Поиск по сайту THG.ru

Поиск по ценам в Price.ru

Intel i820 Chipset Review

Intel Developers Forum Fall '99 Report

Overclocking AMD's Athlon Processor

Performance-Showdown between Athlon and Pentium III

Tom's Blurb - Athlon Motherboards

Early Athlon Motherboard Review

KryoTech's Cool Athlon 800MHz

The New Athlon Processor - AMD Is Finally Overtaking Intel

Tom's Blurb - Athlon Day

Intel Roadmap Update June 1999 - Part 2, Desktop CPU Roadmaps

Intel Roadmap Update June 1999 - Part I, The Highlights

Preview of VIA's upcoming Apollo Pro+ 133 Chipset

Rambler's Top100 Рейтинг@Mail.ru
bigmir)net TOP 100


Краткое содержание статьи: Intel's new Coppermine processor shows how much performance you can still get out of the good old P6-design. Times for Athlon are getting harder, but the war is not lost yet. Coppermine catches up and AMD will have to strike again soon.

Intel's New Weapon - The Coppermine

Редакция THG,  25 октября 1999


Intel Pentium III Coppermine

Not long ago the impossible happened. Intel, the largest processor-maker in the world, was pushed from its throne of the provider of the fastest x86-CPU. Small and struggling AMD had provided a product that's not only just about faster than Intel's flagship, but leaving Intel's Pentium III-series, including Xeon, in the dust rather badly. As if this wouldn't be bad enough, AMD had beaten Intel where it really hurt, in Intel's old domain, the floating-point area. While this new AMD Athlon-CPU was ahead of Pentium III in the integer-arena quite considerably, it left all Intel-processors far behind at 'number-crunching', the area that used to be pronounced so overly important by Intel's marketing in the past. It was a nasty slap in the face of the self-confident Intel-management and everyone in this company dealt with it in a different way. Many OEMs and system integrators will remember Intel road shows, where Chipzilla's marketing guys tried to make fun of Athlon or decided that the Earth was flat, water flows uphill and Athlon was an inferior product to the wonderful Intel-processors. Others - God bless them - just kept quiet as you should do when you're defeated, but the majority faced this 'ridiculous' condition with the well-known 'Intel-arrogance' and tried to just ignore the existence of Athlon.

Stress Creates Mistakes

A lot more happened behind the scenes. While the guys in chipset sales were instructed to make motherboard makers feel a bit queasy about producing Athlon-platforms, the engineers were pushed to give 200%. The first reaction was the early release of Pentium III 600, a CPU that acted unstable in the very beginning, but that was saved by one of Intel's many microcode-updates (which always decrease performance a bit, but who would care about that?), so that the majority of users never noticed it. Then the development of the next processor in Intel's long roadmap was pushed. This product by the code name 'Coppermine' was released today and we'll hear a lot more about it later. However, the release of Coppermine was supposed to be a lot earlier. Coppermine and the infamous 'Camino'- or i820-chipset were meant to be introduced on September 5, 1999. Unfortunately the engineers weren't quite able to sustain the stress that was put onto them. Used to making products that were way ahead of the competition at the time of their release, they now had to face a situation where they had to catch up with this bold competitor AMD and its Athlon. This resulted into making mistakes. Coppermine's release was pushed to October 25, 1999 and nobody really knows if and when i820 will ever see it's official launch-day.

No i820-Release, but i820-Benchmark Data ... ?

Now we've finally reached the introduction of 'Coppermine' and you will see that Intel's processor-engineers did rather respectable work. Everything would be fine for Intel, if there wasn't the delay of i820. This chipset by the code name of 'Camino' should have provided the platform for the new 'Coppermine'-CPU. Coppermine runs at 133 MHz front side bus clock and has a lot more great features. Intel's history was always to supply a new advanced platform for a new advanced processor. This time Intel is in rather bad shape. i820 might be released (hopefully?) sometimes by the end of this quarter and until then you'll either have to plug this high-end and high-cost CPU into a low-end / low-cost platform with the i810e-chipset or you'll have to choose a platform based on the Apollo Pro133+-chipset from Intel's Taiwanese 'enemy' VIA. Intel is hurting so badly that they did something they've never done before. In the official Coppermine presentation you'll find benchmark-data of Coppermine-CPUs scored on a yet unreleased i820-platform! That's rather ridiculous, because Intel was the number one company that got upset if any of their competitors used anything unreleased in their benchmarks and marketing documents. Now they did it themselves because they didn't have another choice. How would it look if Intel provided Coppermine-performance-data based on the mediocre i810e-platform? It's rather obvious that nobody would be impressed. The alternative would have been to market VIA's Apollo Pro 133+-chipset in their presentations by showing Coppermine-numbers produced on platforms with this chipset. All that was unacceptable to the guys in Intel's management, so that they decided to simply 'bend the rules' a little bit and promise their OEM's that 'eventually i820 will be available'. "Just be a little bit patient! After all we are almighty Intel and you better take us for real!"

So far about the policy-background of Intel's new Coppermine-processor, let's now get down to the technical side.

Coppermine's New Enhancements

What's the new stuff about Coppermine? Well, first of all it's important to note that Coppermine is not a completely new design. Rather than that it's the probably last enhancement of a CPU that was launched some 5 years ago as 'Pentium Pro'. Coppermine is an improved Pentium III-processor and most of it is based on its predecessor. I'd also like to note that the code name 'Coppermine' does NOT imply that this new processor is built using IBM's new copper-technology. The metal layers used in Coppermine are still aluminum (or 'aluminium' for all Europeans). The new stuff is the following:

256 kB of integrated, on-die second level (L2) cache, running at core clock

  • Effect A:
    This fact alone makes the new Pentium III a 'one-chip'-solution, so that the good old 'single edge cartridge', filled with CPU-core, L2-cache controller and L2-cache chip, is technically no longer needed anymore. You will still find Coppermine for Slot1 because Intel wants it so, but the new Coppermine-based Pentium III processors can reside just as well in a housing for Socket370. Intel calls those chips FC-PGA370, where 'FC' stands for 'flip-chip. Today's release includes only Pentium III 500E and Pentium III 550E in this kind of form factor, but in the future Slot1 will go away and the majority of Coppermines will reside in the FC-PGA packaging.
  • Effect B:
    The L2-cache of Coppermine may be only half the size of the L2-cache of its predecessor, but it's running at double the speed and is thus rather faster than slower than before.

Manufactured in .18µ-technology

  • Effect A:
    The Coppermine silicon-chip is very small, although it hosts no less than 28.1 million transistors. As a matter of fact it's with 106 mm2 even smaller than the Katmai-chip, which only hosts a third of the amount of transistors on 128 mm2. This means that it takes less silicon to produce Coppermine and thus the productions costs go down too.
  • Effect B:
    Coppermine requires less power and can be clocked higher. It can run at a voltage between 1.1-1.7 V and it needs less than a third of the power consumed by AMD's Athlon processor. Thus Coppermine is not only a 'pretty cool' CPU, it is also perfect for mobile computing, where power consumption is very important. Coppermine's highest clock speed that Intel releases today is 733 MHz and thus higher than AMD's highest clocked Athlon at 700 MHz.

Coppermine's New Enhancements, Continued

'Advanced Transfer Cache'
Behind this new name, invented by Intel's marketing department, you find the real reason why Coppermine is performing so much better than its predecessor. The integrated 256 kB-L2 cache is not only running at clock speed now, it became a lot of nice little enhancements that really make the difference.

  • Effect A:
    First of all, the L2-cache is now connected to the core via a 256-bit wide data path, which is 4 times as wide as Katmai's 64-bit wide data path to its external half-speed L2-cache. Therefore Coppermine can transfer 32 byte L2-cache data every two clocks, resulting in a whopping 11.2 GB/s data bandwidth between the core and the L2-cache.
  • Effect B:
    The L2-cache associativity was increased to 8-way, which is supposed to improve performance by 3-6%.
  • Effect C:
    The L2-cache latency was reduced to a quarter of what it used to be in Katmai (code name of the previous Pentium III). The reduced latency is lowering the penalty of L1-misses (that's when the core has to look up the data in the L2-cache or in main memory) and it makes the impact of snoops (that's when the core checks if the L2-cache data has been altered) less time consuming.

'Advanced System Buffering'
This is another marketing term for some more enhancements in Coppermine.

  • Effect:
    6 fill buffers vs. former 4 fill buffers, 8 bus queue entries vs. former 4 and 4 write-back buffers vs. former one make sure that Coppermine can take better advantage of the 133 MHz front side bus clock. More buffers allow more outstanding FSB operations and they again reduce latency of those operations.

The SpeedStep Technology for mobile systems
Behind this new name you'll find Intel's 'Geyserville'-technology.

  • Effect:
    SpeedStep runs the mobile Coppermine at full speed and full voltage when the notebook is plugged into an external power source and reduces clock speed and voltage for a lower power consumption (but also lower performance) when the notebook operates from its battery.

Coppermine's New Enhancements, Continued

Improved Compiler
Intel will release a new compiler that can take full advantage of Coppermine's faster cache and the SSE-extensions by the beginning of next year. This will result in software being more optimized for Coppermine while not optimized for Athlon. You can imagine that this will make Coppermine look better against Athlon and you can't even blame Intel or the software developers for it, because nobody keeps AMD from supplying a compiler that optimizes for Athlon as well. If they would only do that.

You can see that the core was hardly changed, but Coppermine's cache operations were optimized close to a theoretical maximum. You will be surprised to see how much impact those optimizations have.

Athlon - Coppermine - Katmai

Here are the three contestants. Athlon on the top, then Coppermine and underneath Katmai. You can see that Coppermine's chip is the smallest, although it has 256 kB integrated L2-cache. The other two require external L2-cache, you can spot the two chips on the Athlon and Katmai-PCB.

What Coppermines will be available?

There are a lot of different new Pentium III processors based on the Coppermine-core released today, here's the rather confusing list:

Coppermine for Desktop Form Factor Front Side Bus Clock [MHz] Multiplier
Pentium III 733 Slot1 133 x5.5
Pentium III 700 Slot1 100 x7
Pentium III 667 Slot1 133 x5
Pentium III 650 Slot1 100 x6.5
Pentium III 600EB Slot1 133 x4.5
Pentium III 600E Slot1 100 x6
Pentium III 533EB Slot1 133 x4
Pentium III 550E FC-PGA370 100 x5.5
Pentium III 500E FC-PGA370 100 x5

You can see that Intel is afraid of overclockers. The Coppermines at 500 and 550 MHz share the same multiplier as the Coppermines at 667 and 733 MHz. Thus you could easily overclock the 500 to 667 and the 550 to 733 MHz by simply running them at 133 MHz front side bus clock. To make that a bit tougher Intel released the two low-end Coppermines as PGA-versions only. This won't scare off any real overclocker though, since you can solve this problem by either getting a VIA Apollo Pro 133+-platform with Socket370, as e.g. the Tyan board we used or by using a Socket370 to Slot1 converter card.

Coppermine FC-PGA
This is what Coppermine in FC-PGA package for Socket370 looks like.

The Coppermines for notebooks are released at 500, 450 and 400 MHz, all using 100 MHz front side bus now. Intel added a couple of small new packages for the new mobile coppermine, as you can see in the picture below:

Mobile Coppermine Information

The upper of the two can be removed, since it simply plugs into a socket, the lower of the two has to be soldered onto the notebook's PCB.

The Benchmark Results

You remember me mentioning it, Intel was not able to release the i820-chipset along with Coppermine. Thus i820-motherboards are not really the right platform for testing Coppermine. We decided to include results of Coppermine running on a preliminary i820-platform as well, but they don't really count right now. Thus we ran Coppermine with a FSB-clock of 100 MHz on a BX-platform and Coppermine with 133 MHz FSB on a platform with the only official 133 MHz FSB chipset, VIA's Apollo Pro 133+.

Benchmark Setup - System & Environment Settings

Hardware Information  
Intel Pentium III 100 MHz FSB, Katmai core
Motherboard (440BX) ABIT BX6 2.0 (440BX)(BIOS date 7/13/99)
Memory 128 MB Viking PC100 CAS2
Network Netgear FA310TX
Intel Pentium III B 133 MHz FSB, Katmai core
Motherboard (i820) Intel VC820 (i820, preliminary)
Memory 128MB 800MHz RDRAM (64x2)
Network Netgear FA310TX
Intel Pentium III B 133 MHz FSB, Katmai core
Motherboard (VIA Apollo Pro 133+) Tyan S1854 Trinity 400
Memory 128MB VCDRAM CAS2 (NEC MC-45V16AD641KF-A75)
Network Netgear FA310TX
Intel Pentium III E 100 MHz FSB, Coppermine core
Motherboard (440BX) ABIT BX6 2.0 (440BX)(BIOS date 7/13/99)
Memory 128 MB Viking PC100 CAS2
Network Netgear FA310TX
Intel Pentium III EB 133 MHz FSB, Coppermine core
Motherboard (i820) Intel VC820 (i820, preliminary)
Memory 128MB 800MHz RDRAM (64x2)
Network Netgear FA310TX
Intel Pentium III EB 133 MHz FSB, Coppermine core
Motherboard (VIA Apollo Pro 133+) Tyan S1854 Trinity 400
Memory 128MB VCDRAM CAS2 (NEC MC-45V16AD641KF-A75)
Network Netgear FA310TX
AMD Athlon 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750 (overclocked), 800, 900
Motherboard Microstar MS-6167
Memory 128 MB Viking PC100 CAS2
Network Netgear FA310TX
Driver Information  
NVIDIA GeForce 256
120MHz Core, 300MHz DDR-RAM 32MB  
Intel VC820 NT & 98 Ultra ATA BM driver v5.00.012C
Tyan S1854 Trinity 400 VIA 4-in1 Driver version 4.14
Environment Settings  
OS Versions Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222 A
Windows NT 4.0 w/Service Pack 5
note: Athlon was tested using NT Kernel that enables Write-Combining.

TNT2 Ultra was used for all Business Application tests
GeForce 256 was used for all Game Application tests

DirectX Version 7.0
Quake 3 Arena V1.08
command line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0
DMZG Demo Version Command line = -bench -tl on
Descent III Retail Version

Tyan's S1864 Trinity

This is Tyan's S1864 Trinity motherboard with VIA's Apollo Pro 133+ chipset.

Direct Comparison of preliminary Intel i820 and VIA Apollo Pro 133+-platform

How much 'worse' is VIA's Apollo Pro running with PC133 virtual channel SDRAM than Intel's great i820 with 400 MHz direct RDRAM really? We ran Coppermine on both:

Comparison of i820 and Apollo Pro133+ Platform

You can see that the differences aren't big. In office applications i820 has a slight edge of up to 3% over the Apollo Pro 133+, but in 3D-games the VIA chipset scores even better. Thus there' shouldn't be too much to worry about using an Apollo Pro 133+-platform with Coppermine.

Direct Comparison of Katmai and Coppermine Core

Let's see how much faster Coppermine's new enhancements are over the 'good old' Katmai core. I decided to have some mercy with Intel and used the results scored on a preliminary and unavailable i820-platform for the 133 MHz FSB scores.

Comparison of Coppermine and Katmai

Coppermine scores a respectable 10% more in office applications and for some reason in Q3Test as well. I fully understand the gain in Sysmark98, but the only explanation I've got for the high Q3Test-scores is GeForce's driver. I wouldn't be too surprised if NVIDIA already used an early version of Intel's upcoming compiler for their drivers. It could be Id's software too though.

Overall Processor Comparison

Now it's about time to see how Coppermine sticks up against its archenemy Athlon. It should be a tight match between the two, as we could see from the results above. In office as well as some game applications Coppermine is a lot faster than the old Pentium III and then there is Coppermine's clock speed advantage. AMD sells its fastest Athlon at 700 MHz, the fastest Coppermine runs at 733 MHz.

Office Application Performance under Windows98SE

SYSmark98 under Windows98SE

SYSmark98 - Windows98SE        
CPU Score   CPU Score
Pentium III 500 211   Athlon 500 237
Pentium III 500E 226      
Pentium III 533B 217      
Pentium III 533EB 232      
Pentium III 550 228   Athlon 550 253
Pentium III 550E 241      
Pentium III 600 245   Athlon 600 270
Pentium III 600B 237      
Pentium III 600E 257      
Pentium III 600EB 251      
Pentium III 650 272   Athlon 650 287
Pentium III 667 271      
Pentium III 700 288   Athlon 700 300
Pentium III 733 290      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 303   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 313
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 328
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 339

Under Windows 98 Athlon still rules SYSmark98, but the margin has shrunk. You may be surprised to see that Coppermine at 133 MHz FSB scores less than at 100 MHz FSB. The reason for this is that we ran Coppermine in a legally available Apollo Pro 133+-platform, that scores worse than an i820-platform would. If i820 was ready and available, Coppermine would get closer to Athlon. Let's face the facts though, Intel screwed it up and Coppermine is still behind Athlon.

Office Application Performance under Windows NT4

SYSmark98 under Windows NT4

SYSmark98 - WindowsNT4        
CPU Score   CPU Score
Pentium III 500 229   Athlon 500 257
Pentium III 500E 254      
Pentium III 533B 239      
Pentium III 533EB 258      
Pentium III 550 247   Athlon 550 275
Pentium III 550E 270      
Pentium III 600 268   Athlon 600 292
Pentium III 600B 259      
Pentium III 600E 286      
Pentium III 600EB 280      
Pentium III 650 302   Athlon 650 306
Pentium III 667 302      
Pentium III 700 318   Athlon 700 319
Pentium III 733 324      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 329   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 333
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 347
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 371

Coppermine gets a lot closer under Windows NT and the i820-scores we produced were even almost identical to the Athlon-scores. However, i820 is not available, so that Coppermine is slightly slower than Athlon in office applications under Windows NT.

Floating Point Calculation Performance

33D StudioMax under Windows NT SP5 - (100 MHz FSB) - Pictures Rendered per hour

3DStudioMAX - WindowsNT4     (Pictures Rendered per/hour)  
Pentium III 500 47   Athlon 500 68
Pentium III 500E 49      
Pentium III 533B 50      
Pentium III 533EB 52      
Pentium III 550 52   Athlon 550 75
Pentium III 550E 54      
Pentium III 600 57   Athlon 600 82
Pentium III 600B 56      
Pentium III 600E 59      
Pentium III 600EB 59      
Pentium III 650 64   Athlon 650 88
Pentium III 667 65      
Pentium III 700 69   Athlon 700 95
Pentium III 733 72      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 74   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 103
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 109
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 120

Not much has changed in the pure floating point performance from Katmai to Coppermine. Athlon is still way ahead of its pursuers from Intel. Coppermine hasn't got the slightest chance. If you need to run a lot of rendering or other floating point intensive software, Athlon is the only sensible choice.

Gaming Performance Quake3

Quake3 Arena under Windows98SE - 640x480x16 NORMAL

Quake 3 Arena - 640x480x16     NORMAL - Q3DEMO1  
CPU fps   CPU fps
Pentium III 500 85   Athlon 500 94
Pentium III 500E 102      
Pentium III 533B 90      
Pentium III 533EB 105      
Pentium III 550 92   Athlon 550 100
Pentium III 550E 107      
Pentium III 600 97   Athlon 600 106
Pentium III 600B 97      
Pentium III 600E 112      
Pentium III 600EB 110      
Pentium III 650 117   Athlon 650 109
Pentium III 667 116      
Pentium III 700 120   Athlon 700 114
Pentium III 733 121      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 124   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 117
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 121
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 125

I mentioned my surprise already before, Coppermine scores incredibly well under Q3Test. This is the one benchmark where Athlon is looking bad, but I wonder if this hasn't got something to do with GeForce's driver. I am sure that Athlon could look a lot better with some software optimizing as well.

Gaming Performance Descent3 - OpenGL

Descent3 under Windows98SE - 640x480x16 OpenGL - SECRET

Descent3 - 640x480x16     OpenGL - SECRET  
CPU fps   CPU fps
Pentium III 500 90   Athlon 500 102
Pentium III 500E 102      
Pentium III 533B 97      
Pentium III 533EB 105      
Pentium III 550 98   Athlon 550 108
Pentium III 550E 107      
Pentium III 600 105   Athlon 600 115
Pentium III 600B 107      
Pentium III 600E 113      
Pentium III 600EB 113      
Pentium III 650 118   Athlon 650 121
Pentium III 667 121      
Pentium III 700 124   Athlon 700 125
Pentium III 733 129      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 129   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 129
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 133
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 140

Gaming Performance Descent3 - DirectX

Descent3 under Windows98SE - 640x480x16 DirectX 7 - SECRET

Descent3 - 640x480x16     DirectX 7 - SECRET  
CPU fps   CPU fps
Pentium III 500 92   Athlon 500 101
Pentium III 500E 104      
Pentium III 533B 98      
Pentium III 533EB 107      
Pentium III 550 99   Athlon 550 107
Pentium III 550E 110      
Pentium III 600 106   Athlon 600 113
Pentium III 600B 108      
Pentium III 600E 115      
Pentium III 600EB 115      
Pentium III 650 120   Athlon 650 119
Pentium III 667 123      
Pentium III 700 126   Athlon 700 124
Pentium III 733 132      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 131   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 129
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 134
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 139

Coppermine is scoring slightly ahead of Athlon, particularly under DirectX7.

Gaming Performance Dagoth Moor Zoological Gardens

Dagoth Moor Zoological Gardens under Windows98SE - 640x480x16

Dogath Moor Zoological Gardens     640x480x16  
CPU fps   CPU fps
Pentium III 500 56   Athlon 500 69
Pentium III 500E 64      
Pentium III 533B 58      
Pentium III 533EB 66      
Pentium III 550 60   Athlon 550 70
Pentium III 550E 66      
Pentium III 600 63   Athlon 600 70
Pentium III 600B 63      
Pentium III 600E 69      
Pentium III 600EB 68      
Pentium III 650 70   Athlon 650 70
Pentium III 667 69      
Pentium III 700 70   Athlon 700 70
Pentium III 733 70      
Pentium III 750 (overclocked) 70   Athlon 750 (overclocked) 70
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 800 70
      Kryotech Cool Athlon 900 70

This benchmark is obviously limited by GeForce's T&L-engine. Athlon is edging it out at 550 MHz already, while Coppermine is a bit slower and reaches the ceiling at 650 Mhz.


I have to congratulate Intel for finally getting the best out of the good old P6-design. Coppermine has got very close to Athlon, it even surpasses it due to SSE and other enhancements in several 3D-games, particularly in Quake3. Coppermine suffers a bit from the delay of i820, but it is still able to show its teeth already. What we shouldn't forget however is that there's a new platform for Athlon due soon as well, which should give this AMD CPU some speed boost too. For workstation users the answer should still be clear, Athlon is the way better choice due to its far superior floating point performance and it will get even more obvious once there are SMP-platforms available for Athlon. Office application users shouldn't look at those CPUs in the first place really, since every office application runs just fine on K6-2, K6-3 or Celeron platforms. The story has changed a bit for gamers. Coppermine is at least as fast as Athlon in games and until the world changes significantly, game developers will help out Intel by optimizing their games for SSE rather than putting any major effort into 3DNow!-enhancements. This is partly AMD's fault, since it would be their job to supply developers with a compiler that optimizes for Athlon. The final decision will be made when you look at the pricing though.

Desktop Bus Speed 1000 unit volume
pricing per chip
Pentium III-733 133 MHz $776
Pentium III-700 100 MHz $754
Pentium III-667 133 MHz $605
Pentium III-650 100 MHz $583
Pentium III-600EB 133 MHz $455 *
Pentium III-600E 100 MHz $455
Pentium III-550E 100 MHz $368 (FCPGA package)
Pentium III-533EB 133 MHz $305
Pentium III-500E 100 MHz $239 (FCPGA package)
Workstation/Server Bus Speed 1000 unit volume
pricing per chip
Pentium III Xeon-733 w/256 kB L2-cache 133 MHz $826
Pentium III Xeon-667 w/256 kB L2-cache 133 MHz $655
Pentium III Xeon-600 w/256 kB L2-cache 133 MHz $505
Mobile Bus Speed 1000 unit volume
pricing per chip
Mobile Pentium III-500 100 MHz $530
Mobile Pentium III-450 100 MHz $348
Mobile Pentium III-400 100 MHz $348 (low voltage)

*E = to differentiate 0.18-micron from 0.25-micron processors at the same frequency
*B = to differentiate 133 MHz front side bus processors from 100 MHz front side bus processors at the same speed

This is the latest pricing of AMD's Athlon for comparison.

Desktop Bus Speed 1000 unit volume
pricing per chip
Athlon 700 100 MHz x 2 $699
Athlon 650 100 MHz x 2 $519
Athlon 600 100 MHz x 2 $419
Athlon 550 100 MHz x 2 $279
Athlon 500 100 MHz x 2 $209

Intel hasn't changed much and takes a lot more money for Coppermine than AMD takes for Athlon. AMD will have to get their .18-micron-process going and integrate their L2-cache on-die as well. Then we'll see if Intel has only caught up or if it will overtake AMD again.

Свежие статьи
Лучшая материнская плата: текущий анализ рынка Обзор и тестирование блока питания Hiper HPB-750SM-PRO Лучший компьютерный корпус: текущий анализ рынка Главные новости за неделю Лучшая видеокарта для игр: текущий анализ рынка
Лучшая материнская плата Обзор и тестирование блока питания Hiper HPB-750SM-PRO Лучший компьютерный корпус Главные новости за неделю Лучшая видеокарта для игр

История мейнфреймов: от Harvard Mark I до System z10 EC
Верите вы или нет, но были времена, когда компьютеры занимали целые комнаты. Сегодня вы работаете за небольшим персональным компьютером, но когда-то о таком можно было только мечтать. Предлагаем окунуться в историю и познакомиться с самыми знаковыми мейнфреймами за последние десятилетия.

Пятнадцать процессоров Intel x86, вошедших в историю
Компания Intel выпустила за годы существования немало процессоров x86, начиная с эпохи расцвета ПК, но не все из них оставили незабываемый след в истории. В нашей первой статье цикла мы рассмотрим пятнадцать наиболее любопытных и памятных процессоров Intel, от 8086 до Core 2 Duo.