Comparing Northwood and Prescott
One of the biggest surprises when testing began on the RS350 was ATI's strong recommendation that all benchmarking be done with a 2.8E Prescott. Since the 2.8E is readily available, and higher-speed Prescott's are just starting to appear in the marketplace, the 2.8 speed recommendation made sense. You can buy a 2.8E ,and it is the price level chip many might choose to use in an integrated video system.However, in our comparisons of Prescott to Northwood and the 3.2EE, we had found the Prescott to lag behind the 3.2C and 3.2EE. You can see more information on the AnandTech comparisons at:
Intel 3.2E vs. 3.2EE vs. 3.2C: Comparing Baseline Performance
Intel's Pentium 4 E: Prescott Arrives with Luggage
Not only did we find Prescott slower than Northwood at 3.2GHz in our past comparisons, we also found that the performance difference increased as speed decreased. In other words, there should be a wider difference in the performance of a 2.8E and 2.8C than you find with 3.2GHz parts.
ATI was clear that the RS350 had been tweaked for best performance with the 2.8E Prescott. Since we did not have recent baseline benchmark tests with a 2.8C on an Intel chipset board, it was the perfect opportunity to test what ATI was saying. Can the 2.8E Prescott perform as well or better than the 2.8C on a chipset tweaked for Prescott performance? How does this compare with performance of the Northwood and Prescott on our standard Asus P4C800-E motherboard?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
24 Comments
View All Comments
Cygni - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
"Who that comes to this site give a flying f*ck about integrated graphics""where are the x800 bencharks?? that's what we care about."
"Stop with these goddamn AT sponsor suckup/teaser "ref board" reviews."
First, where the heck did all of these MUTANTS come from? This is AT. Not eXtremeTechOmgFPSAWesome.org.
Second, x800 is under NDA until its launched, for the love of god. Anandtech CANT say anything about it.
Third, LOTS of Anandtech users care about Integrated Graphics. ALOT of the people who come to Anandtech system build for money/pleasure. Just go to the Forums and find out. This is an IT Tech site, NOT a "Gamers Only" site. Hence the server storys, etc.
Finally, I for one enjoy the fact that Anandtech tests boards that most other sites dont have BEFORE they are on the shelf. Anandtech ALSO tests AFTER they are on the shelf to compare. Why WOULDNT they test the board they get sent, to let everyone know? And I like the way you imply that AnandTech only gets pre-release boards because they are sponsored by the company and want a favorable review. You certainly havent been coming here long if you think that.
Myrandex - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
also, what is up with the constant testing of bank interleave set to disabled, doesn't it help memory performance?Myrandex - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
allisolm good job on the empty post. But otherwise, in the article, it is stated that the chipset just supports SATA ports, but in the chipset diagram, it shows RAID 0 and 1 supported. Any clue as to which is right? Also, it is always good to see integrated graphics performance, especially for the reason that many moderately proced laptop haves integrated graphics (not my A64 rad 9600, but still), and it is good to see them approach playable levels.Jason
Pumpkinierre - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
Its hard ro understand how you can 'optimise' for a different x86 cpu (nf3 and nVidia Gpus optimisation is a different story) unless they are taking advantage of some of the extra 'secret' X86-64 registers on the Prescott.Bozo Galora - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
Stop with these goddamn AT sponsor suckup/teaser "ref board" reviews.
If it aint final - dont look at it.
All this crap is obsolete now anyway in just a few months.
Give me a break.
Talk about a white elephant.
AtaStrumf - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
It was your imagination! It's supposed to come out tomorrow May 4th or on Wednesday May 5th.As for IGP tests: Why the hell not test them? If you dont like it just skip it bitch! I know I was quite interested in the results and I'm sure so were many others.
Nice to see ATi finaly come out with a good chipset (cross your fingers for OC-ing being as good as they say), so that the two GPU giants have now fairly devided the two top CPU manufacturers.
araczynski - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
All i'm saying is it must be a slow day in the news department :)i understand the interest, which i have as well, but in all honesty, anyone concerned about playing games, won't get a system with an IG, and anyone that does, will be disappointed no matter what IG is in there. Whether they get 19FPS or 21FPS, they're not going to be happy.
anyway, where's the x800 stuff? wasn't that supposed to come out first of may? or was that my imagination again.
DAPUNISHER - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
There's a typo on the IGP test config page, it states ATi 865G where it should read Intel.BTW, I'm always very interested in IGP reviews as white box builder a good 80% of my biz is budget IGP systems.
IMHO though, IGP with a $150+ CPU does not equate budget and Celerons won't find a place in my builds unless intel decides to make them more competitive in the sub $100 market vs AMD.
Now, the last thing to answer is wether ATi finally got the overclocking right ;)
allisolm - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
NullSubroutine - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
Unlike all these other guys, I do care about Intergrated Graphics...not because I own one (I got A64), but because many people do. Most everyday people buy systems from OEMs like Dell, who sell alot of systems with IGs.Alot of first time users buy systems that are cheap, and sometimes suck. It is nice to see that if someone wants to build a cheap system they can still play any older DX7 games at reasonably high fps and newer DX8.1/9 games at playable 640x480.