<b>Updated</b> CPU Cheatsheet - Seven Years of Covert CPU Operations
by Jarred Walton on August 28, 2004 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction to the Processor Charts
Before we get to the actual charts, I want to take a minute to make clear how the charts are organized. Due to the number of features involved with modern processors, it can become difficult to determine which CPU is actually faster when comparing different models. For example, do you go with the 2250 MHz Athlon XP using the Thoroughbred core, which has a 2800+ model number, or should you go with the 2000 MHz Athlon XP that uses the Barton core, which also has a 2800+ model number? With Intel, it can be even more difficult: you have different cache sizes, bus speeds, and even architectures.
Since I figure a lot of people may actually find some sort of relative sorting useful, I have attempted to do this. How you wish to rate the various factors is of course a topic that could be debated ad nauseum . What I am presenting is by no means a definitive answer on which model is faster, but it should give a rough estimate. Below are the various families of processors and the weighting values that I used. I then took the weight factor and multiplied that by the actual clock speed to come up with a final performance ranking.
Since this is simply a rough estimate on my part, I am not including these ranking values in the actual charts, but they are how I sorted the data. Really, the reason for their existence was to get a sorting function that more or less agreed with my own personal opinion, so if I happen to have missed a processor, or if a new processor is released, I can simply add in the processor(s) to the chart and resort it. I'm open for suggestions on how these ratings might be improved, but please realize that there will never be a definitive formula, as relative performance depends on what specific code you are running.
If you don't like math or don't really care to know precisely how the charts are sorted, feel free to just skip to the next page. This is only for people that really want to know details. Also, the weighting factors are within each family - they have no correlation with other processor families. (So don't get upset that the Dothan has a 1.6 weighting and Athlon FX only has 1.15!) With that said, here are the weighting factors that I used.
Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP and Sempron
64K L2 + 100 MHz bus = 0.7 64K L2 + 133 MHz bus = 0.75 256K L2 + 100 MHz bus = 0.8 256K L2 + 133 MHz bus = 0.85 256K L2 + 166 MHz bus = 0.9 512K L2 + 133 MHz bus = 0.95 512K L2 + 166 MHz bus = 1.0 512K L2 + 200 MHz bus = 1.05
Athlon 64
256K L2 + single-channel (Socket 754) = 0.9 512K L2 + single-channel (Socket 754) = 0.95 1024K L2 + single-channel (Socket 754) = 1.0 512K L2 + dual-channel (Socket 939) = 1.04 1024K L2 + dual-channel (Socket 940) = 1.11 1024K L2 + dual-channel (Socket 939) = 1.15
Celeron 2 and Pentium 4
128K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.6 256K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.75 256K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.80 512K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.84 512K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.91 1024K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.93 1024K L2 + 800 FSB = 0.98 512K L2 + 800 FSB = 1.0 512K L2 + 800 FSB + 2048K L3 = 1.15 2048K L2 + 1066 FSB = 1.2
Mobile Celeron, Mobile P4, Celeron M and Pentium M
128K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.6 256K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.75 256K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.80 512K L2 + 533 FSB + Northwood = 0.91 1024K L2 + 533 FSB + Prescott = 0.93 512K L2 + 400 FSB + Dothan = 1.25 512K L2 + 400 FSB + Banias = 1.3 1024K L2 + 400 FSB + Dothan = 1.35 1024K L2 + 400 FSB + Banias = 1.4 2048K L2 + 400 FSB = 1.5 2048K L2 + 533 FSB = 1.6
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Maverick Shiva - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
The Articles are really beautiful.This was the complete description of the processors that are released and yet to be released.
The technical details are really awsome and minute to the Detail.
I would recommend that if you had Anand Tech.com then you are really tech Savvy.
JarredWalton - Saturday, September 18, 2004 - link
#72 - the article is now slightly outdated, being a whopping 20 days old. Sorry. We'll look at updating this with future articles, of course.Assimilator1 - Friday, September 17, 2004 - link
An excellent article:)Though as someone mentioned the Semperon 2300 is missing ,this is clocked at 1.583GHz.
Its listed in AMDs model 8 data sheets
endrebjorsvik - Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - link
A very nice article with lost of good information!!Is there anybody who has all these datas collected into somethong like an exel-file or something.
jenand - Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - link
JarredWalton: If you are going to update the roadmaps. Here is some good Itanium Info:http://www.intel.com/design/itanium2/download/Madi...
jenand - Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - link
JarredWalton: If you are going to update the roadmaps. Here is some good Itanium Info:http://www.intel.com/design/itanium2/download/Madi...
romanl - Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - link
Why is the Sempron 2300+ missing from a list of AMD CPUs?IntelUser2000 - Thursday, September 2, 2004 - link
It was said that Willamette has 33% superior branch prediction due to its 4KB BTB buffer compared to Pentium III's(P3's had 512B).It was also said Pentium M's have 20% superior branch prediction to previous generation. Since we know that the major enhancements on branch prediction for Pentium M is enhanced indirect branch prediction and no BTB buffer increase, its likely its 20% over P3.
Dothan does have superior branch prediction to 0.13 micron Pentium M, but it would probably be minor compared to Pentium 4's 33% superiority over P3.
Taking P3 as baseline,
-Pentium 4 adds 33% using 8x increase in BTB buffer, or 4KB compared to 512B
-Banias takes P3 and puts enhancements to indirect branch predictor, which gives 20%
-Prescott takes 33% from Willamette AND 20% from Banias
-Dothan has Banias' 20% improvements plus something minor
You say: " However, with the doubling of the cache size on Dothan, I can't imagine Intel would leave it with inferior branch prediction."
Yeah but I can't imagine that Prescott will have inferior branch prediction than Dothan since its needed more on Prescott. And looking at per clock enhancements Dothan is not much faster than Banias, except Content Creation apps, telling again the enhancements are minor.
Remember we are talking about how superior one branch predictor would be over another with same pipelines.
I think of it this way: In terms of worst to best
Pentium III
Banias
P4 Willamette/Northwood/Dothan(I still think 33% improvement over P6 is greater than 20% in Banias+Dothan improvements)
Prescott
Oh yeah, there will be 4MB Fanwood parts but at 1.6GHz.
Also since Itanium's core is half the size of Xeon and Intel also mentioned there will be twice the number of cores that Xeon has and Tukwila will be introduced ~2007 with quad-core Xeon then, Tukwila will have 8-core with Hyperthreading. Montecito is rumored to already have 600mm2 die size. Montecito has 24MB but Tukwila is rumored to have 32MB, not a lot increase, to possibly save space for more cores?
I mean, Sun plans 32-core designs.
Link: www.mikeshardware.co.uk
JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
Jenand, just an update, but it appears that Fanwood might not have 9M parts. The latest Intel roadmap talks about "Madison 9M/Fanwood/LV" parts in several places, but all the actual Fanwood parts are listed as 3M parts, and there's a not about pushing back the Fanwood 4M part.What is Fanwood? As of right now, I'm really not sure. Initially, I thought it was a renamed Madison, perhaps with more cache or for LV environments. Now, I'm starting to wonder if it might be a 90 nm version of Madison, or a version with more metal layers. Clock speeds are still in the Madison range, so that wouldn't really make sense, but why have the separate name if it's not somehow fundamentally different from Madison?
And for what it's worth, the charts are now outdated somewhat with the announcement of the 6xx series of 2M L2 Pentium 4 parts. See latest Insider Stories.
jenand - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
Yes, Fanwood looks to be a 9MB L3 part. Strange. But i is limited to DP servers while Madison9M is for MP servers. just like Xeon MP end DP I guess.And no not many care about IA64 these days. Not strange. But with Millington I assume that will change! ;)