Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 955: 65nm, 4 threads and 376M transistors
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 30, 2005 11:36 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Presler vs. Smithfield - A Brief Look
Other than the larger L2 cache, Presler as incorporated in the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 provides us with two more enhancements over Smithfield: 1066MHz FSB support and a higher clock speed (3.46GHz).
We wanted to isolate the performance improvement due to the larger L2 cache aside from the other improvements to Presler, so we underclocked our sample and its FSB, and compared it to a Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz).
Looking at a small subset of our tests, we can get a feel for where you can expect the largest performance gains due simply to the increase in L2 cache size. Remember that since L2 access latency on Smithfield was already at 27 cycles, Presler's cache isn't any slower, so what we end up measuring is how large of an impact a 2MB cache has in some of our benchmarks.
Under Business Winstone 2004, we see a boost of just under 3%, thanks to the larger cache size. We have seen the biggest improvements in Winstone, thanks to lower latency caches and higher clock speeds, so it's not too much of a surprise to see a minimal impact here. Content Creation Winstone 2004 shows no real performance impact either.
Our 3D rendering, video encoding and audio encoding tests basically all agree with the earlier results - the added cache doesn't really improve performance here, but that's to be expected, given the nature of the applications (and the already quite large 1MB L2 cache to which we are comparing).
It isn't until we look at some of our 3D gaming tests that we start to see some more tangible performance gains. In games, there are some decent performance improvements to be had, ranging anywhere from 0 to just under 6%, thanks to the larger cache alone.
Couple the larger cache with a faster FSB and higher clock speed, and the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 is shaping up to be a decent improvement over its predecessor.
Other than the larger L2 cache, Presler as incorporated in the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 provides us with two more enhancements over Smithfield: 1066MHz FSB support and a higher clock speed (3.46GHz).
We wanted to isolate the performance improvement due to the larger L2 cache aside from the other improvements to Presler, so we underclocked our sample and its FSB, and compared it to a Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz).
Looking at a small subset of our tests, we can get a feel for where you can expect the largest performance gains due simply to the increase in L2 cache size. Remember that since L2 access latency on Smithfield was already at 27 cycles, Presler's cache isn't any slower, so what we end up measuring is how large of an impact a 2MB cache has in some of our benchmarks.
| Winstone | Business Winstone 2004 | Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 |
| Presler | 19.0 | 30.2 |
| Smithfield | 18.5 | 29.9 |
Under Business Winstone 2004, we see a boost of just under 3%, thanks to the larger cache size. We have seen the biggest improvements in Winstone, thanks to lower latency caches and higher clock speeds, so it's not too much of a surprise to see a minimal impact here. Content Creation Winstone 2004 shows no real performance impact either.
| Media Encoding | 3dsmax 7 Composite | DVD Shrink | WME9 | H.264 | iTunes |
| Presler | 2.03 | 9.1m | 31.3fps | 10.5m | 50s |
| Smithfield | 2.05 | 8.9m | 31.0fps | 10.5m | 50s |
Our 3D rendering, video encoding and audio encoding tests basically all agree with the earlier results - the added cache doesn't really improve performance here, but that's to be expected, given the nature of the applications (and the already quite large 1MB L2 cache to which we are comparing).
| Gaming | Battlefield 2 | Call of Duty 2 | Quake 4 |
| Presler | 77.3 | 76.2 | 130.6 |
| Smithfield | 73.0 | 75.6 | 125.5 |
It isn't until we look at some of our 3D gaming tests that we start to see some more tangible performance gains. In games, there are some decent performance improvements to be had, ranging anywhere from 0 to just under 6%, thanks to the larger cache alone.
Couple the larger cache with a faster FSB and higher clock speed, and the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 is shaping up to be a decent improvement over its predecessor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
84 Comments
View All Comments
Betwon - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
NO.Don't You think that Future versions of the patch will be written by intel.
Viditor - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
Doubtful (but who knows)...I can't see Intel spending 100s of millions with every developer (or even 1 developer) for the long term, just to keep tweaking their patches. It's just not a very smart long term strategy (and Intel is quite smart).
Betwon - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
You just guess it.We find that the good quality codes can provide better performance for both AMD and Intel.
Intel can often benefit more, because the performance potential of Intel is high.
Now, You can not find another SMP-game which can make fps of SMP CPU improve so much great.
If you find it, please tell us.
There is no one who found it.
Viditor - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
Now it's you who's guessing...
Betwon - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
NO.It is true.
Viditor - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
OK...prove it!
Betwon - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
For example:we saw a test(from anandtech)
With the good quality codes, AMD become faster than before, but Intel become much faster than before.
They use Intel's compiler.
Betwon - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
When not use the intel's compiler, AMD become slow.Viditor - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
I know you've often quoted from the spec.org site...
I suggest you revisit there and look at the difference between AMD systems using Intel compilers and the PathScale or Sun compilers. In general, the Spec scores for AMD improve by as much as 30% when not using an Intel compiler...especially in FP.
http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html">http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html
defter - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link
This is not true, for example:
FX-57, Intel compiler, SpecInt base 1862:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...
FX-57, Pathscale compiler, 1745: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...
Opteron 2.8GHz, Intel compiler, SpecInt base 1837: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...
Opteron 2.8GHz, Sun compiler, SpecInt base 1660: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
In SpecFP Intel compiler produces slightly slower results, but the difference isn't 30%:
Opteron 2.8GHz (HP hardware), Intel compiler, SpecFP base 1805: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...
Opteron 2.8GHz (HP hardware), Pathscale compiler, SpecFP base 2052: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...
Opteron 2.8GHz (Sun hardware), Sun compiler, SpecFP base 2132: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
So let's see:
Intel vs Sun compiler:
- Intel complier is 10.7% faster in SpecINT
- Sun compiler is 18.1% faster in SpecFP
Intel vs Pathscale compiler:
- Intel compiler is 6.7% faster in SpecInt
- Pathscale compiler is 13.7% faster is SpecFP
It is quite suprising that Intel's compiler gives best results for AMD's processors in many situations.