March of 2000 marked a very interesting time for AMD and Intel; just two days apart, each company broke the 1GHz barrier with an extremely high priced, low yield, barely available CPU – and users stood in awe.  Today, Intel quietly introduces a Pentium 4 running at 3.8GHz, and the excitement is nowhere to be found. 

Maybe it’s that the 3.8GHz clock speed is hidden behind the 570J model number.  Maybe it’s that our latest benchmarks have shown that it’d take much more than 3.8GHz for Intel to truly regain the performance crown.  Or maybe it’s the cancellation of the 4GHz Pentium 4 that has robbed the 3.8GHz model’s 15 minutes of fame.  Then again, this isn’t the first time we’ve reviewed a speed-bump without getting too excited, so maybe business is just as usual.

The Intel Pentium 4 570J is the topic of discussion today; the 570 represents a Prescott core clocked at 3.8GHz, an increase of 200MHz over the Pentium 4 560.  The Pentium 4 570J will fit in at the $637 price point (in 1K unit quantities), and will be faced with limited initial availability. 

Since the CPU is labeled using Intel’s model numbering system it is meant for LGA-775 platforms only, which is in line with Intel’s plan to bring the Socket-478 platform to an end very soon.  The J-suffix simply indicates support for Intel’s Execute Disable Bit (EDB), identical to AMD’s NX bit.

Enabled (on Windows) through Service Pack 2, EDB and NX prevent programs from executing malicious code contained within various parts of memory.  We’ve talked briefly about EDB/NX here on AnandTech, and Microsoft also has an informative page on the specifics of Service Pack 2’s support for the technologies

Architecturally, other than the inclusion of EDB support, the Pentium 4 570J remains unchanged from all previous Prescott based CPUs.  If you want to understand a bit more about Prescott’s architecture be sure to read our extensive coverage of the technology and improvements/shortcomings of Intel’s flagship core. But if you’re already up to speed, let’s get right to it.

Testing EDB Functionality
POST A COMMENT

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

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

    I meant #8 not #6 for the above post sorry Reply
  • 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+. Reply
  • Glassmaster - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

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

    Glassmaster.
    Reply
  • 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...
    Reply
  • 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 :)
    Reply
  • 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 Reply
  • 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... Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now