I remember buying a Pentium M based laptop on 2005 and being completely blown away by how much it could do at such a low frequency (1,6 Ghz). Compared to my old desktop, it would encode MP3 so fast that I thought the program had bugged out and just written blank files instead.
Yes, but that was 2005, one or 2 years was really a difference back in the day. People know judge Pentium 4 not fairly, because they don't see whole story and what was actually available in that time.
@@PidalinThe problem was that the Pentium 4 was as fast as if the branch prediction worked but (as the benchmark showed) even significantly slower than the Pentium 3 if the branch prediction did not work for the task and the whole pipeline had to be rebuilt wasting cycles. And to get this you were asked to invest in not only a new board and CPU but also new RAM and PSU so almost a whole new PC that is sometimes slower than the CPU that it replaces. The first P4 laptops had battery run times of about 2 hours which was good ironically because you'd have gone crazy if the fan ran any longer. That was why people judged it poorly.
@@Pidalin Williamette with SD RAM or RD RAM was a disaster. At the time, Athlon had been available for a while already and those were faster than that. The reason intel didn't have anything better at the time is.. well because they were busy with this piece of crap. The reason they eventually ditched netburst completely was because netburst was crap.
The thing that I find most interesting about the P4 was that AMD showed that frequency wasn't the be all and end all in CPU performance. While the P4 eventually outpaced the Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 came along and beat the P4 soundly in most things with only 2/3rds of the actual frequency. Then in a fit of insanity AMD somehow thought that emulating the P4 thinking was a good idea and we got the unmitigated failure of FX, which when first introduced had the very same comparison to phenom 2 as we see here with this P4vP3 comparison. While FX pulled ahead of phenom2 it did so only because of the higher clock speeds at introduction, but because people were overclocking phenom 2's up to 4GHz (because they could), the initial FX bulldozers couldn't really compete well against the processors they were replacing (one can only wonder what a phenom 3 might have been like, especially an 8 core).
I was actually shocked and very disappointed when those Faildozers came out... the FX-4100 at 3.6GHz performed just about the same as a (very mildly by core2 standards) overclocked Core 2 Quad Q6600 at 3GHz... an almost 5 year old CPU at the time of the FX release. Not to mention any Sandy Bridge CPU from the same year beat the sh*t out of the so called equivalent FX CPU. WTF were they thinking with that whole FX lineup?! It's no wonder why you still occasionally see people with heavily overclocked Sandy Bridge setups from back in 2011 (same year as the FX), but all the FXes (along with all the underperforming-when-new FM1 and FM2 trash) have long since moved to the scrap pile
@@Knaeckebrotsaege AMD was hoping the software would catch up to the hardware. Finewine and all. If you think about it, it did. The extra cores make the FX 8 cores relevant for 1080p 60Hz gaming even today.
I was still young enough in 2011 when bulldozer came out where I could see myself leaning into fanboyism toward AMD. It was the absolute failure of those benchmarks that fated day day in fall 2011 that my bastions of fanboyism finally disappeared (dramatic wording is intentional :) ). I knew I couldn't be stupid enough to try to support a bulldozer chip. Then a year later when pile driver came out and it was actually respectable in use cases I needed it for at the price point I went with the fx8350. I still have that fx8350 to this very day. Funny joke is that its been so long since 2012 that AMD has become relevant again and if I did build a new pc it would because AMD is legitimately the best all round chip and it would not be any fanboyism.
@@Trick-Framed Just recently a GPU scaling benchmark was released by hardware unboxed that shows the fx8370 cpu still failing miserably. Although I think I want to walk through that video again and see where the bias in game selection sit in the video. Oh yeah I think the vulkan/dx12 titles the fx system was actually competent. Its just even to this day the adoption of dx12/vulkan is not good enough.
@@pauls4522 Gamer's Nexus did one too. Except Steve Burke admitted his home PC had an 8370 and he kept his beast machines at work. It did well with a 2080ti....which I think most processors would...lol.
Amazing how history repeats itself. When the first Pentiums came out, there was much discussion about the massive 16 watt monsters needed a heatsink AND a fan. :D
Later with the Cedar Mill shrink they got thermals and power draw under control. They aren't bad, just came too late. That is probably what Prescott should've been. Released in early 2006 they were succeeded mid 2006 by the first Core 2.
Core 1 series in laptops is more of a updated PIII, as it still uses P6 microarchitecture with some changes. Core 2 series was a very heavy modification.
@@niewazneniewazne1890 Technically a comparison to the Pentium M/Celeron M (though those are noticeably worse) would be even more accurate. Even visually they look similar to socket 370 Pentiums/Celerons.
People speak about Tualatin now like about some god like CPU, but after Northwood core and frequencies like 2.4 GHz were released, Tualatin was totaly obsolete, P4 northwood was just much faster and ofcourse even more fast thank to DDR memory. I have Tualatin 1.4 GHz, so I can test it, I am not just using some old memories, so I can see all those myths. It was great architecture in case of energy efficiency, but RAW performance was already really low in 2002, especially because of SDRAM hellmory which were always problematical, problems with compatibility etc...switch to DDR was really a massive jump in term of compatibility. Jump to DDR3 later was pretty much like return of SDRAM, I hated DDR3, so many problems with them, unstability, blue screens. I mean mainly on socket 775 boards. 😀
@@Pidalin I recall quite clearly people have always been worshipping the tualatin even back in 2006 when I was using a Duron 850MHz there was many people in computer forums either drooling at the thought of owning one (Tualatin, not my Duron lol) or people who did have one and bragged it was magically smoother than the P4s even when the frame rates were lower. Of course everybody seemed to have the 1.4GHz PIII-S with 512kb L2. That said I do want one to complete my PIII collection. I have a 600MHz Slot 1 Katmai on a 440BX, a 1GHz Coppermine S370 133MHz FSB model and if I had a Tualatin 1.4 S model I’d have all 3 of the fastest model Pentium III’s on their respective process design 250nm Katmai 180nm coppermine and 130nm Tualatin.
@@Protoking I recently sold my Tualatin 1.4 GHz, it's really interesting piece of history, but I need to lower that number of computer hardware I have at home and I want to keep only practical things, which Tualatin is not, for some late Win 9x retro PC, it's better to find some decent Athlon XP with DDR RAM, Tualatin is weak. But frequency/performance ratio is ofcourse very good compared to some P4, problem is that after 2001, clock speeds jumped up pretty fast, to tualatin became obsolete pretty fast. Using some 850 MHz Duron in 2006 had to be really pain, I had still PII 400 MHz in 2004, but then it went pretty fast, I had a new computer (I mean not new, but new for me) pretty much every half year. 🙂 I had some Celeron D 2.8 GHz and GF 6800LE later 7600GT) in 2006 and that was already weak for new games because these celerons and Pentium 4s were bottlenecking these late AGP GPUs, you already needed core 2 duo in 2006 or 2007 to play in better quality. I have a lot of retro HW and I do many tests, I am shocked how poorly games ran back in the day on HW from that period of time, we are complaining now, but it was even worse 20 years ago, you had to play in 800x600/low to stable 40 FPS. 😀
If you're wondering what the tiny brown slot is on the left side of the Pentium IV motherboard, it's a riser for the Kennereth Fast Ethernet adapter that interfaces with the ICH2 chipset.
@@gentuxable I tested the network risers that went in that slot at Intel. It was a network interface slot. There was also a digital subscriber line (DSL) interface available for it. Intel only provided the risers to OEMs for some reason (which is why you hardly see the riser cards)...ICH2 had a MAC (Media Access Controller) built into the chipset that interfaced directly with the "north bridge", bypassing the I/O busses (you could send and receive100 MB Ethernet at wire speed on these boards, a feat previously reserved for servers!). It lacked a PHY, or physical interface, which was provided by the riser card. Some motherboards used the ICH2 MAC and actually provided a PHY as well, so you got a LOM (Lan on Motherboard) on those systems. Intel created many more ICHx interfaces after this, but they discarded the clunky risers. Lots of laptop chipsets had an ICH-based LOM in them.
One of my first computers was an old Compaq Evo D310 with a Intel Pentium 4 "Northwood" 478mPGA CPU with a 2.66 GHz speed and included a Nvidia Geforce 6200 GPU
It's worth mentioning that Intel's next overclocking gem around that time would be the 1.6 GHz P4 Northwood, which could easily reach 2.4 GHz (with FSB and SDRAM running at 150 MHz). As inefficient as the P4 architecture was, it still managed to outdo what any P3 could ever reach. I guess that would be a nice subject for another video.
Heads up, CL is CAS Latency rather than Cache Latency. It's based on one of the signals involved in DRAM, the CAS (Column Access Strobe) and how many clock ticks you have to wait between strobing it and some of the other signals.
Great video Phil! Today, I Found a Dell Inspiron 8100 today in a thrift store. Has a tualitin 1ghz in it along with a Geforce 2! Runs retro games on Win98 smooth as silk
Just a slight correction Phil, CL on RAM stands for CAS Latency, CAS stands for Column Address Strobe, not cache :) Great video as always though, you're definitely one of my favourite TH-camrs and as much as I know, I still find myself learning loads from your videos :)
Thank you Phill for that video, I always wanted to see such competition. When i was kid, I’ve heard a lot of negative things about Willamette against Tualatin
Solid pronunciation on the core names. This is the first time I’ve heard BOTH tualatin AND willamette pronounced correctly by the same person on youtube. Well, you know, with an accent, tualatin in ‘Merican is “two all a tin”.
Not a native Oregonian, but I am a north-westerner with ties to Oregon. From what I've heard, "two ALL a tin" is actually right. I watched part of a speech from the mayor (or may have been ex-mayor at the time) where I remember he distinctly pronounced it that way as well. I have also heard "two AL a tin", though not as much. Could be I'm just talking to too many Portlanders. "Will AM it" is definitely correct though. Either way, not sure the ethnocentric disdain is really called for when Intel specifically named the cores after north-western locales in... "'Merica." That being the case, however the locals have chosen to pronounce the names of their towns (typically, in that area, being derived from a Native American word or phrase) is about as authoritative as it can get.
High Clock frequencies are very important for the netburst architecture. I think a overclocked Tualatin to 1,6Ghz comes very close to the 2,2 GHz Northwood.
It does. Depending on the applications even on 1400 Tualatin scales between 1.8-2.0 on the Netburst scale. or as fast as a 2.66 GHz Northwood Celeron :D
you see you much the increase from 100 fsb to 133 helps the system? if you increase it further to 166 AND increase the clock speed the system gets a lot faster. not sure if tualatin can handle that though
GraveUypo I have max. tested 150 Mhz FSB with my 1,4 ghz Tualatin (1575 MHz). This frequency is still save for AGP/PCI cards. (75/37.5). I dont want go higher. Also positive is, that the last SL6BY stepping can handle this frequency with the standard vcore of 1,45V. In 3DMark 2000 (standard settings) and a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 (320/700), I get 12700 points.
My Tualatin did hit 1,7Ghz hehe, and I did it on purpose to overclock the PCI as highest as possible cause it increases the bandwidth to the Voodoo5 PCI Iv used. But back to the netbursts, there has been huge IPC improvement between Willamete and Northwood. When both run at 2Ghz in games the NW can be easily 15-20% faster. Northwood was arguable the only good Netburst CPU. IPC was OK, overclocking on the lower models was huge, it reached up to 3,4Ghz in the end, and then you also had the Gallatin variant with 2MB of L3. Prescott was a failure, more power hungry and IPC went down cause the pipeline got longer and the cache latency got much worse. Tejas got canceleed cause it was even worse than prescott, and Cedar Mill is just a die-shrink. It clocked high and power draw was massively imrpoved, but for year 2005/6 it was not good enough performance wise when AMd already had dualcore K8. And there is another thing, Netburst needs at least 256KB of L2 cache. If it does not have that the performance takes dive to disaster levels. The 128KB Celeron version at 3Ghz performs like K7 at 1Ghz at times, especially in games. Avoid the 128K Celerons at all costs.
I have overclocked Celeron 1200 to 1600 on Asus P3C-E mainboard with Asus slot/socket converter. But later, I have upgraded to Asus P4T-E mainboard with Pentium 4 3,06 GHz with HT. They were very well, my graphics cards, one of them was Matrox G550 AGP. Later nVidia 6000 something with 256 MB ram. I have very good time with them at the past. For a short time, I also used normal sized Intel mainboard at the video with a 2000 MHz Celeron processor. Intel mainboard was not allowing overclocking, but a single pin when blocked, it was working at 133 MHz speed bus. So with pin modding, it has worked at 2666 MHz really fine, later I sold it....
One small correction, CL as in CL-2 is not "cache" latency, but CAS latency. CAS or Column Access Strobe is one of the signals used for DRAM control. The other is RAS or Row Access Strobe. (edit) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
Absolutely agree with you. I'm a fan of S-370 platform and, time ago, I ran some benchmarks in order to compare my Tualatin 1400S with other P-III, P4 and Athlon XP processors. The first P4 which reached P-III 1450-S results was the Willamette 2 ghz.
While I have a soft spot for Northwood, as I had that for the majority of the 2000s, my favorit early 2k platform is the Pentium 3 and the Tualatin at that. It's fast and cool and silent. P4 with the stock cooler can easily reach 70°C, especially the Prescott. I think out of all of my retro builds I use my Tualatin the most and maybe the Pentium MMX the second.
Great video! Loved the detailed background info, really puts things in perspective. I remember being tempted to upgrade to the 1.4GHz Tualatin back in the day... right up until I found out my Via chipset board wasn't compatible. Couldn't afford a P4, so I ended up going AMD. Funnily enough, I never had any stability issues with the Via chipset, although I was running Nvidia cards, so I guess they were all running at AGP 2x and I never knew it until now!
I had a p3 1000 and "upgraded" to a 1.4ghz p4, it was slightly slower in my benchmarks (use to load music projects up and see how many plugins I could run). I was very lucky the shop I went to let me return it and buy a 1.4ghz p3, kept that as my main machine until I got a Northwood 2.8ghz p4. Cool video
Phil, you are GOD! i always wanted to see this comparison.. Makes me remember when i was a kid, an friend from school told me the: "new p4 with rambus will kill everything from hardware we have now" he was wrong.. lol.. it is possible to run aida(everest) memory and cache benchmark to see the diferences of bandwidth from pc133 to rambus 800mhz?
I built a dual Tualatin socket 370 gigabyte motherboard back in the day... with a radeon 9700 all in wonder it kicked ass. I had to run win 2000, then xp pro... used it for a long time.
yeah I remember this. it was just way too long ago I barely remember when I had similar setups comparing them. the real experience with early willamette pen4s were more horryfing as far as i remember. pen4 era was the time where frequency speed started becoming questionable to increase performance. it probably took until intels core architecture got released which it significantly changed the overall architecture to improve performance per clock sharing l2 cache and adapting multicores structure.
I'd say I'm a little biased due to how I've just had a few Pentium 4s and no Pentium III so this video is really interesting even to little me because it shows how Intel went backwards instead of forward with the Pentium 4. Good job Phil!
Merci beaucoup Phil ! J'ai tout récemment fait l'acquisition d'une Gigabyte GA-6OXT avec un Pentium III S 1266mhz que j'ai pû overclocker à 1624mhz et le Celeron 1300mhz à 1729mhz , j'ai pû faire mes tests et j'en ai conclu la même chose que toi ! Vraiment excellent ces Tualatin, je vais me construire une machine pour les jeux et les logiciels rétro, merci pour tes conseils 😁😁
Phil, if you want to ever revisit this video, get an Asus TUA266. It has both SDR(3x1GB) and DDR(2x1GB) support. It uses the ALi Aladdin chipset. It was by far the best board I used in terms of overclocking for the Pentium 3 architecture.
I wonder how well the Athlon 1.4 would stack up against the PIII. Wikipedia used to say that the Tualatin-1400 could outperform not only the 2GHz Willamette, but also the Athlon-1400. Now, being faster than the Willamette I can believe, but the Athlon...? I seem to recall those things being real speed demons!
We will find out soon :) Now the Athlon had a range of chipsets to choose from, and there is also SDRAM on the early boards, but it quickly went with DDR, so that's what I'm going with.
That does seem dubious. At the very least, the floating point units in the Athlons were a lot stronger, no P3 ever did too well there, not to mention higher FSB bandwidth.
Interesting how quake 3 is always the odd one out? I heard that when intel was resaerching their core based graphics card, quake 3 was one of their test programs. As soon as they used some other generic game, performance would suck. Linus made a video with that prototype card. I wonder what magic cormack packed into the q3 engine? Btw, is activisions crawl to duty still based on the q3 engine?
While technically; socket 423 boards can run 3 ghz northwood processors via 423-478 socket adapters along with standard atx psus via 20 pin/6 pin aux adapters, the components to expand it beyond willamette are rare and cost prohibitive. Really unfortunate for those who did invest in the first generation getting burned soon afterwards. Unless one has other reasons for doing so; socket 423 is not worth it.
Oh man the PrescHOTT CPU.... I had the 3GHz 478 version on an Abit IS7 and the stock cooler was NO WHERE NEAR close to keeping that CPU cool! I had to get a zalman CNPS7000 if I remember right. Wonderful video Phil!!
I still salivate over the 1.4 Tualatin Pentium 3. I had a Celeron 1.1 @ 1.4 back in the day and it was okay for the price, but no where near the P3. It seemed like CPU speeds were progressing so much more back then.
Looking back at this, I'm very tempted to try and run a Willamette P4 inside a laptop that presently has a Northwood P4 HT 3.2GHz (which is old enough to not have the HT Intel sticker)
Back in the day, I had a P4 1.6. I currently have several P4 CPUs but I am not going to build a Willamette machine. I am going to build a 2.4GHz Northwood instead. The reason being is I need a dedicated machine for Star Force and SecuROM games and I need a little more power than a Willamette can muster. To play the early XP games I played on my P4, I am building a PIII 1000EB with a similar GF3 card to what I had back then. I don't think I will be hampered by a 512MB memory limit. My P4 had 1GB of DDR RAM. I also have a P4 650 HT machine with a 7800GTX
Yeah, names get reused far to often for us retro friends. AMD HD 4000 cards and Intel integrated HD 4000 Socket 370 and X370 chipsets (Good that the Pentium 4 stopped at 365) GTX 480 and RX 480 Celeron 420 and Geforce 420 and Athlon X2 420 Pentium 4 560 and i3-560 Pentium 4 640 and i5-640 and Pentium G640 And I'm wondering what the next line of chipsets will be named, after all, we already got a 400 series, which includes the good old 440BX
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul yeah true. A friend of mine complained that he couldn't run anything playable on his 280. I thought he had an R9 280 but he had a GTX 280. I was really confused about why he had such low frames and asked him if he hooked his card up on tripple 4k monitors or something lol
I believe Willamette was essentially an unfinished Pentium 4 architecture rushed to market. Northwood was the intended product, but intel were still playing catchup to AMD during this period.
there were many such products, which is result of competition and hasted things. Another example was releasing 8800GT/GTS-512 by Nvidia, which was originally planned as 9000-series as all G92 chips. They were affraid of Radeon HD3870, that it will catch 8800GTS 640 and reach close to 8800 GTX, while price will be under 8800GTS 640. These two cards, 8800 GT / GTS -512 are results, they could not wait to release these cards along with 9800GTX in april 2008, so used not fully optimized and tuned G92 core, that should be still few months to be fine-tuned. This is, why G92 core is presented in 8000 series in these two cases. If competition would not exists, they would be released definetly later as 9800GT and 9800GTS.
Hi Phil, love your videos... Question for you. I recently built a Voodoo 2 SLI machine, running on a Pentium 4 Celeron @ 1.7ghz (Willamette, 128kb cache). I was wondering what speed Pentium III does this chip compare? I'm running Win98' and everything runs like butta, but just wanted to hear your thoughts on my chip and setup, and if the lack of L2 cache is holding me back at all. Appreciate it!
Depending on the country you live, you get the arctic copper silent and similar heatsinks new and unused for next to nothing. Also for socket 478, you can get good period correct heatsinks for cheap.
Sadly 440BX will have trouble going to 150 FSB, but if it runs, the P4 will have no chance. i815 is fine tho. Stable, fast. Sure, the 512 MB RAM limit and no ISA slots might be negatives, but for a 98/XP build for around 2000-2003 it will be an amazing setup. 98 has trouble with more than 512 MB itself, and for ISA soundcards a slower platform might be more appropriate anyway.
@@HappyBeezerStudios All 440BX boards i have tested have no problem going past 150 fsb, you only need good ram and compatible graphics card. Imho, an Athlon XP is a much better choice for a late win98 early XP setup, the i815 is in the middle of nowhere.
@@talvisota327 The Geforce4 MX440 or MX460 (good ones with properly clocked memory), they never gave me problems with high OC AGP bus, and also match Tualatin performance very well.
@@Romerco77 thanks, i think i even still have an mx440 somewhere. unfortunately my 440bx board doesnt support tualatins, at least not without modding, so i will probably use an 1 ghz coppermine.
The Core 2 were nice on the other hand. Still got one around as backup-pc and for guests. Surprisingly strong even compared to modern hardware 10 years later.
Skipping the P4 was a good thing,. Skipping the P3 not so much, they were nice chips, on par with AMD's offerings but Intel decided they won't sell as much.
So did I. I had a 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird system in January 2001. At the time I was shocked at how fast it was. I used an enormous (at the time) 640 megabytes of RAM.
I absolutely love the Tualatin 1.4ghz, hell any Tualatin core is awsome in its own right. However after gathering a fair bit of hardware over the years i find myself using the Pentium 4 builds more often. Its mostly later socket 478 like 2.4g-3ghz paired with either a 865 or 875 Intel chipset. The usb, sata support and speed is just amazing for my needs.
I used a Pentium M Socket 479 using an adapter on a S478 board. Stock clock was 1.6GHz iirc, ran overclocked at almost 2.4 GHz and it shredded every modern Pentium 4 at that time. Good times.
I ran my Willamette 1.6 at over 2.5GHz. Pretty much doubled performance (I think it was really about 180%) and blew the Tualatin 1.4GHz out of the water. Netburst was an abject failure but it really didn't suck as bad as a lot of TH-camrs imply. Also, any CPU (and associated components) that can take over 150% of its rated FSB speed with no special cooling and stay there for 7 years in regular use is impressive. Netburst would have been more successful in terms of sales if intel had the b*lls to clock the chips at 2.5GHz to begin with. As it was, it took a couple years to get there, by which point the reputational damage was done. Instead, they decided to sell Celerons with a completely neutered cache that ran at 100% utilization at idle. I think they still would have gone back to the P6 microarchitecture anyway. More recently, I have run a P4 HT Windows 10 PC and used it for basic PC things for awhile. It was more responsive than some of the netbooks at the time.
I remember those talks back in the day that Intel was even mortified that Pentium 3 ate the Pentium 4 Williamette's lunch easily in the benchmarks, and that was due to the Pentium 4 processor having way too long pipelines to do its job properly. Athlon ruled the roost in the day, as it was the only Pentium 4 class CPU to have been designed properly, about the size of Pentium 3's pipelines, only with even more instructions per ALU cycles (it was internally a 9 ways superscalar out-of-order processor, with even more powerful FPU out of the gate, meaning AMD Athlon did even more work in a CPU cycle compared to the Pentium 4).
I'd still feel safe betting that a dual Pentium III 1.4 could run circles around a Prescott core Pentium 4, since it would end up throttling a ton and never really stay at full speed.
Depends on the clock speed, what kind of software (SSE 2), and if it's multi-threaded. With Prescott it's really only 3GHz that need considerable amounts of cooling.
btw, that looks like CoolerMaster P4 coolers we use to pull out of old P4 systems we were scrapping for parts... it might not be legit but looks like the ones we use to yank by the dozens...
The fastest Coppermine was 1.13 GHz with a 133 MHz bus. These were rare back in the day and are very hard to find and expensive today. Also @18:35, bruh you must have never installed OEM AMD heatsinks on 462. It was almost required to heave all of your body weight to get the spring to latch on to the socket. It wasn't uncommon to see posts about people who slipped with their screwdriver and punched a hole in the motherboard. It was such a problem that motherboard OEMs started placing warning stickers with bombs on them next to the CPU socket to warn of potential peril when installing the heatsink. Heatsinks on Socket 462 sucked.
RDRAM actually gave them a nice push. I remember review of Pentium 4 on SDRAM and RDRAM compared to Athlons on DDR and how much the memory bandwith held the chip back. In some cases RDRMA made the P4 slightly faster than the Athlon, but that were basically special cases. NetBurst needs bandwith and that hasn't changed all the way through the end.
Great Video Phil, Thanks for all the info. The Pentium III was an awesome Processor.I have one of these coolers on my Pentium 4 , works great. you can still find them for sale with a little searching. THERMALTAKE A4012-02 TR2-M12
Those high speed Tualatin were very hard to find and very expensive back then. I ended up upgrading to AMD at the same time. Also that's when Intel starts being greedy and shut out all other chipset manufacturers, leading to the death of VIA and other chipset manufacturers. Karma is a bitch, although she came late to Intel in 2020.
I was recently comparing Tualatin 1.4 GHz with Prescott 3 GHz, before you say it's nonsense, I was trying to calculate some performance per MHz and I was pretty shocked that it's not that bad for Pentium 4, but I never tester Willamette, I guess later Northwood and Prescott had slightly better energy efficiency. What we believe today about Pentium 4 are mostly myths. People were just shocked back in the day by those TDPs, but that's understandable when you jumped from like 30W to 80W, which is still low TDP from today point of view. 😀 Also, later P4 had advantage of dual channel and DDR memory, it was not only about CPU. Another problem for Tualatin was very limited amount of motherboards which could accept it and also, many of those MBs were so outdated in that period of time. Which is even bigger problem for AMD, those MBs were crazy, like AMD MB from 2003 still doesn't support USB keyboard? WTF??? Intel MBs supported USB keyboards already in 90s. The main reason why Tualatin and first P4s are that rare is that people just didn't need it, in 2003, most of people I knew still had some common Pentium III or even worse and before games like Doom 3 or FarCry were released, you had no reason to upgrade it and in 2004, that was already prescott time, you could buy a cheap Celeron D with prescott core and it was totaly fine for games. There are even myths about temperatures, like that P4 is really hot, it's not, Athlons XP on similar performance level as your P4 were hotter, especially with coolers which were common on socket 462. 😀 Some later P4, let's say 2.8 GHz northwood had totaly fine temperature even with stock cooler with fan on 5V to make it silent. So, was it great architecture with potential to the future? Probably not, but was it that bad as people say? Definitely not. BTW, cache matters, even when I said Celeron D was fine for games, there was still pretty high difference compared to "full blooded" (as we say in Czech) Pentium 4 in gaming performence. Speed of whole system, how it is responding, how folders are opening etc...that was everything really slow even on Tualatin 1.4 with Win XP, because of SDRAM 133 MHz and other outdated features, so in that time, going from some PIII 866 MHz to Tualatin was probably jump, but it was slow anyway, I would just wait another 1-2 years and upgrade to Pentium 4 or maybe some Athlon XP, but you should know that Athlon XP still didn't have dual channel, AMD had dual channel on socket 939 for the first time, that's ridiculous. So I would probably buy some Celeron D or older P4 again, sorry AMD, but dual channel made a difference. 😀 2:08 I have exactly this 1GHz PIII for socket 370, I had to order it from France few years ago because it's that rare now. 😀 BTW, we still call it north bridge and south bridge even now, even when these names are not relevant for like 25 years, but habit is habit. 😀 When you say south bridge, everyone knows that you means that chip on down part of your MB. I have better experiences with VIA chipsets on sc370 MBs than with Intel, everything you put there just works, which is really not the case with Intel Chipsets 810 and 815 with famous problems with IDE controllers and RAM problems, sometimes it was throwing errors while installing windows, while with VIA chipset everything always worked fine. You still had to set jumpers correctly for FSB and such things on Intel Chipsets, I would say that VIA chipsets for sc 370 were like 1-2 years in the future compared to intel, no jumpers anymore, you just installed a new CPU and it worked automaticaly. BTW, CL2 SDRAM are pretty much useless because many of those MBs won't let you set CL2 in bios, sometiems you have to choose between CL2.5 and CL3. And SDRAM are now more expensive than DDR1, those sellers are really crazy. Installing standard 370 cooler on Tualatin needs more force, but it's mostly possible, I would say that sc 370 CPUs have all such a low TDP, that cooler doesn't matter if it is not something really bad. What I love about those coolers is that it was compatible even with AMD sc 462, so you can use later 462 cooler for your Pentium III, which is cool. Funny is that chipsets on sc 462 motheboards are hotter than Pentium III CPUs. For socket 478, I still keep my old Zalman from like 2007. Once I tried to delid Pentium 4, but I delided it more than I planned, I guess that core was supposed to stay on PCB. When it's soldered, I think is pretty much pointless to delid it. Many coolers for sc 478 were already full aluminium and that copper heatspreader actually helps. I realized that while testing Athlon XPs with naked core, when you install cooler with extra copper plate on bottom side (between core and actual heatsink), it has much better temperatures than same looking heatsink without that copper plate. I had some problems with 5V when I combined Tualatin with GeForce 6600, my 5V cable just melted, but even later AGP cards already use only 12V from additional power connector, so it's more safe. I also noticed that some socket 462 boards actually have 12V connector for CPU similarly as P4, so I guess some manufacturers decided to use the same solution as P4. It's better to have some old PSU from like 2006-2010, it has much better cables (bigger diameter) and better 5V line and even molex connectors are better quality than today. I think they should never have released anything like P4 1.4 GHz because that architecture was just meant for higher frequencies and this caused many of that hate against P4, because it's obvious that Tualatin had better performence per MHz than Willamette. So why to buy some 1.4 GHz P4 when you can buy 2.4 GHz or even more?
Pentium 4 had so much growth. FSB started with 400 and went to 800 and higher. RDRAM, SDRAM, DDR, DDR dual. Cache drastically increased. HT, two cores. 180nm down to 65.
@@philscomputerlab Yeah and sorry for really long comment, I alwas forget about time and how it is long when I type something. 😀 I am still not sure about how important was dual channel, in some tests, it's massive difference (so P4 totaly destroyes Athlon) but in some other tests or even some games, there is no difference or Athlon can be even better without dual channel, this is still very confusing for me and I will definitely test it more.
with VIA chipsets, i often had problems getting AGP cards to work in their AGP mode, this was due to one of the PCI to PCI bridges using the basic driver instead of the PCI to AGP driver, which i had to install manually, works great afterwards though :)
I recently did a quite diverse vintage system benchmark, maybe you like it, including Sgi Octane, Sun UltraSPARC, PS3, Transmeta Crusoe & Efficeon, IDT Winchip, Intel Pentium, AMD k6, Athlon, … and more: th-cam.com/video/LMSIng6v-LU/w-d-xo.html
I remember at the time hearing a lot of negativity surrounding Rambus RAM, so I made sure the Pentium 4 system I got at the time had SD RAM. I think the main complaints I heard was that was much more expensive for very little performance gain.
Good Video. But a bit unfair for the P3 to compete with a much higher $$ system with rambus and 2.2ghz just for the shake of release date. What would be very interesting is to test a DDR 845E chipset with 1.8 northwood core P4 or Willy if you prefer, something that was close enough to the price of P3 as well as the consumer offering a better platform overall. Moreover what you will find is that the P4 was finally better so in 2002 you probably buy an 1.8 north with DDR rather than a 2.2 with rambus. Maybe you can make a video from which is the P4 threshold of it finally wins the tualatin and not with SDRAM or RAMBUS but with single channel DDR that most ppl had. I am giving the ideas that can't film myself...
For the people interested in how a "modern" Core 2 Duo compares to these CPUs, I got myself an E6300 and underclocked it down to about 1440Mhz (205Mhz FSB and 7x multiplier... the motherboard insisted on 205Mhz at the lowest, despite setting it to 200 manually). I'm using a Gigabyte GA-EP43-UD3L with 4GB DDR2 @ 4-4-4-10 timing. PCIe Geforce 9600 GT Windows XP: GL Quake: 1044fps Quake 2 Software (640x480): 92.26fps Quake 3 highest 640x480: 232fps Phil's DosBench running on FreeDos was a little weird: Doom: 135.55fps Quake 320x240: 288.1fps Quake 360x480: 117.7fps Quake 640x480: 19.9fps Chris' 3D: 860 Chris' 3D 640x480: 249.8 PC Player (320x200): 401 TopBench score: 342 TopBench reported: Score 2301.08 Mem bandwidth - 13580.08MB/s L1 32KB - 7032.04MB/s L2 2048KB - 4422.94MB/s Memory - 2067.51MB/s I get the sense that these newer architectures with PCIe don't like old school DOS as much as they like Windows and 32 / 64-bit. Either that or I'm doing something wrong. We should leave it to Phil to do a full benchmark comparison 😅 Back to you Phil!
Great video! But how long did these processors stay relevant? My own comparisons show much of the same until games start using sse2. Though even those games were generally sse1 compatible. I have a different library of games, so of course any results I have would be different. Played more blizzard games around that time. I had the AMD Athlon back then though, and I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting to see the AMD Athlon 1.4Ghz enter the arena.
when I think refurbished dual Tualatin motherboards are sold around $200 and above on eBay, that's nonsense! a cheap AMD Ryzen motherboard is $59 on Amazon
I remember Intel representatives saying that Netburst architecture would allow for 10 GHz. Actually from 2000 to 2002 i was impressed how fast Intel cranked up clock rates with the Pentium 4, so Intels strategy to go for high clock rates seemed reasonable.
by the way Pentium 4 1400 was released fall 2000, but Tualatin 1400 was released one year later. That's huge time difference for processor market and that's not surpising at all that Pentium IV cannot run as faster as Pentium III does at the same clock - Pentium IV shows really great perfomance if we remember the pipeline difference. And it was released after Coppermine 1000 and honestly, it would be more correct to compare PIII-1000 and PIV 1500. Coppermine cannot operate at 1500 - that was a huge PIV win. PIII Tualatin was released when PIV got 2GHZ bareer and that's why it would be correct to compare PIII 1400 with PIV 2000 Mhz - the same time processors.
The Pentium 4 was like a single cylinder high revving motorcycle engine.. didnt actually produce that much power. Core 2 Duo was like a turbo charged two cylinder, and before you know it there's like massive turbo V12's everywhere.. and people cant conceptualise why the P4 is so slow. 😂
What about sticking with stock settings and going with Linux Mint 18.3 CINNAMON (Sylvia) 64bit and you just follow the instructions and just let it update and install the developers essentials(includes the latest gcc compiler headers and libraries) including GPP and GDB, if you install Wine,Winetricks and zip.dll for Windows program execution and you should be good to go, those motherboards are actually 64bit capable although Windows didn't use it until Windows 7,8,10, what about that Slot One motherboard as there are adaptors that will allow you to use that CPU in a Slot One Motherboard.
I like to compare old processors and after several test, I surprised due my Tualatin 1.4 ghz with 133 mhz SDRAM beats Pentium 4 with 2 ghz and 333 mhz DDR RAM. Only Pentium 4 or Celeron 2.4 ghz are slightly better. The definitive improvement for Pentium 4 was the HT implementation. The most surprising for me, however, was the excellent results of the cheap Duron 1.3 which almost reaches Pentium III 1.4 Tualatin.
It is not a coincidence. P4 was a power-hungry, hot dead-end which allowed AMD to have their first "golden age" with faster, cooler and cheaper CPUs. But Intel weren't stupid, Tualatin was the first sign that Intel is quietly still iterating on "old" P6 architecture. With newer manufacturing processes it was obvious that it was far more effective, especially that they were reaching the clock & power/heat limits of Pentium 4 very quickly. It became clear that one-core CPUs are slowly thing of the past, so they needed something more power-efficient. Intel "quietly" released Pentium M and iterated more to create Intel Core architecture - the rest is history 🙂
I remember buying a Pentium M based laptop on 2005 and being completely blown away by how much it could do at such a low frequency (1,6 Ghz). Compared to my old desktop, it would encode MP3 so fast that I thought the program had bugged out and just written blank files instead.
Yeah Pentium M laptops were awesome👍 Still got a P-M Thinkpad and it just feels so quick doing any XP task I throw at it.
@@MOS6582 I have an inspiron 700m with a 1.7ghz pentium M. Nice laptop! Even with modern debian!
Yes, but that was 2005, one or 2 years was really a difference back in the day. People know judge Pentium 4 not fairly, because they don't see whole story and what was actually available in that time.
@@PidalinThe problem was that the Pentium 4 was as fast as if the branch prediction worked but (as the benchmark showed) even significantly slower than the Pentium 3 if the branch prediction did not work for the task and the whole pipeline had to be rebuilt wasting cycles. And to get this you were asked to invest in not only a new board and CPU but also new RAM and PSU so almost a whole new PC that is sometimes slower than the CPU that it replaces.
The first P4 laptops had battery run times of about 2 hours which was good ironically because you'd have gone crazy if the fan ran any longer. That was why people judged it poorly.
@@Pidalin Williamette with SD RAM or RD RAM was a disaster. At the time, Athlon had been available for a while already and those were faster than that. The reason intel didn't have anything better at the time is.. well because they were busy with this piece of crap.
The reason they eventually ditched netburst completely was because netburst was crap.
The thing that I find most interesting about the P4 was that AMD showed that frequency wasn't the be all and end all in CPU performance. While the P4 eventually outpaced the Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 came along and beat the P4 soundly in most things with only 2/3rds of the actual frequency.
Then in a fit of insanity AMD somehow thought that emulating the P4 thinking was a good idea and we got the unmitigated failure of FX, which when first introduced had the very same comparison to phenom 2 as we see here with this P4vP3 comparison.
While FX pulled ahead of phenom2 it did so only because of the higher clock speeds at introduction, but because people were overclocking phenom 2's up to 4GHz (because they could), the initial FX bulldozers couldn't really compete well against the processors they were replacing (one can only wonder what a phenom 3 might have been like, especially an 8 core).
I was actually shocked and very disappointed when those Faildozers came out... the FX-4100 at 3.6GHz performed just about the same as a (very mildly by core2 standards) overclocked Core 2 Quad Q6600 at 3GHz... an almost 5 year old CPU at the time of the FX release. Not to mention any Sandy Bridge CPU from the same year beat the sh*t out of the so called equivalent FX CPU. WTF were they thinking with that whole FX lineup?!
It's no wonder why you still occasionally see people with heavily overclocked Sandy Bridge setups from back in 2011 (same year as the FX), but all the FXes (along with all the underperforming-when-new FM1 and FM2 trash) have long since moved to the scrap pile
@@Knaeckebrotsaege AMD was hoping the software would catch up to the hardware. Finewine and all. If you think about it, it did. The extra cores make the FX 8 cores relevant for 1080p 60Hz gaming even today.
I was still young enough in 2011 when bulldozer came out where I could see myself leaning into fanboyism toward AMD. It was the absolute failure of those benchmarks that fated day day in fall 2011 that my bastions of fanboyism finally disappeared (dramatic wording is intentional :) ). I knew I couldn't be stupid enough to try to support a bulldozer chip. Then a year later when pile driver came out and it was actually respectable in use cases I needed it for at the price point I went with the fx8350. I still have that fx8350 to this very day. Funny joke is that its been so long since 2012 that AMD has become relevant again and if I did build a new pc it would because AMD is legitimately the best all round chip and it would not be any fanboyism.
@@Trick-Framed Just recently a GPU scaling benchmark was released by hardware unboxed that shows the fx8370 cpu still failing miserably. Although I think I want to walk through that video again and see where the bias in game selection sit in the video. Oh yeah I think the vulkan/dx12 titles the fx system was actually competent. Its just even to this day the adoption of dx12/vulkan is not good enough.
@@pauls4522 Gamer's Nexus did one too. Except Steve Burke admitted his home PC had an 8370 and he kept his beast machines at work. It did well with a 2080ti....which I think most processors would...lol.
I hear Austrian, German, Australian and British in that accent. Amazing. Good videos!
Well I lived in all those countries :D But I'm Austrian and now living in Australia :D
@@philscomputerlab awesome!
Yes!!! Several commenters requested this on a previous video and here it is! Phil delivers once again. Love this channel.
can't wait for those P4 Prescotts wiping the floor with previous P4s in the room heating benchmarks!
For sure, the Prescotts were terrible. I own a couple of Northwoods though and they run frosty by comparison.
Amazing how history repeats itself. When the first Pentiums came out, there was much discussion about the massive 16 watt monsters needed a heatsink AND a fan. :D
Prescotts were soo hot intel came out with the btx form factor to try to get them cooler.
Later with the Cedar Mill shrink they got thermals and power draw under control. They aren't bad, just came too late. That is probably what Prescott should've been. Released in early 2006 they were succeeded mid 2006 by the first Core 2.
That thumbnail made me chuckle. Thanks for that.
You should do a PIII 1.4Ghz vs Core2Duo 1.4Ghz (disable 1 core), Core2 is basically an updated PIII. Would be interesting.
Core 1 series in laptops is more of a updated PIII, as it still uses P6 microarchitecture with some changes. Core 2 series was a very heavy modification.
@@niewazneniewazne1890 Technically a comparison to the Pentium M/Celeron M (though those are noticeably worse) would be even more accurate. Even visually they look similar to socket 370 Pentiums/Celerons.
The Core 2 Duo would obliterate the PIII without any doubt. A C2D destroys even the newest socket 775 P4
@@Romerco77 the slowest Core 2 Duo matched or beat out the fastest Pentium 4. so theres no comparison there.
I would like to see such a video no matter what how big the difference is!
I love my socket 478 computers, might not hit as hard a P3 in raw performance but I really appreciate SSE2 support as I use them for 1996-2009 gaming
People speak about Tualatin now like about some god like CPU, but after Northwood core and frequencies like 2.4 GHz were released, Tualatin was totaly obsolete, P4 northwood was just much faster and ofcourse even more fast thank to DDR memory. I have Tualatin 1.4 GHz, so I can test it, I am not just using some old memories, so I can see all those myths. It was great architecture in case of energy efficiency, but RAW performance was already really low in 2002, especially because of SDRAM hellmory which were always problematical, problems with compatibility etc...switch to DDR was really a massive jump in term of compatibility. Jump to DDR3 later was pretty much like return of SDRAM, I hated DDR3, so many problems with them, unstability, blue screens. I mean mainly on socket 775 boards. 😀
@@Pidalin I recall quite clearly people have always been worshipping the tualatin even back in 2006 when I was using a Duron 850MHz there was many people in computer forums either drooling at the thought of owning one (Tualatin, not my Duron lol) or people who did have one and bragged it was magically smoother than the P4s even when the frame rates were lower. Of course everybody seemed to have the 1.4GHz PIII-S with 512kb L2. That said I do want one to complete my PIII collection. I have a 600MHz Slot 1 Katmai on a 440BX, a 1GHz Coppermine S370 133MHz FSB model and if I had a Tualatin 1.4 S model I’d have all 3 of the fastest model Pentium III’s on their respective process design 250nm Katmai 180nm coppermine and 130nm Tualatin.
@@Protoking I recently sold my Tualatin 1.4 GHz, it's really interesting piece of history, but I need to lower that number of computer hardware I have at home and I want to keep only practical things, which Tualatin is not, for some late Win 9x retro PC, it's better to find some decent Athlon XP with DDR RAM, Tualatin is weak. But frequency/performance ratio is ofcourse very good compared to some P4, problem is that after 2001, clock speeds jumped up pretty fast, to tualatin became obsolete pretty fast.
Using some 850 MHz Duron in 2006 had to be really pain, I had still PII 400 MHz in 2004, but then it went pretty fast, I had a new computer (I mean not new, but new for me) pretty much every half year. 🙂
I had some Celeron D 2.8 GHz and GF 6800LE
later 7600GT) in 2006 and that was already weak for new games because these celerons and Pentium 4s were bottlenecking these late AGP GPUs, you already needed core 2 duo in 2006 or 2007 to play in better quality. I have a lot of retro HW and I do many tests, I am shocked how poorly games ran back in the day on HW from that period of time, we are complaining now, but it was even worse 20 years ago, you had to play in 800x600/low to stable 40 FPS. 😀
@@Pidalin thank you for share
@@Protoking Cool!
Phil, I f*ing love your videos!
F*ck, I Philling love your videos!
Intel in the late 90's were projecting they would reach 8 GHz by 2003. That explains everything you need to know about the pentium 4 design.
Yea, and they stopped just before hitting 4 GHz...
If you're wondering what the tiny brown slot is on the left side of the Pentium IV motherboard, it's a riser for the Kennereth Fast Ethernet adapter that interfaces with the ICH2 chipset.
That is surely AMR slot that allowed for some softmodem/audio cards. Never seen a card myself though.
@@gentuxable I tested the network risers that went in that slot at Intel. It was a network interface slot. There was also a digital subscriber line (DSL) interface available for it. Intel only provided the risers to OEMs for some reason (which is why you hardly see the riser cards)...ICH2 had a MAC (Media Access Controller) built into the chipset that interfaced directly with the "north bridge", bypassing the I/O busses (you could send and receive100 MB Ethernet at wire speed on these boards, a feat previously reserved for servers!). It lacked a PHY, or physical interface, which was provided by the riser card. Some motherboards used the ICH2 MAC and actually provided a PHY as well, so you got a LOM (Lan on Motherboard) on those systems. Intel created many more ICHx interfaces after this, but they discarded the clunky risers. Lots of laptop chipsets had an ICH-based LOM in them.
Phil, thanks for giving Willamette a go! Really cool to see. Although I would have loved to see the Socket-423 variant.
One of my first computers was an old Compaq Evo D310 with a Intel Pentium 4 "Northwood" 478mPGA CPU with a 2.66 GHz speed and included a Nvidia Geforce 6200 GPU
It's worth mentioning that Intel's next overclocking gem around that time would be the 1.6 GHz P4 Northwood, which could easily reach 2.4 GHz (with FSB and SDRAM running at 150 MHz). As inefficient as the P4 architecture was, it still managed to outdo what any P3 could ever reach.
I guess that would be a nice subject for another video.
Heads up, CL is CAS Latency rather than Cache Latency. It's based on one of the signals involved in DRAM, the CAS (Column Access Strobe) and how many clock ticks you have to wait between strobing it and some of the other signals.
Great video Phil! Today, I Found a Dell Inspiron 8100 today in a thrift store. Has a tualitin 1ghz in it along with a Geforce 2!
Runs retro games on Win98 smooth as silk
i recently rebuild my first pc with a Tualatin 1Ghz celeron, and a AOpen MX3S-T mainboard. oh and thanks Phil for hosting the firmware for that board.
Just a slight correction Phil, CL on RAM stands for CAS Latency, CAS stands for Column Address Strobe, not cache :)
Great video as always though, you're definitely one of my favourite TH-camrs and as much as I know, I still find myself learning loads from your videos :)
Ah, thanks for the correction :D Nothing gets past you guys :P
No worries. It's one of the things I love about this community, no matter how much we know, we can always learn more from others. :)
I thought he was saying Cas but his accent made it seem like cache, guess I was wrong haha.
as somebody who grew up in oregon it pleased me to hear willamette pronunciation not get butchered
Thank you Phill for that video, I always wanted to see such competition. When i was kid, I’ve heard a lot of negative things about Willamette against Tualatin
Solid pronunciation on the core names. This is the first time I’ve heard BOTH tualatin AND willamette pronounced correctly by the same person on youtube.
Well, you know, with an accent, tualatin in ‘Merican is “two all a tin”.
I tried :D
Not a native Oregonian, but I am a north-westerner with ties to Oregon. From what I've heard, "two ALL a tin" is actually right. I watched part of a speech from the mayor (or may have been ex-mayor at the time) where I remember he distinctly pronounced it that way as well.
I have also heard "two AL a tin", though not as much. Could be I'm just talking to too many Portlanders. "Will AM it" is definitely correct though.
Either way, not sure the ethnocentric disdain is really called for when Intel specifically named the cores after north-western locales in... "'Merica." That being the case, however the locals have chosen to pronounce the names of their towns (typically, in that area, being derived from a Native American word or phrase) is about as authoritative as it can get.
I love how in depth you went with this video!! Nice job keep it up
Once again, giving the people what they need! Thanks Phil!
High Clock frequencies are very important for the netburst architecture. I think a overclocked Tualatin to 1,6Ghz comes very close to the 2,2 GHz Northwood.
It does. Depending on the applications even on 1400 Tualatin scales between 1.8-2.0 on the Netburst scale. or as fast as a 2.66 GHz Northwood Celeron :D
you see you much the increase from 100 fsb to 133 helps the system? if you increase it further to 166 AND increase the clock speed the system gets a lot faster. not sure if tualatin can handle that though
GraveUypo
I have max. tested 150 Mhz FSB with my 1,4 ghz Tualatin (1575 MHz). This frequency is still save for AGP/PCI cards. (75/37.5). I dont want go higher. Also positive is, that the last SL6BY stepping can handle this frequency with the standard vcore of 1,45V.
In 3DMark 2000 (standard settings) and a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 (320/700), I get 12700 points.
My Tualatin did hit 1,7Ghz hehe, and I did it on purpose to overclock the PCI as highest as possible cause it increases the bandwidth to the Voodoo5 PCI Iv used. But back to the netbursts, there has been huge IPC improvement between Willamete and Northwood. When both run at 2Ghz in games the NW can be easily 15-20% faster. Northwood was arguable the only good Netburst CPU. IPC was OK, overclocking on the lower models was huge, it reached up to 3,4Ghz in the end, and then you also had the Gallatin variant with 2MB of L3. Prescott was a failure, more power hungry and IPC went down cause the pipeline got longer and the cache latency got much worse. Tejas got canceleed cause it was even worse than prescott, and Cedar Mill is just a die-shrink. It clocked high and power draw was massively imrpoved, but for year 2005/6 it was not good enough performance wise when AMd already had dualcore K8. And there is another thing, Netburst needs at least 256KB of L2 cache. If it does not have that the performance takes dive to disaster levels. The 128KB Celeron version at 3Ghz performs like K7 at 1Ghz at times, especially in games. Avoid the 128K Celerons at all costs.
I also would say, that the Northwood core is the best Netburst CPU.
I have overclocked Celeron 1200 to 1600 on Asus P3C-E mainboard with Asus slot/socket converter. But later, I have upgraded to Asus P4T-E mainboard with Pentium 4 3,06 GHz with HT. They were very well, my graphics cards, one of them was Matrox G550 AGP. Later nVidia 6000 something with 256 MB ram. I have very good time with them at the past. For a short time, I also used normal sized Intel mainboard at the video with a 2000 MHz Celeron processor. Intel mainboard was not allowing overclocking, but a single pin when blocked, it was working at 133 MHz speed bus. So with pin modding, it has worked at 2666 MHz really fine, later I sold it....
One small correction, CL as in CL-2 is not "cache" latency, but CAS latency. CAS or Column Access Strobe is one of the signals used for DRAM control. The other is RAS or Row Access Strobe.
(edit) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
Absolutely agree with you. I'm a fan of S-370 platform and, time ago, I ran some benchmarks in order to compare my Tualatin 1400S with other P-III, P4 and Athlon XP processors. The first P4 which reached P-III 1450-S results was the Willamette 2 ghz.
Love this channel. Great content with very good technical knowledge.
While I have a soft spot for Northwood, as I had that for the majority of the 2000s, my favorit early 2k platform is the Pentium 3 and the Tualatin at that. It's fast and cool and silent. P4 with the stock cooler can easily reach 70°C, especially the Prescott. I think out of all of my retro builds I use my Tualatin the most and maybe the Pentium MMX the second.
Great video! Loved the detailed background info, really puts things in perspective.
I remember being tempted to upgrade to the 1.4GHz Tualatin back in the day... right up until I found out my Via chipset board wasn't compatible. Couldn't afford a P4, so I ended up going AMD.
Funnily enough, I never had any stability issues with the Via chipset, although I was running Nvidia cards, so I guess they were all running at AGP 2x and I never knew it until now!
There are ways to pinmod it. And there are socket adapters that take care of the changed power delivery.
Yea you likely wouldn't notice the difference, but yea depends on what card you use :)
I had a p3 1000 and "upgraded" to a 1.4ghz p4, it was slightly slower in my benchmarks (use to load music projects up and see how many plugins I could run). I was very lucky the shop I went to let me return it and buy a 1.4ghz p3, kept that as my main machine until I got a Northwood 2.8ghz p4. Cool video
Yay first was waiting this kinda video for a long time
Thanks 4 ❤️
Phil, you are GOD!
i always wanted to see this comparison..
Makes me remember when i was a kid, an friend from school told me the: "new p4 with rambus will kill everything from hardware we have now"
he was wrong.. lol..
it is possible to run aida(everest) memory and cache benchmark to see the diferences of bandwidth from pc133 to rambus 800mhz?
the P3's Tualatins were faster than the first P4's it's a known fact.
I built a dual Tualatin socket 370 gigabyte motherboard back in the day... with a radeon 9700 all in wonder it kicked ass. I had to run win 2000, then xp pro... used it for a long time.
Waiting for my Radeon 9600pro to arrive so I can FINALLY finish my Tually build. Nice video!
Great retro GPU.
There's a reason why Intel built the post-pentium 4/Pentium D chips from the Pentium 3 architecture.
yeah I remember this. it was just way too long ago I barely remember when I had similar setups comparing them. the real experience with early willamette pen4s were more horryfing as far as i remember. pen4 era was the time where frequency speed started becoming questionable to increase performance. it probably took until intels core architecture got released which it significantly changed the overall architecture to improve performance per clock sharing l2 cache and adapting multicores structure.
I'd say I'm a little biased due to how I've just had a few Pentium 4s and no Pentium III so this video is really interesting even to little me because it shows how Intel went backwards instead of forward with the Pentium 4.
Good job Phil!
@RavenPrecept I'd rather say they were faster bot they ran even hotter. Intel completely lost balance until the introduction of the Core2.
Merci beaucoup Phil !
J'ai tout récemment fait l'acquisition d'une Gigabyte GA-6OXT avec un Pentium III S 1266mhz que j'ai pû overclocker à 1624mhz et le Celeron 1300mhz à 1729mhz , j'ai pû faire mes tests et j'en ai conclu la même chose que toi ! Vraiment excellent ces Tualatin, je vais me construire une machine pour les jeux et les logiciels rétro, merci pour tes conseils 😁😁
Fantastic 😀
Phil, if you want to ever revisit this video, get an Asus TUA266. It has both SDR(3x1GB) and DDR(2x1GB) support. It uses the ALi Aladdin chipset. It was by far the best board I used in terms of overclocking for the Pentium 3 architecture.
Amazing video, as usual.
Pentium 3 rules in Phil hands !
I wonder how well the Athlon 1.4 would stack up against the PIII. Wikipedia used to say that the Tualatin-1400 could outperform not only the 2GHz Willamette, but also the Athlon-1400. Now, being faster than the Willamette I can believe, but the Athlon...? I seem to recall those things being real speed demons!
We will find out soon :) Now the Athlon had a range of chipsets to choose from, and there is also SDRAM on the early boards, but it quickly went with DDR, so that's what I'm going with.
That does seem dubious. At the very least, the floating point units in the Athlons were a lot stronger, no P3 ever did too well there, not to mention higher FSB bandwidth.
Interesting how quake 3 is always the odd one out? I heard that when intel was resaerching their core based graphics card, quake 3 was one of their test programs. As soon as they used some other generic game, performance would suck. Linus made a video with that prototype card. I wonder what magic cormack packed into the q3 engine? Btw, is activisions crawl to duty still based on the q3 engine?
While technically; socket 423 boards can run 3 ghz northwood processors via 423-478 socket adapters along with standard atx psus via 20 pin/6 pin aux adapters, the components to expand it beyond willamette are rare and cost prohibitive. Really unfortunate for those who did invest in the first generation getting burned soon afterwards. Unless one has other reasons for doing so; socket 423 is not worth it.
Oh man the PrescHOTT CPU.... I had the 3GHz 478 version on an Abit IS7 and the stock cooler was NO WHERE NEAR close to keeping that CPU cool! I had to get a zalman CNPS7000 if I remember right. Wonderful video Phil!!
I still salivate over the 1.4 Tualatin Pentium 3. I had a Celeron 1.1 @ 1.4 back in the day and it was okay for the price, but no where near the P3. It seemed like CPU speeds were progressing so much more back then.
very good video phil, thanks a lot!
Looking back at this, I'm very tempted to try and run a Willamette P4 inside a laptop that presently has a Northwood P4 HT 3.2GHz (which is old enough to not have the HT Intel sticker)
Back in the day, I had a P4 1.6. I currently have several P4 CPUs but I am not going to build a Willamette machine. I am going to build a 2.4GHz Northwood instead. The reason being is I need a dedicated machine for Star Force and SecuROM games and I need a little more power than a Willamette can muster. To play the early XP games I played on my P4, I am building a PIII 1000EB with a similar GF3 card to what I had back then. I don't think I will be hampered by a 512MB memory limit. My P4 had 1GB of DDR RAM.
I also have a P4 650 HT machine with a 7800GTX
At first when you said socket 370 for a second i thought the pentium 3 worked on a x370 motherboard
Yeah, names get reused far to often for us retro friends.
AMD HD 4000 cards and Intel integrated HD 4000
Socket 370 and X370 chipsets (Good that the Pentium 4 stopped at 365)
GTX 480 and RX 480
Celeron 420 and Geforce 420 and Athlon X2 420
Pentium 4 560 and i3-560
Pentium 4 640 and i5-640 and Pentium G640
And I'm wondering what the next line of chipsets will be named, after all, we already got a 400 series, which includes the good old 440BX
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul yeah true. A friend of mine complained that he couldn't run anything playable on his 280. I thought he had an R9 280 but he had a GTX 280. I was really confused about why he had such low frames and asked him if he hooked his card up on tripple 4k monitors or something lol
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul >420
Dank
And that's why the Core architecture is based on the Pentium 3
I believe Willamette was essentially an unfinished Pentium 4 architecture rushed to market. Northwood was the intended product, but intel were still playing catchup to AMD during this period.
there were many such products, which is result of competition and hasted things. Another example was releasing 8800GT/GTS-512 by Nvidia, which was originally planned as 9000-series as all G92 chips. They were affraid of Radeon HD3870, that it will catch 8800GTS 640 and reach close to 8800 GTX, while price will be under 8800GTS 640. These two cards, 8800 GT / GTS -512 are results, they could not wait to release these cards along with 9800GTX in april 2008, so used not fully optimized and tuned G92 core, that should be still few months to be fine-tuned. This is, why G92 core is presented in 8000 series in these two cases. If competition would not exists, they would be released definetly later as 9800GT and 9800GTS.
Phil see if you can get yourself an i820 board. RDRAM with a Pentium 3 LMAO
were they ever produced? i have never seen one even though i spend quite a lot of time on ebay looking for parts etc
whats the accent? sounds like german and australian mixed?
I've got the same thought, and i am german. Sounds familiar to me.
That's exactly what it is...
Wouldn't that make it ..... austrian
Hi Phil, love your videos... Question for you. I recently built a Voodoo 2 SLI machine, running on a Pentium 4 Celeron @ 1.7ghz (Willamette, 128kb cache). I was wondering what speed Pentium III does this chip compare? I'm running Win98' and everything runs like butta, but just wanted to hear your thoughts on my chip and setup, and if the lack of L2 cache is holding me back at all. Appreciate it!
Not sure, but it should have plenty of performance for V2 SLI, especially at higher resolutions.
Been wanting to get a Tualitin core Pentium III For my main rig now I want one even more
Main rig?
@@h2oaddict28 Most frequently used Personal Computer
@@ponysoftonline4533 I know what it means.
like to see that P3 Tualatin vs some 2000~2001 era AMD stuff like the Gen 1 Slot A Athlon and later Athlon Thunderbirds
Yea just a matter of time.
Yeah, throw in a nice T-bird.
And maybe do a comparison how Coppermine holds up against Willamette and Northwood.
Depending on the country you live, you get the arctic copper silent and similar heatsinks new and unused for next to nothing. Also for socket 478, you can get good period correct heatsinks for cheap.
Is there way I can get in contact with you? I have an absulote absured amount of DDR ram and I love watching your videos.
Thanks, but that won't be necessary, I have got a ton of RAM already :)
Mount that Tualatin in a i440BX motherboard and see how it wipes the floor with the P4 2.2 X'D
Sadly 440BX will have trouble going to 150 FSB, but if it runs, the P4 will have no chance.
i815 is fine tho. Stable, fast. Sure, the 512 MB RAM limit and no ISA slots might be negatives, but for a 98/XP build for around 2000-2003 it will be an amazing setup. 98 has trouble with more than 512 MB itself, and for ISA soundcards a slower platform might be more appropriate anyway.
@@HappyBeezerStudios All 440BX boards i have tested have no problem going past 150 fsb, you only need good ram and compatible graphics card. Imho, an Athlon XP is a much better choice for a late win98 early XP setup, the i815 is in the middle of nowhere.
@@Romerco77 which gpu do you recommend for 89+ mhz agp?
@@talvisota327 The Geforce4 MX440 or MX460 (good ones with properly clocked memory), they never gave me problems with high OC AGP bus, and also match Tualatin performance very well.
@@Romerco77 thanks, i think i even still have an mx440 somewhere. unfortunately my 440bx board doesnt support tualatins, at least not without modding, so i will probably use an 1 ghz coppermine.
every person i know whos had a p3-tu overclocked them to at least 1.6-1.7x range... it still ran cooler then the p4 on the equiv cooler...
I went with a 1.5 Willamette P4 for my first XP machine back in the days. I guess this is how I find out I should have taken the P3. :D
Should've taken a Athlon XP 1500+ instead of both.
The Athlon XP came out about half a year after I got the P4. But it was my last Intel desktop CPU until the C2D came around.
The Core 2 were nice on the other hand. Still got one around as backup-pc and for guests. Surprisingly strong even compared to modern hardware 10 years later.
shouldn've taken the regular 1.4ghz athlon. cheaper and faster than both
Back in the day and after using P2 400mhz for years I skipped the Pentium 3 & 4s and I went AMD Thunderbird all the way!
Skipping the P4 was a good thing,. Skipping the P3 not so much, they were nice chips, on par with AMD's offerings but Intel decided they won't sell as much.
So did I. I had a 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird system in January 2001.
At the time I was shocked at how fast it was.
I used an enormous (at the time) 640 megabytes of RAM.
My 90 dollar Duron munched P3s.
Will be awesome to hear you talk about the times AMD was on top in IPC
I absolutely love the Tualatin 1.4ghz, hell any Tualatin core is awsome in its own right.
However after gathering a fair bit of hardware over the years i find myself using the Pentium 4 builds more often.
Its mostly later socket 478 like 2.4g-3ghz paired with either a 865 or 875 Intel chipset.
The usb, sata support and speed is just amazing for my needs.
I used a Pentium M Socket 479 using an adapter on a S478 board. Stock clock was 1.6GHz iirc, ran overclocked at almost 2.4 GHz and it shredded every modern Pentium 4 at that time.
Good times.
best p3 motherboard i ever owned was in 2000, QDI LEGEND socket 370 with a p3 866, it was awesome. cas 0.5
I ran my Willamette 1.6 at over 2.5GHz. Pretty much doubled performance (I think it was really about 180%) and blew the Tualatin 1.4GHz out of the water. Netburst was an abject failure but it really didn't suck as bad as a lot of TH-camrs imply. Also, any CPU (and associated components) that can take over 150% of its rated FSB speed with no special cooling and stay there for 7 years in regular use is impressive. Netburst would have been more successful in terms of sales if intel had the b*lls to clock the chips at 2.5GHz to begin with. As it was, it took a couple years to get there, by which point the reputational damage was done. Instead, they decided to sell Celerons with a completely neutered cache that ran at 100% utilization at idle. I think they still would have gone back to the P6 microarchitecture anyway.
More recently, I have run a P4 HT Windows 10 PC and used it for basic PC things for awhile. It was more responsive than some of the netbooks at the time.
I remember those talks back in the day that Intel was even mortified that Pentium 3 ate the Pentium 4 Williamette's lunch easily in the benchmarks, and that was due to the Pentium 4 processor having way too long pipelines to do its job properly. Athlon ruled the roost in the day, as it was the only Pentium 4 class CPU to have been designed properly, about the size of Pentium 3's pipelines, only with even more instructions per ALU cycles (it was internally a 9 ways superscalar out-of-order processor, with even more powerful FPU out of the gate, meaning AMD Athlon did even more work in a CPU cycle compared to the Pentium 4).
i love it when he gets 'specifit'
There is a Slot 1 version of PIII 1000MHz with 133 MHz FSB, so the one you have is not the fastest.
The last thing i really want to see is, wich combination of p3 + vga and p4 + vga will are best for playing counter-strike 1.5 and related HL games...
I'd still feel safe betting that a dual Pentium III 1.4 could run circles around a Prescott core Pentium 4, since it would end up throttling a ton and never really stay at full speed.
Depends on the clock speed, what kind of software (SSE 2), and if it's multi-threaded. With Prescott it's really only 3GHz that need considerable amounts of cooling.
One thing people forget is that the first gen Pentium 4s needed Rambus (RDRAM) memory which is a pain in the ass to find.
Still got a Northwood 3.2GHZ with Asus P4C800-E MB.
btw, that looks like CoolerMaster P4 coolers we use to pull out of old P4 systems we were scrapping for parts... it might not be legit but looks like the ones we use to yank by the dozens...
The fastest Coppermine was 1.13 GHz with a 133 MHz bus. These were rare back in the day and are very hard to find and expensive today.
Also @18:35, bruh you must have never installed OEM AMD heatsinks on 462. It was almost required to heave all of your body weight to get the spring to latch on to the socket. It wasn't uncommon to see posts about people who slipped with their screwdriver and punched a hole in the motherboard. It was such a problem that motherboard OEMs started placing warning stickers with bombs on them next to the CPU socket to warn of potential peril when installing the heatsink.
Heatsinks on Socket 462 sucked.
Ahahah. When o saw the video title! P4 was so bad even with RAMBUS for the Quad 400mhz bus.
RDRAM actually gave them a nice push.
I remember review of Pentium 4 on SDRAM and RDRAM compared to Athlons on DDR and how much the memory bandwith held the chip back. In some cases RDRMA made the P4 slightly faster than the Athlon, but that were basically special cases.
NetBurst needs bandwith and that hasn't changed all the way through the end.
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul In the Williamete generation of P4s?
Great Video Phil, Thanks for all the info. The Pentium III was an awesome Processor.I have one of these coolers on my Pentium 4 , works great. you can still find them for sale with a little searching. THERMALTAKE A4012-02 TR2-M12
Those high speed Tualatin were very hard to find and very expensive back then. I ended up upgrading to AMD at the same time. Also that's when Intel starts being greedy and shut out all other chipset manufacturers, leading to the death of VIA and other chipset manufacturers. Karma is a bitch, although she came late to Intel in 2020.
I was recently comparing Tualatin 1.4 GHz with Prescott 3 GHz, before you say it's nonsense, I was trying to calculate some performance per MHz and I was pretty shocked that it's not that bad for Pentium 4, but I never tester Willamette, I guess later Northwood and Prescott had slightly better energy efficiency. What we believe today about Pentium 4 are mostly myths. People were just shocked back in the day by those TDPs, but that's understandable when you jumped from like 30W to 80W, which is still low TDP from today point of view. 😀 Also, later P4 had advantage of dual channel and DDR memory, it was not only about CPU.
Another problem for Tualatin was very limited amount of motherboards which could accept it and also, many of those MBs were so outdated in that period of time. Which is even bigger problem for AMD, those MBs were crazy, like AMD MB from 2003 still doesn't support USB keyboard? WTF??? Intel MBs supported USB keyboards already in 90s.
The main reason why Tualatin and first P4s are that rare is that people just didn't need it, in 2003, most of people I knew still had some common Pentium III or even worse and before games like Doom 3 or FarCry were released, you had no reason to upgrade it and in 2004, that was already prescott time, you could buy a cheap Celeron D with prescott core and it was totaly fine for games.
There are even myths about temperatures, like that P4 is really hot, it's not, Athlons XP on similar performance level as your P4 were hotter, especially with coolers which were common on socket 462. 😀 Some later P4, let's say 2.8 GHz northwood had totaly fine temperature even with stock cooler with fan on 5V to make it silent.
So, was it great architecture with potential to the future? Probably not, but was it that bad as people say? Definitely not. BTW, cache matters, even when I said Celeron D was fine for games, there was still pretty high difference compared to "full blooded" (as we say in Czech) Pentium 4 in gaming performence.
Speed of whole system, how it is responding, how folders are opening etc...that was everything really slow even on Tualatin 1.4 with Win XP, because of SDRAM 133 MHz and other outdated features, so in that time, going from some PIII 866 MHz to Tualatin was probably jump, but it was slow anyway, I would just wait another 1-2 years and upgrade to Pentium 4 or maybe some Athlon XP, but you should know that Athlon XP still didn't have dual channel, AMD had dual channel on socket 939 for the first time, that's ridiculous. So I would probably buy some Celeron D or older P4 again, sorry AMD, but dual channel made a difference. 😀
2:08 I have exactly this 1GHz PIII for socket 370, I had to order it from France few years ago because it's that rare now. 😀
BTW, we still call it north bridge and south bridge even now, even when these names are not relevant for like 25 years, but habit is habit. 😀 When you say south bridge, everyone knows that you means that chip on down part of your MB.
I have better experiences with VIA chipsets on sc370 MBs than with Intel, everything you put there just works, which is really not the case with Intel Chipsets 810 and 815 with famous problems with IDE controllers and RAM problems, sometimes it was throwing errors while installing windows, while with VIA chipset everything always worked fine. You still had to set jumpers correctly for FSB and such things on Intel Chipsets, I would say that VIA chipsets for sc 370 were like 1-2 years in the future compared to intel, no jumpers anymore, you just installed a new CPU and it worked automaticaly. BTW, CL2 SDRAM are pretty much useless because many of those MBs won't let you set CL2 in bios, sometiems you have to choose between CL2.5 and CL3. And SDRAM are now more expensive than DDR1, those sellers are really crazy.
Installing standard 370 cooler on Tualatin needs more force, but it's mostly possible, I would say that sc 370 CPUs have all such a low TDP, that cooler doesn't matter if it is not something really bad. What I love about those coolers is that it was compatible even with AMD sc 462, so you can use later 462 cooler for your Pentium III, which is cool. Funny is that chipsets on sc 462 motheboards are hotter than Pentium III CPUs.
For socket 478, I still keep my old Zalman from like 2007. Once I tried to delid Pentium 4, but I delided it more than I planned, I guess that core was supposed to stay on PCB. When it's soldered, I think is pretty much pointless to delid it. Many coolers for sc 478 were already full aluminium and that copper heatspreader actually helps. I realized that while testing Athlon XPs with naked core, when you install cooler with extra copper plate on bottom side (between core and actual heatsink), it has much better temperatures than same looking heatsink without that copper plate.
I had some problems with 5V when I combined Tualatin with GeForce 6600, my 5V cable just melted, but even later AGP cards already use only 12V from additional power connector, so it's more safe. I also noticed that some socket 462 boards actually have 12V connector for CPU similarly as P4, so I guess some manufacturers decided to use the same solution as P4. It's better to have some old PSU from like 2006-2010, it has much better cables (bigger diameter) and better 5V line and even molex connectors are better quality than today.
I think they should never have released anything like P4 1.4 GHz because that architecture was just meant for higher frequencies and this caused many of that hate against P4, because it's obvious that Tualatin had better performence per MHz than Willamette. So why to buy some 1.4 GHz P4 when you can buy 2.4 GHz or even more?
Pentium 4 had so much growth. FSB started with 400 and went to 800 and higher. RDRAM, SDRAM, DDR, DDR dual. Cache drastically increased. HT, two cores. 180nm down to 65.
@@philscomputerlab Yeah and sorry for really long comment, I alwas forget about time and how it is long when I type something. 😀 I am still not sure about how important was dual channel, in some tests, it's massive difference (so P4 totaly destroyes Athlon) but in some other tests or even some games, there is no difference or Athlon can be even better without dual channel, this is still very confusing for me and I will definitely test it more.
with VIA chipsets, i often had problems getting AGP cards to work in their AGP mode, this was due to one of the PCI to PCI bridges using the basic driver instead of the PCI to AGP driver, which i had to install manually, works great afterwards though :)
I recently did a quite diverse vintage system benchmark, maybe you like it, including Sgi Octane, Sun UltraSPARC, PS3, Transmeta Crusoe & Efficeon, IDT Winchip, Intel Pentium, AMD k6, Athlon, … and more: th-cam.com/video/LMSIng6v-LU/w-d-xo.html
I remember at the time hearing a lot of negativity surrounding Rambus RAM, so I made sure the Pentium 4 system I got at the time had SD RAM. I think the main complaints I heard was that was much more expensive for very little performance gain.
Good Video. But a bit unfair for the P3 to compete with a much higher $$ system with rambus and 2.2ghz just for the shake of release date. What would be very interesting is to test a DDR 845E chipset with 1.8 northwood core P4 or Willy if you prefer, something that was close enough to the price of P3 as well as the consumer offering a better platform overall. Moreover what you will find is that the P4 was finally better so in 2002 you probably buy an 1.8 north with DDR rather than a 2.2 with rambus. Maybe you can make a video from which is the P4 threshold of it finally wins the tualatin and not with SDRAM or RAMBUS but with single channel DDR that most ppl had. I am giving the ideas that can't film myself...
I'm sure I discussed 845 chipset, SDRAM and DDR and future videos...
For the people interested in how a "modern" Core 2 Duo compares to these CPUs, I got myself an E6300 and underclocked it down to about 1440Mhz (205Mhz FSB and 7x multiplier... the motherboard insisted on 205Mhz at the lowest, despite setting it to 200 manually). I'm using a Gigabyte GA-EP43-UD3L with 4GB DDR2 @ 4-4-4-10 timing. PCIe Geforce 9600 GT
Windows XP:
GL Quake: 1044fps
Quake 2 Software (640x480): 92.26fps
Quake 3 highest 640x480: 232fps
Phil's DosBench running on FreeDos was a little weird:
Doom: 135.55fps
Quake 320x240: 288.1fps
Quake 360x480: 117.7fps
Quake 640x480: 19.9fps
Chris' 3D: 860
Chris' 3D 640x480: 249.8
PC Player (320x200): 401
TopBench score: 342
TopBench reported:
Score 2301.08
Mem bandwidth - 13580.08MB/s
L1 32KB - 7032.04MB/s
L2 2048KB - 4422.94MB/s
Memory - 2067.51MB/s
I get the sense that these newer architectures with PCIe don't like old school DOS as much as they like Windows and 32 / 64-bit. Either that or I'm doing something wrong. We should leave it to Phil to do a full benchmark comparison 😅
Back to you Phil!
Great video! But how long did these processors stay relevant? My own comparisons show much of the same until games start using sse2. Though even those games were generally sse1 compatible. I have a different library of games, so of course any results I have would be different. Played more blizzard games around that time. I had the AMD Athlon back then though, and I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting to see the AMD Athlon 1.4Ghz enter the arena.
when I think refurbished dual Tualatin motherboards are sold around $200 and above on eBay, that's nonsense! a cheap AMD Ryzen motherboard is $59 on Amazon
Come on Phil.
Run it again with the Duron 1.4, P3 slot 1, p3 normal socket 370 and AMD Atlhon on 1.4 ghz
I remember Intel representatives saying that Netburst architecture would allow for 10 GHz.
Actually from 2000 to 2002 i was impressed how fast Intel cranked up clock rates with the Pentium 4, so Intels strategy to go for high clock rates seemed reasonable.
by the way Pentium 4 1400 was released fall 2000, but Tualatin 1400 was released one year later. That's huge time difference for processor market and that's not surpising at all that Pentium IV cannot run as faster as Pentium III does at the same clock - Pentium IV shows really great perfomance if we remember the pipeline difference. And it was released after Coppermine 1000 and honestly, it would be more correct to compare PIII-1000 and PIV 1500. Coppermine cannot operate at 1500 - that was a huge PIV win. PIII Tualatin was released when PIV got 2GHZ bareer and that's why it would be correct to compare PIII 1400 with PIV 2000 Mhz - the same time processors.
I had a PIII-S 1.26GHz years ago, that thing flew
I think would be interesting to put head to head one on an early Core to a Late Pentium 4, and compare their architecture heritage.
The Pentium 4 was like a single cylinder high revving motorcycle engine.. didnt actually produce that much power.
Core 2 Duo was like a turbo charged two cylinder, and before you know it there's like massive turbo V12's everywhere.. and people cant conceptualise why the P4 is so slow. 😂
I haven't heard of ICH in a long time. I used to think it stood for intel chipset.
What about sticking with stock settings and going with Linux Mint 18.3 CINNAMON (Sylvia) 64bit and you just follow the instructions and just let it update and install the developers essentials(includes the latest gcc compiler headers and libraries) including GPP and GDB, if you install Wine,Winetricks and zip.dll for Windows program execution and you should be good to go, those motherboards are actually 64bit capable although Windows didn't use it until Windows 7,8,10, what about that Slot One motherboard as there are adaptors that will allow you to use that CPU in a Slot One Motherboard.
P4 is 64-bit capable only from the Prescott core onward, so.. not really?
any 64bit Slot One Motherboards?
neither of the CPUs featured were 64 bit capable.
I like to compare old processors and after several test, I surprised due my Tualatin 1.4 ghz with 133 mhz SDRAM beats Pentium 4 with 2 ghz and 333 mhz DDR RAM. Only Pentium 4 or Celeron 2.4 ghz are slightly better. The definitive improvement for Pentium 4 was the HT implementation.
The most surprising for me, however, was the excellent results of the cheap Duron 1.3 which almost reaches Pentium III 1.4 Tualatin.
It is not a coincidence. P4 was a power-hungry, hot dead-end which allowed AMD to have their first "golden age" with faster, cooler and cheaper CPUs.
But Intel weren't stupid, Tualatin was the first sign that Intel is quietly still iterating on "old" P6 architecture. With newer manufacturing processes it was obvious that it was far more effective, especially that they were reaching the clock & power/heat limits of Pentium 4 very quickly. It became clear that one-core CPUs are slowly thing of the past, so they needed something more power-efficient.
Intel "quietly" released Pentium M and iterated more to create Intel Core architecture - the rest is history 🙂