Intel P4 3.2Ghz Prescott

Check out Iceman's review of the Prescott and post your comments here.


link to the article

 

Color me disappointed
AMD is still kicking the stuffing out of us Intel boys. Get on the ball Intel!

 

well... u know what u could do?

 

Your talking about switching right?
I just might do that if Intel loses again... well, next time I get a new system anyways.

 

Arrgh! Blasphemy!

 

I am going to be a bit harsh. I am going to critiaclly review your review.

Ok. On the introduction. Your information on the changes made to the NetBurst architecture is very poor. You say that the pipeline changes have no been disclosed. Infact they have. The pipeline is now up to 31 stages up from 20. You could then have gone on to explain the pros and cons of a lengthened pipeline.

Also you mention nothing about the delay on prescott of nearly a year, or on the huge changes intel have made to prescott during the time it was delayed. Nor how intel have moved features slated for Nejas such as LGA.

On the actual benchmarks. You seem to have 2 copies of the same Sandra Multimedia graph. PiFast is a good benchmark to see however I dont quite agree with using 3dMark2k1 as it is a graphics card orientated benchmark.

On the conclusion you could mension that there are bery strong roumours that intel are going to change to Opteron style numbering and also change desktop CPU to the Pentium M architecture away from NetBurst.

Overall it isnt bad, it is not biased in any way. However it does lack depth in some areas.

Lynx

 

Nothing was mentioned about the future CPU's since that will all be revealed soon. As for the graphs, cheers I will look into that but with regards to 3DMark 2001, it's an exceptional benchmark for system performance, in this day thanks to our graphics cards being so overpowered for today's applications, the graphics bottleneck is totally removed at default settings. If this weren't true then you wouldn't see the huge deviation in scores between systems would you? 3DMark 03 on the other hand wouldn't be a good idea since that is hugely graphics limited.

You have to remember that we review slightly differently to many other sites out there, we like to be able to let everyone read a review without being totally over their heads in technical details. Trust me I could write for England about the intricacies of CPU design since that's what I studied but it isn't really necessary at a review level. Points noted though and thank you for your feedback.

 

Hello, Im not a really huge fan of intel or how they design the chips to do less per clock so they can have a bigger number than the other (The Celeron is the biggest joke of all), but i never imagined that they would include AMD 64 bits inst. and reneming it like it was their instructions. Its like AMD using SSE and renaming it to something else, but much worse as intell tryed to sell us that 64 bits wont be necessary untill they say so, did not developed their own 64 bits extenssions, as this was not the best route.

I think that including stuff in that cpu (64bits inst. and maybe some other things they are not telling) and disabling it is the cause of that huge thermal requeriments.

Good review not to extense but ok to have another point of view.

Also I think the 1mb of cache its not a nice added bonus for the same price as without it the cpu would perform much much worse than the previous design.

Can anyone dissable the l2 on both and do a comp in some benchmarks.