Problem #2: Total Cost of Ownership

Intel has always kept desktop processors more affordable to ramp up production and reduce the cost of manufacturing while charging a premium on server and mobile processors; the Pentium M clearly falls into the latter category. Using our RealTime Pricing Engine (RTPE), we pulled the following prices for the Pentium M line at the time of publication:

 CPU  Price
Intel Pentium M 765 (2.13GHz) $645
Intel Pentium M 755 (2.0GHz) $435
Intel Pentium M 745 (1.8GHz) $299
Intel Pentium M 735 (1.7GHz) $245
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ $259
Intel Pentium 4 560 (3.6GHz) $430

The first thing to notice is that the flagship Pentium M processor is priced at $645, about the same as AMD's Athlon 64 4000+ clocked at 2.6GHz. The rest of the lineup is a bit more reasonable, but still fairly expensive. At $435, the 2.0GHz Pentium M 755 needs to be competitive with the 3.6GHz Pentium 4 560, and at $245, the Pentium M 735 needs to be able to hang with the Athlon 64 3500+.

The other pricey item for making the desktop Pentium M migration is the motherboard. Currently, only AOpen and DFI have motherboards available and, once again using our RTPE, both boards are priced at $230 - $240. That's over twice the price of desktop Athlon 64 and Pentium 4 motherboards; it's even more expensive than ASUS' nForce4 SLI based A8N-SLI Deluxe, which happens to be one of the most expensive desktop Athlon 64 motherboards.

Thankfully, memory and other components are identical regardless of whether you're building a Pentium M or a Pentium 4 system, but the price of the CPU and motherboard alone handicap the Pentium M from the start. But, if we can get beyond these issues of motherboard compatibility and price, is the Pentium M an attractive solution for the desktop?

To understand what the price premium buys you, it's easiest to look at a comparison of Thermal Design Power between the Pentium M and some of its desktop CPU competitors:

 CPU  TDP
Intel Pentium M 765 (2.13GHz) 22W
Intel Pentium 4 520 (2.8GHz) 84W
Intel Pentium 4 570 115W
AMD Athlon 64 67W

Intel publishes a max TDP for their processors to aid their partners better in development of Intel based platforms, and using Intel's numbers, we see that the fastest Pentium M carries a 22W TDP, compared to the 84W TDP of the entry-level Pentium 4 520.

AMD publishes multiple TDP values for their processors based on the power states enabled by Cool 'n Quiet, the maximum of which happens to be 89W for the entire Athlon 64 line. Originally designed as a server chip, it's no surprise that the Athlon 64 is much more power-hungry than the Pentium M.

So, with the Pentium M, you get lower power consumption on the desktop, which arguably isn't as important as it is on the mobile side, but is still a neat feature to have - especially in the quest for a quiet-running PC.

But as we all know, a quiet, expensive Pentium M is useless if it doesn't perform up to par with the competition, so let's talk about performance a bit.

Problem #1: Can't Use Desktop Chipsets Understanding Pentium M Architecture
Comments Locked

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jeff7181 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link

    Give the Dothan a speed bump and some dual channel DDR400 and stay out of it's way...
  • MDme - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link

    well, now we FINALLY have a comprehensive review of the P-M, it's strengths and weaknesses. While the P-M is good. the A64 is still better.
  • Netopia - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link

    Yeah, I was about to say the same as #3.

    Why did you go to the trouble to list what the AthlonXP system would have in it and then not actually test or reference it anywhere in the article?

    I still have a bunch of AXP machines and regularly help others upgrade using XP-M's, so it would be interesting to see these at least included in reviews for a while.
  • CrystalBay - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link

    Hi, I noticed in the testbed an AXP3200/NF2U400 but there are no charts with this setup.
  • Beenthere - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link

    It's a pipe dream for those who wish Intel had their act together. It's already confirmed M don't scale well and is not effective for HD computing. It's performance is really some place between Sempron and A64 but certainly not a suitable competitor to A64 nor FX. Just another Hail Mary for a defunct Intel.
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link

    Hmm, an interesting review on the Pentium M to say the least. Though are 2-2-2-10 timings for the Pentium M the best for this architecture???
  • 0ldman79 - Wednesday, January 26, 2022 - link

    It's interesting coming back and reading this after it's all settled, Core 2 seemed to be an evolution of the Pentium M line.

    Intel did hang the Netburst architecture up, though they added a lot of Netburst's integer design to Core 2 while designing Nehalem. AMD apparently believed that Intel was going to stick with Netburst and designed the FX line, while Intel went back to their earlier designs and lowered the clock speed, massively increased the IPC and parallelism and out-Phenom'ed the Phenom with Nehalem.

    Back then Intel believed that Dennard scaling would continue and they'd have 10GHz chips, turns out wider and slower is better.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now