Intel's Pentium M on the Desktop - A Viable Alternative?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 7, 2005 4:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
As a mobile processor, the Pentium M cannot be beat - we've actually seen why, even in this comparison today. With a highly power optimized architecture, the Pentium M continues to deliver performance that is competitive with other mobile CPUs on the market. The problem is that in the transition to the desktop world, its competitors get much more powerful, while the Pentium M is forced to live within its mobile constraints.Think of it like this - the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 are clearly the stronger chips of the three, as we have proved in today's review. However, in the mobile world, the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 are often castrated or limited either by low clock speeds, single channel memory controllers or more physical constraints (e.g. you can get desktop P4 performance, but only in a 13lbs notebook). The Pentium M however, was designed from the ground up with these types of constraints in mind, and thus, excels quite well with them in place. Begin to remove the constraints and the Pentium M appears to be much less impressive compared to the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 because the chip was designed to perform best with those constraints in place. The very low latency 2MB L2 cache is a prime example of this design mentality. A large L2 cache reduces the need for a high bandwidth memory bus, and making it low latency means that the CPU is even less dependent on such a bus.
The fact of the matter is that the Pentium M, while excellent as a mobile CPU, isn't the response from Intel that everyone is hoping for. The successor to the Pentium 4 won't be an architecture derived from the Pentium III, there's just no way around that. Intel has invested too much time and money into the optimization of applications for the Pentium 4 architecture and its execution core to throw it all away and revert to the old way of doing things.
That isn't to say that elements of the Pentium M design won't be included in Pentium 5 or whatever the next chip will be called. Even today's Pentium 4 already has a handful of key features borrowed from the Pentium M design. We saw examples of this with the launch of Prescott; the indirect branch predictor used in Prescott was originally introduced with the Pentium M processor. It would also be safe to say that a number of improvements that Intel is introducing in the next version of the Pentium M, the dual core Yonah, will eventually make their way into future Intel desktop CPUs as well.
But with a very high cost of ownership, thanks to high motherboard prices and correspondingly high CPU prices, not to mention a very limited upgrade path, the Pentium M just isn't suited for the desktop. And unless these deciding factors change significantly in the near future, it won't be for some time to come.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
bobsmith1492 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Granted the T8000 here is an Intel fanboy, but please notice Anand was comparing clock-for-clock.T8000 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
There is one big difference between this review and the reviews where the Pentium M did very well: CLOCKSPEED!While others where able to get over 2.8 Ghz with aircooling, Anand got just 2.4 Ghz. This may be a coincidence, but it is the difference between surprisingly good performance and a few % below others.
As most of the benchmarks where based on the stock 2 Ghz, the difference became even greater.
So this review just shows that the stock speed Pentium M performs about 30% less with about 30% less clockspeed than overclocked versions.
A slightly redesigned version with higher voltages is not extremely unlikely to hit at least 3 Ghz. Combining that with a desktop chipset will result in stellar performance, as the benchmark scores in this review (x1.5) indicate.
But since there is no slightly redesigned version and Intel has no good reason to make one, the current Pentium M desktops will only appeal to overclockers and silent computing people.
Also, for some reason, Anand found the 90W TDP of the 2.4 Ghz A64 closer to the 20W of the P-M than to the 110W of the 3.8 Ghz P4.
CSMR - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
That's a very good option Zebo, thanks for posting it.teutonicknight - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
One suggestion: Why don't you start using a newer version of Premiere for testing? I personally don't use it, but every that I know who does says before Premiere Pro, the program sucked. I'm sure the render results would be much more realistic and accurate if you used a more up to date version of the programRegs - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
I was wondering the same thing too Jeff. If you feed it more bandwidth, it would eliminate the pipeline stalls and maybe give it a chance to reach higher clock speeds. Right? Or is it still prohibited by the shorter pipeline to reach higher clock speeds?Longer pipeline = wasted clock cycles. But to me that sounds like the PM should actually scale a lot better with a speed boost. Why exactly does it scale badly compared to a P4? Could it be remedied in anyway with a dual channel memory bus?
ozzimark - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
there's something wrong with the 3400+ in the spec tests. why is the 3000+ beating it consitantly?Warder45 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Maybe I missed something but I don't see the reason for all the negitivity in the final words. The 2.4Ghz P-M was very close to the A64 2.4Ghz in many of the tests, 3D rendering seemed to slow it down but that looked like it. With better boards and memory the P-M might best the A64 in a clock for clock match up.I do agree the prices are way too high. I think Intel really needs to wake up and smell what they have cooking here. With more support and more aggressive priceing they could easily have a winner in the HTPC and SFF markets.
plewis00 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Surely when someone builds a mainboard with the Sonoma (i915) platform using PCI-E and DDR2-533 then it will change. And I wouldn't have thought that's that far off assuming they don't charge rip-off prices for the technology. It would also be perfect for Shuttle systems where the emphasis is on quietness and coolness rather than so much on performance.Zebo - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
CSMRSo's this one very soon..
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...
...more than excellent performance wise if Dothan is excellent...power differential hopefully for AMD will be nominal.
Sokaku - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
While it is true that the A64 has way more bandwidth, I doubt that is the reason why it crushed the P-M in the Professional Applications. I think the real cause is to be found in the P-M's abillity to do FP divisions. The P-III had a pipelined FP unit, however div operations were extremly expensive. My guess would be that Intel haven't thrown much effort into improving on this.