The Eternal Race: P4 vs. Athlon XP
It has just turned 2002 and we are already going into the next round of the endless battle between Intel and AMD. Today, Intel finally releases its first Pentium 4 2.2 GHz that is based on the advanced ‘Northwood’ core, while AMD presents AthlonXP 2000+, clocked at 1.67 GHz.
David and Goliath: the new Intel Pentium 4/2200 on the left and AMD Athlon XP 2000+ on the right.
Socket 462 for AMD Athlon XP (left) und Socket 478 for Intel Pentium 4 (right). Socket 478 is based on a much smaller structure than Socket 462.
The Eternal Race: P4 vs. Athlon XP, Continued
In the case of these top favorites, the “AMD vs. Intel” battle has encountered various twists and turns in this power play. Up till recently, for instance, AMD was still ahead of the game with its Athlon XP 1900+. Here, the 1.6 GHz of the Athlon XP was up against the 2 GHz of the ‘old’ Pentium 4 with ‘Willamette’-core.
Meanwhile, today’s introduction of the new “Northwood” Pentium 4 core has changed the game somewhat, because Intel not only increased the clock speed, but also doubled the L2-Cache of Pentium 4. To express this in terms of numbers: there is a 533 MHz difference between the clock speeds of the Pentium 4/2200 and the Athlon XP 2000+ – this amounts to a 32% core clock lead of P4 “twenty-two-hundred”. In addition, the L2-Cache of the Pentium 4 has grown from 256 KB (Willamette-Core) to 512 KB (Northwood Core).
Furthermore, there are substantial differences in the process technology: while Intel facilitates the new 0.13 µm process for the P4 Northwood core in order to pave its way towards 3 GHz and higher, AMD still continues to use its 0.18 µm copper process for the Palomino core of the latest Athlon XP 2000+. It is already a well-known fact that the 0.18 µm process sets some sharp limitations to AthlonXP’s top clock speed. However, the manufacturer is working under considerable pressure to produce a 0.13 micron version of the Palomino core, which will probably make its debut as the “Thoroughbred” Core at this year’s CeBIT.
Nevertheless, in the performance tests, the results of both competitors were neck-on-neck, and in order to capture the nuances of the individual performances, we used a large set of different benchmark tests. In spite of Intel’s 533 MHz advantage in clock speed we saw a rather close outcome.
Pentium 4 – Slow Start Followed By Supply Problems
Since its release in November 2000, Pentium 4 first had to fight an uphill battle, doomed by its expensive platform and memory requirements as well as its rather bad ‘IPC’ ratio, the amount of ‘work’ it is able to do per clock cycle, which is significantly less than its competitor from AMD. The situation finally changed last summer, when Intel finally gave the masses what they wanted – an inexpensive P4-platform in form of the mediocre performing i845 chipset. Now i845 might be like a bad dream for technology savvy people, but it sure made Pentium 4 overnight sell like sliced bread. By Fall 2001 Intel started to have delivery problems. That moment marked the comeback of AMD’s Athlon.
Athlon XP – The Model Numbers Are A Success!
AMD’s Athlon-series of processors has been an excellent product since its first release in August 1999. However, as good as the K7-design might be, AMD started to suffer from the clock speed advantage of Intel’s Pentium 4 processor. The majority of technologically less educated buyers wouldn’t care for the fact that Athlon is able to do more work than Pentium 4 per clock cycle. Core clock was all that mattered to them, and while Intel sold Pentium 4 at 1.8 GHz, AMD had nothing ‘faster’ than its Athlon 1.4 GHz.
Finally, AMD made a rather desperate move and introduced Athlon XP along with a new ‘model rating’, which gives the processor a ‘model number’ that is supposed to reflect its performance in comparison to Intel’s Pentium 4. The press received this idea with very mixed feelings and many journalists feared that this new rating system would rather damage than help AMD’s Athlon XP-sales.
Today, a couple of months later, I’d say that AMD’s plan actually worked. Even I am catching myself often enough thinking that AthlonXP1900+ is actually running at 1.9 GHz instead of the actual 1.6 GHz. Once AMD has caught up with Intel in terms of process technology and introduces the 0.13 µm ‘Thoroughbred’ core, AMD will have the die size advantage back in its court. The 80 mm² of ‘Thoroughbred’ will be significantly less than the 146 mm2 of ‘Northwood’.
Northwood – Late, But Not Too Late
The first time we reported on Intel’s upcoming P4-core ‘Northwood’, the expected replacement of ‘Willamette’, was in late 2000. Back then we had to tell the sad story that Willamette’s platform (Socket423) would only be very short-lived, because ‘Northwood’ would facilitate a new Socket478. Back then, Intel’s roadmap expected ‘Northwood’ to be introduced in late Q3/2001, alongside with ‘Brookdale’, the i845 chipset.
Problems with the new 0.13 µm process, a better than expected yield of Willamette as well as a slow market delayed the release of ‘Northwood’ into the first days of 2002. This delay had only one bad side effect for Intel. Due to the rather huge die size of Willamette (217 mm²) Intel wasn’t able to produce as many Pentium 4 processors as the market wanted in Q4 2001. Besides that, ‘Northwood’ is still right on the money and right on time.
A Detailed Comparison: Pentium 4/2200 vs. Athlon XP 2000+
| Manufacturer | Intel | Intel | AMD |
| Processor | Pentium 4 w/Northwood Core | Pentium 4 w/Willamette Core | Athlon XP w/Palomino Core |
| Introduction | January 7, 2002 | November 20, 2000 | October 9, 2001 |
| Clock Frequencies | 2 GHz, 2.2 GHz | 1.3 – 2.0 GHz | 1.2 – 1.66 GHz |
| Manufacturing Process | 0,13 µm | 0,18 µm | 0,18 µm |
| Die size | 146 mm² | 217 mm² | 128 mm² |
| Number of Gates | 55 Million | 42 Million | 37,5 Million |
| Platform | Socket478 | Socket 423, Socket478 | Socket462 |
| CPU Bus Clock (Front Side Bus) | 100 MHz / 400 MHz QDR | 100 MHz / 400 MHz QDR | 133 MHz / 266 MHz DDR |
| L1 Execution Cache Size | 12.000 µ-Ops (Trace Cache) | 12.000 µ-Ops (Trace Cache) | 64 KB |
| Execution Pre Decode? | yes | yes | no |
| L1 Data Cache Size | 8 KB (unconfirmed) | 8 KB | 64 KB |
| Hardware Data Prefetch | yes | yes | yes |
| L1 Cache Clock | core clock | core clock | core clock |
| L1 Data Cache Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache Size | 512 KB | 256 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache Clock | core clock | core clock | core clock |
| L2 Cache Addressable Range | 64 GB | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| Processor Data Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| Platform Support | |||
| Chipsets | Intel 845 (D) Intel 850 VIA P4X266 VIA P4X266A SiS 645 |
Intel 845 Intel 850 VIA P4X266 |
VIA KT133 to KT266A SiS 735 ALi Magik 1 Nvidia nForce AMD 750 und 760 |
| Type of Memory | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM, RDRAM | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM, RDRAM | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM |
| Memory Clock | 100/133/200/266/333/400 MHz | 100/133/200/266/333/400 MHz | 100/133/200/266 MHz |
| Instruction Extensions |
|||
| MMX | yes | yes | yes |
| Enhanced 3DNow! | no | no | yes |
| 3DNow! Professional | no | no | yes |
| SSE | yes | yes | yes |
| SSE2 | yes | yes | no |
| Electrical Specifications |
|||
| SMP-Support | no | no | no (‘not officially endorsed or supported’) |
| Core Voltage | 1,5 Volt | 1,7 Volt | 1,75 Volt |
| Thermal Protection (Thermal Diode) | yes | yes | yes |
| Integrated Thermal Protection Logic | yes | yes | no, requires logic on motherboard |
Pentium 4/2200: Intel’s Technological Lead
Pentium 4 processors compared: P4/2000 with the Willamette core (left), P4/2000 with the Northwood core (middle) and P4/2200 also with the Northwood core (right).
A view of the back of the same processors, in the same order as the previous image.
Size comparison: the new Pentium 4 is factory-equipped with a huge CPU cooler.
With the introduction of the Northwood, Intel switched over to a 0.13 micron production process. In addition, the manufacturer uses wafer disks with a larger diameter. While the previous silicon disks were 200 mm wide, the new ones are now 300 mm. Through this increase in diameter alone, the wafer gains more than double the amount of surface space, and the result is that more than twice the number of CPU dies can be produced per wafer. At the same time, because Intel also moved the manufacturing process from 0.18 µm down to 0.13 µm, a single wafer can yield approximately triple the amount of processors. To make this calculation clearer, we have provided some equations:
Wafer surface: π * d² / 4
Surface (200 mm wafer) = 31417 mm²
Surface (300 mm wafer) = 70688 mm²
CPU die (P4, Willamette) = 217 mm²
CPU die (P4, Northwood) = 146 mm²
The absolute yield is derived from the quotient of the wafer and die surfaces. While the previous wafer and the Wilamette core provided a maximum of 144 processors (theoretical, without waste), the bigger wafer and the new CPU core yield a maximum of 484 processors.
This image shows the two dies side by side. You can see the larger second level cache of Northwood when you compare the lower right quadrants of the two. All in all, Northwood is significantly smaller than Willamette, but still not exactly tiny.
Chipsets/Boards for Pentium 4 and Athlon XP
A well-known board for the AMD Athlon XP: the Epox EP-8KHA+ with Socket 462.
A popular board for Pentium 4: the Asus P4T-E with Socket 478.
The following tables show an overview of all chipsets and the respective features of the two platforms from AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4.
AMD
| Chipset | VIA Apollo KT266A | VIA Apollo KT266 | SiS 735 | Nvidia nForce | AMD 760 |
| Launch | September 2001 | April 2001 | May 2001 | September 2001 | February 2001 |
| Processor Platform | Socket 462 | Socket 462 | Socket 462 | Socket 462 | Socket 462 |
| CPUs supported | AMD Duron/Athlon/XP | AMD Duron/Athlon/XP | AMD Duron/Athlon/XP | AMD Duron/Athlon/XP | AMD Duron/Athlon/XP |
| Multiprocessor Support | no | no | no | no | no |
| Chipset Northbridge | VIA KT266A | VIA VT8366 | SiS 735 | Nvidia IGP 128 | AMD 761 |
| Chipset Southbridge | VIA VT8233 | VIA VT8233 | – | Nvidia MCP-D | AMD 765 |
| Front Side Bus Clock | 100/133 MHz DDR | 100/133 MHz DDR | 66/100/133 MHz DDR | 100/133 MHz DDR | 100/133 MHz DDR |
| Memory Clock | 100/133 MHz DDR | 100/133 MHz DDR | 66/100/133 MHz DDR | 100/133 MHz DDR | 100/133 MHz DDR |
| Asynchronous Memory Clock | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| FSB Overclocking* | up to 200 MHz | up to 200 MHz | up to 150 MHz | up to 150 MHz | up to 150 MHz |
| max. # DIMM or RIMM Slots | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| max. Memory | 3072 MB | 3072 MB | 1536 MB | 4096 MB | 2048 MB |
| SDRAM Support | yes | yes | yes | no | no |
| DDR SDRAM Support | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Dual-Channel DDR-Support | no | no | no | yes | no |
| RIMM Support (Rambus) | no | no | no | no | no |
| Ultra-DMA/33/66/100 | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes |
| Max. # USB Ports | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| max. # PCI Slots | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Integrated Graphics Core | no | no | 6 | yes | no |
| Integrated Sound | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| AGP 1x / 2x / 4x | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes |
| ACPI Features | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
* depends on clock generator
Intel
| Chipset | VIA P4X266A | Intel 850 | Intel 845D |
| Introduction | December 2001 | January 2001 | December 2001 |
| Processor Plattform | Socket 478 | Socket 423/478 | Socket 478 |
| Supported CPU | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 |
| Multiprocessor Support | no | yes | no |
| Chipset Northbridge | VIA P4X266A | Intel KC82850 | Intel 82845 |
| Chipset Southbridge | VIA VT8233CE | Intel 82801 BA | Intel 82801 BA |
| Front Side Bus Clock | 66/100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 66/100/133 MHz |
| Memory Clock | 100/133 MHz DDR-SDRAM | 400 MHz | 100/133 MHz DDR-SDRAM |
| Asynchronous Memory Clock | yes | yes | yes |
| FSB-Overclocking* | up to 180 MHz | up to 133 MHz | up to 166 MHz |
| max. # DIMM-Slots | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| max. Memory | 3072 MB | 2048 MB | 2048 MB |
| SDRAM Support | no | no | no |
| DDR SDRAM Support | yes | no | yes |
| VC SDRAM Support | no | no | no |
| RIMM Support (Rambus) | no | yes | no |
| Dual RIMM Support (Rambus) | no | yes | no |
| Ultra-DMA/33/66/100 | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes |
| Ultra-DMA/133 | yes | no | no |
| Max. # USB | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| USB 2.0 | yes | no | no |
| Max.# PCI Slots | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Integrated Graphics | no | no | no |
| AGP 1x / 2x / 4x | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes |
| ACPI Features | yes | yes | yes |
| Chipset | Intel 845 | VIA P4X266 | SiS 645 |
| Introduction | July 2001 | August 2001 | November 2001 |
| Processor Plattform | Socket 423/478 | Socket 423/478 | Socket 478 |
| Supported CPU | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 |
| Multiprocessor Support | no | no | no |
| Chipset Northbridge | Intel 82845 | VIA VT8753 | SiS 645 |
| Chipset Southbridge | Intel 82801 BA | VIA VT8233 | SiS 961 |
| Front Side Bus Clock | 66/100/133 MHz | 100 MHz | 100/133 MHz |
| Memory Clock | 100/133 MHz SDRAM | 100/133 MHz SDR/DDR | 100/133/166 MHz DDR-SDRAM |
| Asynchronous Memory Clock | yes | yes | yes |
| FSB-Overclocking* | up to 180 MHz | up to 200 MHz | up to 180 MHz |
| max. # DIMM-Slots | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| max. Memory | 2048 MB | 4096 MB | 3072 MB |
| SDRAM Support | yes | yes | yes |
| DDR SDRAM Support | no | yes | yes |
| VC SDRAM Support | no | yes | no |
| RIMM Support (Rambus) | no | no | no |
| Dual RIMM Support (Rambus) | no | no | no |
| Ultra-DMA/33/66/100 | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes |
| Ultra-DMA/133 | no | no | no |
| Max. # USB | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| 2.0 | yes | no | yes |
| Max.# PCI Slots | 6 | 5 | 6 |
| Integrated Graphics | no | no | no |
| AGP 1x / 2x / 4x | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes |
| ACPI Features | yes | yes | yes |
* depending on clock generator
Overclocking: AMD Athlon with 1850 MHz
Pentium 4/2200 in detail.
The “old” Pentium 4/2000 with the Willamette core.
The days of easy overclocking are long gone, at least with Intel. With the introduction of a fixed multiplier (burned into special SRAM registries of the CPU), the manufacturer has put the clamps on ever since PIII ‘Coppermine’. So the only possibility left for overclocking the Pentium 4/2200 is to overclock the FSB. Still, this makes little sense, because the chipset usually increases the clock speeds of PCI-ports and the AGP as well, putting them out of spec. This frequently results in the system sporadically showing signs of instable behavior with the operating system. For this reason, we did not overclock the Pentium 4/2200. It’s a different story with the AMD Athlon XP 2000+, whose clock multiplier can be unlocked by making a few modifications to the CPU. Still, most cases are beset by strict limitations. With the use of a water-cooling system, we were able to increase the CPU clock to 1850 MHz, simply by raising the FSB clock from 133 MHz to 147 MHz. This clock speed would correspond an Athlon XP 2300+.
An Athlon XP 2000+ overclocked to 1850 MHz.
Average Sales Price: High Prices, Also At AMD
| Processor | Price per 1000* |
| Intel Pentium 4/2200A | US$ 562 |
| Intel Pentium 4/2000A | US$ 364 |
| Intel Pentium 4/2000 | US$ 342 |
| AMD Athlon XP 2000+ | US$ 340 |
| AMD Athlon XP 1900+ | US$ 234 |
| AMD Athlon XP 1800+ | US$ 174 |
* Official prices from Intel and AMD (January 7, 2002)
There has been a surprising development in the past weeks, and apparently nobody really noticed. Ever since the introduction of the Athlon XP, AMD has barely dropped the prices. So, the days when users could get one of the fastest CPUs for relatively little money are a thing of the past. By contrast, within the same period of time, Intel sank the prices of its CPUs all the more. In any case, AMD’s current top-of-the line model (Athlon XP 2000+) costs $340. Intel’s top product (Pentium 4/2200 with a Northwood core) costs quite a bit more, with the street price running up to $562.
Investment Safety: Intel vs. AMD
An important criterion in evaluating processor platforms is how safe the investment is. This is especially important with regard to complete systems whose components can be updated after purchase in order keep it up to the newest technological standards. In addition to the processor, this has primarily to do with the chipset that corresponds to the motherboard. So, when we look at the Pentium 4 platform, we could say that it wouldn’t be to the best interests of end users, because the majority of the motherboards for Pentium 4 (with Intel 845, Intel 845D, and Intel 850 chipsets) equipped with Socket 478 are only designed to accept a Front Side Bus clocked at 100 MHz (400 MHz QDR). In the next few months, however, Intel is planning to introduce the Pentium 4 with 133 MHz (533 MHz QDR) FSB and faster memory clocked at 533 MHz. And here, the user has to start the annoying game once again: in order to enjoy the benefits of such high performance, you need a motherboard with 133/533 MHz FSB and possibly 533 MHz RDRAM. According to memory manufacturers, this PC1066 RDRAM RIMM will cost twice the price of a normal PC-800 module for 400 MHz clock. From this point of view, DDR-chipsets for Pentium 4 are the best solution, because they work (asynchronously) with DDR SDRAM.
AMD’s development cycle for CPU platforms takes a bit longer, which is an advantage for the user. The current Socket 462 is supposed to remain up-to-date throughout the entirety of 2002. The FSB clock speed has already been changed to 133 MHz (266 MHz DDR), and only an increase to 166 MHz (333 MHz DDR) can be expected in this wide market.
Test Setup
| Intel Hardware Socket 478 |
|
| Processor | Intel Pentium 4/2200A MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/2000A MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/2000 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/1900 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/1800 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/1700 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/1600 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/1500 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) Intel Pentium 4/1400 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) |
| Motherboard | ASUS P4T-E (I850) Revision: 1.00 |
| Memory | 2 x 128 MB, RDRAM, 400 MHz, Viking |
| AMD Hardware Socket 462 |
|
| Processor | AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (1666/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon XP 1900+ (1600/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon XP 1800+ (1533/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon XP 1700+ (1467/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon XP 1600+ (1400/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon XP 1500+ (1333/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon 1400 MHz (1400/266 MHz DDR) |
| Motherboard | EPOX EP-8KHA+ (VIA KT266A) Revision: 2.0. |
| Memory | 256 MB DDR-SDRAM, CL2, PC2100, Micron |
| General Hardware | |
| Graphics Card | GeForce 3 Memory: 64 MB DDR-SDRAM Memory Clock: 400 MHz Chip Clock: 250 MHz |
| Hard Drive | 40 GB, 5T040H4, Maxtor UDMA100, 7200 rpm, 2 MB Cache |
| Drivers & Software | |
| Graphics Driver | Detonator 4 Serie V21.88 |
| DirectX Version | 8.1 |
| DIE Driver | Intel Application Accelerator (IAA, only for P4) |
| OS | Windows XP, Build 2600 (English) |
| Benchmarks & Settings | |
| Quake III Arena | Retail Version 1.16 command line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0 Graphics detail set to ‘Normal’ Benchmark using ‘Q3DEMO1’ |
| 3DMark2000 | Version 1.1 Build 340 – default Benchmark |
| 3DMark2001 | Build 200 – default Benchmark |
| SiSoft Sandra 2001 | Professional Version 2001.3.7.50 |
| Newtek Lightwave | Rendering Bench SKULL_HEAD_NEWEST.LWS |
| mpeg4 encoding | Xmpeg 4.2a DivX 4.11 Compression: 100 Data Rate: 1500 Kbit Format: 720×576 Pixel@25 fps 150 MB VOB-Datei, no Audio |
| Studio 7 | Version 7.02.7 (MPEG 2) |
| Sysmark 2001 | Patch 3 |
| Lame | Lame 3.89 MMX, SSE, SSE 2, 3DNow |
| WinACE | 2.04, 178 MB Wave-Datei, Best Compression, Dictonary 4096 KB |
| Cinema 4D XL R6 | CineBench 6.103 |
| Suse Linux 7.3 | Kernel 2.4.13 Compiling |
Benchmarks Under Windows XP: Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP
| OpenGL Performance | Quake 3 Arena “Demo 1” and “NV15 Demo” |
| Direct3D Performance | 3D Mark 2000 and 3D Mark 2001 |
| 3D Rendering | Cinema 4D XL R6 |
| 3D Rendering | SPECviewperf “Lightscape” |
| 3D Rendering | Lightwave 7 |
| Audio Encoding MP3 | Lame MP3 Encoder |
| Video Encoding MPEG-2 | Pinnacle Studio 7 |
| Video Encoding MPEG-4 | XMpeg 4.2a and Divx 4.2 |
| Office Performance | Sysmark 2001 |
| Archiving | WinACE 2.04 |
| Linux Kernel Compiling | Suse Linux 7.3 (Kernel 2.4.13) |
| SiSoft Sandra 2001 | CPU and Multimedia Bench |
We used a total of 19 different benchmark tests in order to obtain a well-rounded and balanced picture of the two competitors. A quick glance at the benchmark results gives you an overview of the latest processors from Intel and AMD, 16 in total. At the forefront are top models from AMD and Intel, namely the Athlon XP 2000+ and the Pentium 4/2000.
The OpenGL performances are measured through various Quake 3 tests – the Direct3D performance from the DirectX package is measured with 3D Mark 2000 (based on DirectX7) and 3D Mark 2001 (based on DirectX 8).
A comprehensive test scenario is created by a variety of benchmarks for MPEG encoding: with the help of the Lame MP3 Encoder, a 178 MB WAV file is converted to the MPEG-1 Layer 3 format. One of the established standards is our MPEG-4 test, in which data from a commercial DVD-ROM is converted into MPEG-4 via Xmpeg and the Divx codec. In addition, an MPEG-2 file is created with the video editing software Pinnacle Studio 7.
For a while, we have been using the professional Lightwave package version 7b from Newtek to evaluate rendering performance. Archiving is also important for practical applications. We use WinACE. Compiling the newest Linux Kernel 2.4.13 has long been part of our standard repertoire. In order to test office performance, the Sysmark 2001 benchmark is used.
OpenGL Performance: Quake 3 Arena
In both of the Quake 3 Arena time-demo runs, the Pentium 4/2200 is ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+. The NV15 demos show a similar picture: Pentium 4 leads in the charts. With the introduction of the Northwood core, the distance between the P4 and the Athlon XP has increased, especially in lower resolutions that put a greater load on the CPU.
Direct3D Performance – DirectX 7: 3D Mark 2000
3D Mark 2000 shows the Direct3D performance from DirectX 7 under Windows XP. Because of it’s SSE-support (3DNow! Professional), the AMD Athlon XP is able to dominate the scene and take the lead.
Direct3D Performance – DirectX 8: 3D Mark 2001
3D Mark 2001 reveals the Direct3D performance from DirectX 8 under Windows XP. In this benchmark, the Pentium 4/2200 overtakes the lead by a nose, positioned ahead of the Athlon XP 2000+, which might well be due to SSE2-optimizations in Grx-drivers as well as game engines.
MP3 Audio-Encoding: Lame MP3
With the Lame MP3 Encoder, a 178 MB sound file in WAV format is converted to MPEG-1 Layer 3 format under Windows XP. The chart above clearly shows that the new Pentium 4/2200 has a 5-second lead over AMD Athlon XP 2000+.
Video-Encoding MPEG-4: Flask Mpeg and Divx
SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks: CPU and Multimedia
With the SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001, AMD Athlon XP 2000+ gets top scores in two different tests. The Pentium 4/2200 is ahead in the memory benchmark. Nevertheless, all of these should be taken with a grain of salt, since this suite of benchmarks is only appropriate for friends of overclocking who want to prove the relative performance increase with specific CPUs.
3D Rendering: Newtek Lightwave 7b
In the Lightwave benchmark, the lead of the Pentium 4/2200 over the Athlon XP 2000+ becomes all the more evident: while the P4/2200 takes 230 seconds for the rendering task, the Athlon XP 2000+ requires 360 seconds for the same task.
Office Performance: Sysmark 2001
The strengths of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ are revealed in Office performance: with 203 points in Sysmark 2001, the Athlon XP soars over the higher-clocked Pentium 4/2200
As always, we omit the ‘Content Creation Test’, because besides its well-known flaws, we don’t see its significance either. Once ‘invented’ by ZDBOp to create something new (and unnecessary), the idea was later ‘reproduced’ by BAPCo. Still, only a very small minority of people is actually using content creation software, while almost every PC-owner is running office applications such as Word and Excel. AMD shouldn’t even care about the Windows Media Player 7.x issue. Content Creation benchmarks are a cheat in itself.
Compiling Linux: Suse Linux 7.3 / Kernel 2.4.13
In compiling the newest Linux kernel, the weaknesses of the new Pentium 4/2200 become evident: it takes the Pentium 4 229 seconds, while the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ finishes the same task in only 202 seconds.
Archiving: WinACE 2.04
Archiving is a very practical application. With the help of WinACE 2.04 under Windows XP, a 178 MB WAV file is packed, showing the time to complete the task. Here, the Pentium 4/2200 is clearly ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+.
3D Rendering Performance: SPECviewperf “Lightscape”
In the Lightscape benchmark, the Intel Pentium 4/2200 lies ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+.
Video Encoding MPEG-2: Pinnacle Studio 7
In encoding an MPEG-2 film with Pinnacle Studio 7, the Intel Pentium 4/2200 is clearly faster than the AMD Athlon XP 2000+. With this benchmark, Intel profits from the increased clock speed of the P4 as well as the larger L2-Cache.
3D-Rendering Performance: Cinema 4D XL R6
In 3D rendering with Cinema 4D, AMD and Intel exchange the leading position with one another.
Conclusion: The New Pentium 4 Has A Slight Lead over Athlon XP
A comparison of the two top products from AMD and Intel reveals the astonishing: although the processors are as different from one another as apples and oranges, the difference is much less obvious in the benchmark results, when taken from an absolute standpoint.
In any case, one thing is visible: in the majority of performance tests, the new Pentium 4/2200 is ahead. After all, the top AMD processor has to make do with 1666 MHz, while its archenemy steps in with 2200 MHz. A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling, the Athlon XP still takes the lead, despite its 32% clock speed disadvantage!
In principle, the technical concepts of AMD and Intel can only be compared in the practical tests. As always, it can be said that the Palomino core of the AMD Athlon XP is able to process more commands at the same time, while Intel’s Pentium 4 design concentrates primarily on high clock speed. From a critical point of view, however, while AMD has already used the 0.18 micron process to its fullest and is now turning its efforts to 0.13 micron, this step has already been completed by Intel. In addition, Intel has increased the L2-Cache from 256 KB (Willamette core) to 512 KB (Northwood core).
The chip giant is equipped for the future: the new wafer production process, based on 300 mm disks, plus the smaller size of the die, now shrunk to 0.13 micron, increases the yield of the processor up to 30%. At the same time, it almost cuts the production costs for a P4 die in half. This is the step that AMD still has to make, but for the moment, the scepter is once again in the hands of Intel. Goliath can take a few breaths until David will take its own step towards a higher clock speeds.
Some final thoughts on investment safety: in a few months, Intel will introduce the P4 with 133 MHz FSB. In addition, there will be 533 MHz Rambus memory. It is impossible to upgrade a current system that is built on the Pentium 4 Northwood with 133 MHz. Current motherboards only support 100 MHz FSB, even though the BIOS might indicate the contrary. Furthermore, 533 MHz RDRAM modules are expected to be twice the price of conventional PC800 modules. In this case, it might well be better to wait a while, or to choose a P4-chipset with DDR SDRAM support in the first place.
