Intel Pentium-m as a desktop reviewed
- Thread starter RussSchultz
- Start date
- Status
Anandtech did have something similar up the other day, but I never bothered to check it out. 
I think there's a distinct lack of P-M desktop mobos out at the moment, making the platform somewhat unattractive even though it's speedy...
I think there's a distinct lack of P-M desktop mobos out at the moment, making the platform somewhat unattractive even though it's speedy...http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dfipm&page=10
Crikey - that's using the bundled cooler too.
Crikey - that's using the bundled cooler too.
Holy God!MuFu said:
That 2.53ghz overclocked part just got done stomping a mudhole in just about everything! Even at the stock 2ghz it was kicking ass!If only they could start building i915 chipset boards for these processors, I'd be all over this like white on rice. I'd buy one today if I could get them with PCI-E and DC-DDR support. Damn!
I was strongly considering an AMD64 of some sort for my next purchase, but after seeing these... Arg! Tough call to make!
oh waterblock, oh waterblock... I need you for my P-M!
volt mod + exotic cooling + P-M = SWEET MOTHER OF GOD
then again... P-M + jury rigged giant block of copper = silent processor?
then again... P-M + jury rigged giant block of copper = silent processor?
Last I read, Intel has discovered this and plans to use similar design methods for future desktop chips. The power draw, heat output, transistor count and overall performance is quite excellent.Scott_Arm said:
I'm still somewhat dubious of the glories of 64 bit-i-tude.
hmmm, isn't Intel developing a dual-core P-M for use in desktops?
I remember reading / hearing something similar. And I don't see why they couldn't slap some 64 bit loving into a P-M core with a few extra transistors...The Baron said:
meh, eventually. I'd rather have a really viable 32-bit dual-core P-M than a 64-bit dual-core P-M that makes Prescott look cool.
Since the TDP of a 2.0ghz Dothan iat full speed s 21W, I'm not too worried about a dual core 64 bit version having significant heat issues. Hell, double the Dothan's heat output still would still be 30% cooler than the lowest TDP-rated Northwood available.
The problem for the Pentium M as a desktop chip is that the 90nm Athlon 64 only consumes around 30 W at full load, 3500+ = 31W. And about 3W at idle. And it's also faster and a lot cheaper.
Compare that to the P4 which maxes out at a whopping 104W
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20041224/pentium_m_boards-04.html
And on top of that, also a good overclocker:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=5.html
Compare that to the P4 which maxes out at a whopping 104W
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20041224/pentium_m_boards-04.html
And on top of that, also a good overclocker:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=5.html
I don't see why its an problem....Dothan(pentium-M) seems to beat the A64 in many benchmarks using less power.
Cheaper, yes. But the premium for Dothan is likely artificial.
Cheaper, yes. But the premium for Dothan is likely artificial.
RussSchultz said:
I'm looking at the Tom's hardware benchmarks and it seems to loose in all benchmarks. It does well in gaming situations but also does really bad in some other. But it was never faster then the 3200+ (both CPU's at 2 GHz). And then you have the potential increase in speed for the A64 when 64 bit windows arrives. And the 3000+ overclocked to 2.6 GHz at Anand's. And the difference in power consumption is 21 vs 30W. Hardly anything to bother with imo.
And afa prices goes, perhaps they aren't that much more expensive. But it's hard to know since they're practially impossible to get hold of.
- Status