Pentium 4 3.46 Extreme Edition and 925XE: 1066MHz FSB Support is Here
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 31, 2004 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Does it Improve Real World Performance?
There is a convenient convergence point between the 1066MHz FSB and the 800MHz FSB - 3.2GHz. By underclocking our 3.4EE and our 3.46EE to 3.2GHz we managed to put together a nice comparison of the impact of FSB on real world performance, independent of CPU and memory clock speed. Granted, the impact of the 1066MHz FSB will be greater at higher CPU clock speeds, but the impact at 3.2GHz should be able to tell us how much of the 3.46EE's performance advantage is due to its faster FSB.
The table below gives a good indication of the lack of performance improvement due to the 1066MHz FSB today in most applications. With an average performance increase of less than 1%, you shouldn't expect the 1066MHz FSB to do much for Intel at all.
| Business/General Use | |||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
|
| Business Winstone 2004 | 21.2 |
21.2 |
0.00% |
| SYSMark 2004 - Communication | 136 |
136 |
0.00% |
| SYSMark 2004 - Document Creation | 201 |
198 |
1.49% |
| SYSMark 2004 - Data Analysis | 162 |
161 |
0.62% |
| Microsoft Office XP with SP-2 | 511 |
511 |
0.00% |
| Mozilla 1.4 | 401 |
405 |
1.00% |
| ACD Systems ACDSee PowerPack 5.0 | 593 |
593 |
0.00% |
| Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3 | 543 |
553 |
1.84% |
| WinZip Computing WinZip 8.1 | 419 |
431 |
2.86% |
| WinRAR | 419 |
413 |
1.43% |
| Average Performance Increase | 0.92% |
||
Under Multitasking Content Creation applications we see that despite the nature of these applications to be more memory bandwidth intensive, the 800MHz FSB simply wasn't a limitation for the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. Couple that with the fact that with a very large on-die L3 cache, the Extreme Edition needs to fetch data across the FSB much less frequently, it's no surprise that the biggest performance improvement in our Multitasking Content Creation tests was only 1.52%.
| Multitasking Content Creation | |||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
|
| Content Creation Winstone 2004 | 30.9 |
30.9 |
0.00% |
| SYSMark 2004 - 3D Creation | 207 |
204 |
1.45% |
| SYSMark 2004 - 2D Creation | 264 |
260 |
1.52% |
| SYSMark 2004 - Web Publication | 187 |
185 |
1.07% |
| Multitasking: Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder | 596 |
600 |
0.67% |
| Average Performance Increase | 0.94% |
||
There's not much to see in the Video Creation/Photo Editing tests, the 1066MHz FSB does absolutely nothing for performance here.
| Video Creation/Photo Editing | ||||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
||
| Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 | 347 |
347 |
0.00%
|
|
| Adobe Premiere 6.5 | 533 |
533 |
0.00%
|
|
| Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5 | 289 |
289 |
0.00%
|
|
| Average Performance Increase | 0.00% |
|||
In the past, DivX encoding has seen reasonable performance increases due to a faster FSB and increased memory bandwidth. With the move to the 1066MHz FSB we seem to have hit a limit, as there's absolutely no performance improvement here either. It looks like it will take much higher clock speeds for the 1066MHz FSB to make a difference.
| Audio/Video Encoding | ||||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
||
| MusicMatch Jukebox 7.10 | 434 |
434 |
0.00% |
|
| DivX Encoding | 49.9 |
49.9 |
0.00% |
|
| XV iD Encoding | 28.7 |
28.5 |
0.70% |
|
| Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0 | 2.32 |
2.32 |
0.00% |
|
| Average Performance Increase | 0.00% |
|||
Games have also been areas where faster FSB frequencies have benefited Intel,
but once again we see that the average performance increase is less than a
percent. Starwars Battlefront shows the greatest increase in performance at
2.8% due to the 1066MHz FSB.
| Gaming | |||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
|
| Doom 3 | 86.1 |
85.2 |
1.05% |
| Sims 2 | 46 |
46 |
0.00% |
| CS: Source | 156.8 |
156.4 |
0.26% |
| Halo | 88.4 |
88 |
0.45% |
| Far Cry | 133.5 |
132 |
1.12% |
| Star Wars Battlefront | 143 |
139 |
2.80% |
| Battlefield Vietnam | 239 |
239 |
0.00% |
| UT2004 | 59 |
58.6 |
0.68% |
| Wolf: ET | 98 |
96.9 |
1.12% |
| Warcraft III | 60 |
59 |
1.67% |
| Average Performance Increase | 0.91% |
||
We weren't expecting to see much in the 3D rendering tests and the 1066MHz FSB did not disappoint with only a 0.74% average performance increase here.
| 3D Rendering | |||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
|
| Discreet 3ds max 5.1 (DirectX) | 280 |
282 |
0.71% |
| Discreet 3ds max 5.1 (OpenGL) | 339 |
342 |
0.88% |
| SPECapc 3dsmax 6 | 1.63 |
1.62 |
0.61% |
| Average Performance Increase | 0.74% |
||
Our final suite of tests are the professional applications tested by SPECviewperf
8. Here we see the largest overall gains provided by the 1066MHz FSB, with
performance improvements approaching 5%, and average performance improvements
approaching 3%. There's very little gain in compiling performance but in the
realm of 3D professional application performance the 1066MHz FSB begins to
show its worth. The gains here will only get better as clock speeds increase,
so maybe the 1066MHz FSB will pay off for those running demanding enough applications
to require a $1000+ 3.46EE CPU.
| Professional Apps | |||
1066MHz FSB |
800MHz FSB |
Performance Improvement |
|
| SPECviewperf 8 - 3dsmax-03 | 15.99 |
15.99 |
0.00% |
| SPECviewperf 8 - catia-01 | 12.62 |
12.08 |
4.28% |
| SPECviewperf 8 - light-07 | 12.89 |
12.41 |
3.72% |
| SPECviewperf 8 - maya-01 | 12.66 |
12.32 |
2.69% |
| SPECviewperf 8 - proe-03 | 15.9 |
15.31 |
3.71% |
| SPECviewperf 8 - sw-01 | 12.87 |
12.53 |
2.64% |
| SPECviewperf 8 - ugs-04 | 13.71 |
13.1 |
4.45% |
| Visual Studio 6 | 16.8 |
16.7 |
0.60% |
| Average Performance Increase | 2.76% |
||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
63 Comments
View All Comments
GhandiInstinct - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Come on Dell, cheaper, faster..give in to the grown up taste!!!I still can't fathom Dell being the top computer seller worldwide, are soccer moms buying at record highs?
Tides - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
i'd say ddr2 does suck when intel gets less performance with it vs an amd 939 with ddr1. what a waste of cash to have the intel branding.jimmy43 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Most people dont care whats in their computer. Intel is a brand name people trust, but if they can get a computer for less money which can do all they need, then they will. And guess what? Theyl be blown away, and theyl realize AMD slays Intel and theyl laugh at their friends who got an Intel. The reason Intel is able to hold on so well to the market is because of conservative companies like DELL and other such multi-billion dollar partnerships. I say once DELL gives in, its over for Intel. But seriosly they really need to pick it up...Zebo - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Those gaming benchmarks are embarresing.A "budget" athlon 64 3400 with the "old" socket 754 single channel mem controller is putting a whoppin' on Intels top chip.Zebo - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
SLIMYou're forgetting DDR2 price which this needs in your so called Intel is "cheaper" comparison. If you want the same price setup you can get a FX-55 and really bring the wood.
AnonymouseUser - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
"why didn't anyone try to overclock this thing and see how far it'll go?"They didn't want to melt the motherboard?
knitecrow - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
why didn't anyone try to overclock this thing and see how far it'll go?Determinant - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
There is a graph missing in the "Business/General Use Performance" page.The graph for "Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3" is replaced by a duplicate of the preceding graph.
I was surprised to see the big difference when burning CDs/DVDs with different CPUs until I realized that it was the wrong graph.
I'm really interested to see how much of an impact faster CPUs make for burning CDs/DVDs because I didn't think that there would be a difference outside of the benchmark variance but since this was benchmarked it must have been noticable.
Thanks
MMORPGOD - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
None of you are aware of the situation Intel has over the world computing market. Yes evryone here on Anand forum is hardcore or enthusiast of computer tech and gaming for PC. But one thing none of you have a grasp on is that Intel has millions of people who do not define themselfs as ever being knowledgable to computing performance or benchmarks. Basicly all of intel is going to be on top no matter what, unless something big happens where the community who purchases these computer systems from the retail stores either sees whats going on beforehand or just wises up and reads about there current technology. Its something thats proven and works, Intel is leading the world in publications of its product more then AMD, thus they have a hand on being on the top. I am a diehard AMD fan, and there isnt to many of us out there who have been since AMD came out, but I can tell you, with all this media coverage on Intel over the past years, its engraved into evry consumers head that the next PC they get they will most likely purchase retail INtel equiped PC. AMD needs to market a little more because average people dont give a damn about benchmarks. Just my opinion about evryone who I see post above who says man Intel is toast or Intel is gone, those are benchmark comments and dont disolve the real world consumers thoughts on a PC with Intel name. How many people go into a Circuit City or Best Buy and see more AMD products then Intel? Intel leads advertisements and in store showcasing, so until someone actually gives the word to the public that AMD is better, Intel will always lead but not in performace. Cant wait for my FX-55Pythias - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
I really hope intel can get it back together, or we're gonna be looking at sky high processor pricing again. We need healthy competition.