Prescott
 

I noticed that Pentium IV Prescott has 1 MB cache.

Did anyone benchmarked it with Prime95? Has it better performances related to "normal" Pentium IV?

Luigi

No, It has worse performance. See [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=34137&postcount=10]this[/url] post and the threads [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2188]Upgrading to prescott[/URL] and [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2036]P4 Prescott - 31 Stage Pipeline ? Bad news for Prime95?[/URL].

But I can't find an actual Prime95 benchmark.

[QUOTE=patrik]No, It has worse performance. See [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=34137&postcount=10]this[/url] post and the threads [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2188]Upgrading to prescott[/URL] and [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2036]P4 Prescott - 31 Stage Pipeline ? Bad news for Prime95?[/URL].

But I can't find an actual Prime95 benchmark.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Patrick, I forgot those threads because at that time I was not interested in it :ermm:

I think I will buy an "old style" Pentium IV 3.2 GHz... unless George has news about it.

Luigi

[QUOTE=patrik]No, It has worse performance.[/QUOTE]

I second that.

While the cache is bigger, apparently the latency is worse.

I read somewhere that Intel favours big slow caches (bigger size in KB, but higher latency). Very bad IMO.

[QUOTE=optim]I read somewhere that Intel favours big slow caches (bigger size in KB, but higher latency). Very bad IMO.[/QUOTE]

Not really. AMD and Intel's caches have almost always been the same size and have comparable latency.

I suspect the reason why the Prescott latency is higher is because of circuit issues.