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
Memory Latency and Bandwidth
Currently, there are only two manufacturers of desktop Pentium M motherboards who are selling into the channel - AOpen and DFI. Both AOpen and DFI's motherboards came about not because of widespread consumer demand, but because they each had one customer that needed a Pentium M motherboard for a specific application. Once the boards were designed and built, they were later repackaged and made available to the public as an afterthought.The major issue with both of these motherboards is that they are based on the 855GME chipset. The 855GME only features AGP 4X support, but the killer is in its single-channel DDR333 memory controller. Without DDR400 support, the 855GME starves the Pentium M for bandwidth, as it is only capable of delivering 2.7GB/s of bandwidth to main memory while the Pentium M at 2.0GHz needs 3.2GB/s of bandwidth to remain most efficient. Overclocking the memory bus is somewhat of an option, but not exactly the most desirable one for reasons that we will get to later.
One solution is Intel's recently released mobile 915 chipset, which features a dual-channel DDR1/DDR2 memory controller. The dual channel controller is more than capable of supplying the appropriate memory bandwidth to the Pentium M, if not a bit overboard, but right now mobile 915 isn't an option on the desktop.
With an unsatisfactory amount of memory bandwidth, the Pentium M will undoubtedly be held back in performance in applications where memory bandwidth is most important. As we all know, memory bandwidth and latency are interdependent, so let's see how the latency to main memory compares.
For our memory latency tests, we once again turn to ScienceMark 2.0:
| CPU | Memory Latency (in ns) |
| AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0GHz) | 50ns |
| Intel Pentium 4E 560 (3.6GHz) | 80ns |
| Intel Pentium M 755 (2.0GHz) | 80ns |
With an on-die memory controller, the Athlon 64 obviously offers the lowest latency memory access out of the group. The reason why we used a 2.0GHz Athlon 64 for this comparison was to show the memory latency seen by a CPU clocked identically to the Pentium M. As strong as the Pentium M's branch predictor may be, the trip to main memory will always be longer than the Athlon 64 - increasing the penalty from having a longer pipeline.
When you compare the Pentium M to the Pentium 4, you see the real harm in only having a single channel DDR333 memory controller - the time for the Pentium M to get to main memory is very similar to that of the Pentium 4, even when the latter is using higher latency DDR2 memory. High memory latency will send the performance of the Pentium M tumbling as soon as it leaves the sanctity of its low latency L2 cache.
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.