Although it holds up well against an Athlon 64 3200+,"

    Although the Dothan looks to be a superb chip you are certainly overstating its performance here, this is comment is WRT the Shake benchmarks and, effectively, the A64 3200 is twice as fast as the dothan. This would be like saying, for example, a R9800XT holds up well against an X800XT or an AXP2200+ holds up well against a A64 3800+ :-)

    Also whilst the DDR400 does improve performance it can't help the Dothan where it is really far behind, the kernel compile benchmarks, for instance, it is still 3x slower than any of the other chips on the chart.

    Dothan (or really its derivatives) have loads of potential to compete with the A64 on all fronts (Performance, power, heat, with Intels manufacturing, even cost) given enough effort by Intel (which I'm sure they are doing). I can hardly wait to see widespread adoption on the desktop and, frankly, to see the back of the P4. A desktop Celeron PM (1MB l2, lower FSB) could be the new overclocking king.
    Reply
  • bersl2 - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    You might want to ask on the GCC mailing lists (http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html) about --march=pentium-m. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now