test 24 procesoare2004

8/13/2019 Test 24 Procesoare2004

1/30

Choosing a Budget CPU: 24 Value Processorsfrom Intel and AMD in Our Lab

In this article we will focus on the performance of 24 Value processors, which have unfortunately become pretty rareguests in our reviews and roundups lately. Also we will try to find out what low-cost processor solutions from AMDand Intel appear the best purchase for the end-users today. Find out the best CPU you can get for the least moneywith the help of our extensive detailed coverage!

by Ilya Gavrichenkov05/15/2004 | 12:44 PM

The CPU section of our site is mostly filled with reviews of the topmost processors of the moment, but youshouldnt be misled to think that such products are the most popular in the market. Our exploration of the fastestCPUs available is interesting in the first hand because it gives us insights into newest technologies in the processor-making field. As for using such devices, which are extreme in two respects performance and price, few people,mostly hardcore gamers, do buy and install them into their systems. An overwhelming majority of users prefercheaper and slower processors and are quite satisfied with their choice as they get the most optimalprice/performance ratio.

Thats why our todays article is not about another modification of a high-end processor, but rather about low things.Quantitatively, processors for computer systems costing up to $700 are the real rulers of the market. In this review,we will focus on cheap processors which are seldom the heroes of reviews or tests. We will also try to find outwhich current offers from AMD and Intel are most profitable for the end-user. Cheap processors are based aroundwell- and long-known architectures and dont supports any new unexplored-yet technologies, so well spend just alittle time to describe them and then go right to benchmarks and overclocking matters. As you know, overclocking isoften a rewarding way of increasing the performance of a value processor.

So lets see the participants getting ready for the tests.

Testing Participants

So what processors should be regarded as belonging to the value product category? Its simple because the CPUmanufacturers themselves try to shove their produce into sharply-outlined price niches. I mean Intel in the firsthand, which offers an independent processor family, Celeron, for value computer systems. Models of this familyhave been priced up to $120 for the last several years, so I guess we can set this mark as a limit of what a valueprocessor should cost. This means that were interested in the whole Celeron family today. On the Intel side, we

it labs - Print version http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/value-cpus.html

30 28/06/2012 13:56


2/30

should also include a few obsolete Pentium 4 models Intel has long abandoned producing them, but you can stillmeet one in a computer shop at a very modest price. The AMD camp will be represented by models of the AthlonXP series in our todays tests. After the release of the Athlon 64 family, whose members are now positioned both ashigh-end and mainstream solutions, the manufacturer cut down the Athlon XP prices dramatically. So the Athlon XPwas originally targeted at the same niche as the Pentium 4, but now this family is a direct competitor to the Celeron.

Intel Celeron. Processors of the Intel Celeron family are based around the same micro-architecture as the Pentium4, but Intel reduces their L2 cache memory amount in two to give them the status of a value product. Thus, Celeronshave 128KB of L2 cache until today, although current Pentium 4 models have 512 or 1024KB of L2 cache! Besides

that, Celerons use a slower system bus clocked at 400MHz (against the 800MHz FSB of the relatively new Pentium 4models), which limits the processor-memory bandwidth to 3.2GB/s in Celeron-based systems. Then, Celerons donthave Hyper-Threading and their maximum clock rate is 2.8GHz. In this article, youll see all Celeron models for theSocket 478 platform. Heres a full list:

Frequency, GHz Processor core Bus frequency, MHz L2 cache size, KB

1.7 Willamette-128 400 128

1.8 Willamette-128 400 128

2.0 Northwood-128 400 128

2.1 Northwood-128 400 128

2.2 Northwood-128 400 1282.3 Northwood-128 400 128

2.4 Northwood-128 400 128

2.5 Northwood-128 400 128

2.6 Northwood-128 400 128

2.7 Northwood-128 400 128

2.8 Northwood-128 400 128

Intel Pentium 4. As I mentioned above, only junior Pentium 4 models, long abandoned by the manufacturer, can beclassified as value products. Anyway, you can still see processors like a Pentium 4 1.8A in shops. This model is

based on the 0.18-micron Northwood core, works with the 400MHz FSB and doesnt support Hyper-Threading, justlike Celerons. Unlike Celerons, however, it is equipped with 512KB of L2 cache. The price of such a model will belike that of a 2.8GHz Celeron. Besides the Pentium 4 1.8A we included a handful of Pentiums 4 with 2.4GHzfrequency. The price of the Northwood-core Pentium 4 2.4B (533MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache) has now droppedto $130, which is just above the ceiling for the Celerons. Besides that, we have a Prescott-core Pentium 4 2.4A with1MB L2 cache and 533MHz FSB and a Pentium 4 2.4C with 512KB L2 cache, the 800MHz FSB and Hyper-Threading. Although these two processors dont fit into the price category we are interested in, I guess theyll servewell as reference points. Moreover, they may be prospective offers in the near future after inevitable price cuts.

AMD Athlon XP. AMDs launching the Athlon 64 series has played into the hands of money-tight users. Themanufacturer started aggressively promoting the new processor models in the market, dropping the prices for theAthlon XP to the level of value CPUs. Our todays tests include Athlon XP models ranging from 1900+ to 2800+.

You should be aware that the Athlon XP series consists of processors based on different cores and having differentL2 cache sizes and bus frequencies. You can find a Thoroughbred-core Athlon XP in shops with 256KB L2 cacheand a 266 or 333MHz bus; Barton-core models with 512KB of L2 cache and a 333 or 400MHz bus; and Thorton-coreCPUs which are made out of Bartons by disabling half of the cache, with a 266MHz or 333MHz bus. Note thatThorton and Thoroughbred cores are absolutely identical from the point of view of the end-user. It is also importantthat all Athlon XP family processors are plugged into the same socket, Socket A. We tested the following models ofthis family:

Model number Frequency, GHz Processor core Bus frequency, MHz L2 cache size, KB

1900+ 1.6 Thoroughbred 266 256

2000+ 1.67 Thoroughbred 266 256

2100+ 1.73 Thoroughbred 266 2562200+ 1.8 Thoroughbred 266 256

2400+ 2.0 Thoroughbred 266 256

2500+ 1.83 Barton 333 512


30 28/06/2012 13:56


3/30

2600+ 2.08 Thoroughbred 333 256

2700+ 2.17 Thoroughbred 333 256

2800+ 2.08 Barton 333 512

The next diagram lists average retail prices for the processors we are going to test today:

Thus, I guess our test will create a comprehensive picture of the low-end CPU sector with processors priced from$50 to $120-130.

Testbed and Methods

We tested the aforementioned processors on a testbed that included the following hardware components:

ASUS P4P800 (Socket 478, i865PE chipset) or ASUS A7N8X-E (Socket A, NVIDIA nForce2 Ultra 400chipset) mainboard;2 x 256MB DDR400 SDRAM (2-2-2-5 timings);ASUS RADEON 9800 XT graphics card (Catalyst 4.10 driver);Western Digital WD400JB hard disk drive.

We ran the benchmarks in Windows XP with Service Pack 1 and DirectX 9.0b installed. The BIOSes of themainboards were set up for the maximum performance.

Note that although we review value processors, the testbeds include expensive and high-performing components(mainboards with a dual-channel memory controller, an expensive RADEON 9800 XT-based graphics card). Wehave reasons for that: by using such hardware we minimize its influence on the benchmark results and have a better

view of the performance of the processor proper.

Performance

Office and Content-Creation Applications


30 28/06/2012 13:56


4/30


5/30

We see nearly the same picture in content-creation applications. Again, the Athlon XP family is all ahead of theCeleron line, including top-end Celeron models. This time the low results of the Celerons are due to the low FSBclock rate: just compare the results of the Pentium 2 2.4GHz processors with 533 and 800MHz FSB. The Pentium 41.8A cant impress in this test: it shows the same performance as the Celeron 2.3GHz, but costs like the Celeron2.8GHz!

PCMark04 is another test for estimating the processor performance in typical office applications. This benchmarkalso uses real algorithms, performing compression and decompression with the ZIP algorithms, checking grammarwith Link Grammar Parsing Library, rendering Web pages in Internet Explorer 6.0, converting images into the JPEGformat, encoding audio into the MP3 format with the Ogg Vorbis library, encoding video with the Windows MediaEncoder 9 and DivX 5.0.5 codecs, working with graphics primitives through the Windows API, working in 3Dthrough the Microsoft DirectX 9 API using the Havok Physics engine 2.1 (a system of physical modeling), scanningfor viruses with F-Secure Anti-Virus, and encrypting and decrypting information with the Blowfish algorithm.


30 28/06/2012 13:56


6/30


30 28/06/2012 13:56


7/30

The Celerons are not altogether hopeless in this test. Anyway, comparison of like-priced models of the two series(Celeron and Athlon XP) is not in favor of the Celerons. The Pentium 4 1.8A is rather slow. The 512KB L2 cachedoesnt give any tangible advantages to this processor as its slow 400MHz FSB becomes the bottleneck. Thus, theleader here is the Pentium 4 2.4C with the 800MHz FSB and Hyper-Threading (PCMark04 actively uses thistechnology).

The benchmarking of the memory subsystem brings interesting results, too.

The Athlon XPs with the 266MHz bus lose in the memory speed to Celerons, but the transition to the 333MHz busallows the Athlon XP working with the memory more efficiently, outperforming junior Celeron models with the400MHz bus. Anyway, the Pentium 4 2.4GHz models with the 533 and 800MHz FSB are unrivalled leaders here.

Performance in Internet Applications

Inexpensive personal computers are often used as Internet clients so we dedicated a separate section of the review totypical Internet applications. We used the new WebMark 2004 benchmark which measures the speed (time it takesthe system to react) of visiting various Web sites created with advanced Internet technologies (Macromedia Flash,Shockwave, JavaScript, Java, DHTML, SSL, .NET and others).


30 28/06/2012 13:56


8/30

Well, you might have foretold it. The Intel Celeron family confidently occupies the bottom of the diagram, althoughtheir results are not downright bad as in other tests. For example, the top-end Celeron 2.8 outperforms the AthlonXP 2200+, although this is hardly a great achievement. The Pentium 4 1.8A again fails to justify its high price andworks at the same speed as the twice-cheaper Celeron 2.2GHz. Now, lets view the results in more detail:


30 28/06/2012 13:56


9/30


30 28/06/2012 13:56


10/30

The first diagram shows the speed of working with classical informational Web sites, and the second one shows thespeed with commercial sites that provide paid services.

3DMark 2001 SE and 3DMark03

The once-popular 3DMark 2001 SE is an old test, but its showings are still interesting for many users.

The results confirm the disgustingly low speed of the Celerons that we noticed before. The Pentium 4 1.8A goes likethe Celeron 2.8GHz well, thats natural as they cost about the same money. However, the Pentium 2.4 models withthe faster FSB get much higher numbers and compete with the Athlon XP family, which are simply astoundingperformers against the Celeron series.


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


11/30


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


12/30


13/30


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


14/30


15/30


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


16/30

We have the same thing in all the games: all Celerons are very slow. The Pentium 4 1.8A is true to its price and is alittle faster than the Celeron 2.8GHz. The Athlon XP family shows high speed, especially in comparison to thesluggish Celerons. As for the Pentium 4 2.4B with the 533MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache, it is definitely faster thanany of the Celerons and can compete with Athlon XPs of 2500+ to 2800+ rating. However, considering thedifference in prices, the Pentium 4 2.4B cannot be recommended as a good buy for a gaming computer.

A kind of out of the topic of the current testing session, let me point out a curious detail: the Pentium 4 2.4A on thenew 90nm Prescott core is nearly always slower than the old Pentium 4 2.4B in games.

Data Compression, Audio and Video Encoding


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


17/30

As you see, the CPU-memory bandwidth is important for the speed of compression in WinRAR. Anyway, the AthlonXP with the 266MHz bus outperforms all Celerons and the Pentium 4 1.8A. On the other hand, the Pentium 42.4GHz models with the 533 and 800MHz FSB are perceptibly faster in WinRAR than the Athlon XP family.


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


18/30

Its a bit surprising to see the results of the test for encoding MP3 files with the LAME codec. Firstly, we see thetop-end Celeron models outperforming the 2.4GHz Pentium 4s. Secondly, the Celeron 2.8GHz for example feels sostrong here as to run faster than the Athlon XP 2500+. Well, thats not a great deal, considering that the Celeron2.8GHz costs you $120 and the Athlon XP 2500+ costs $80. Anyway, this result is impressive if we recall theperformance of the Celerons in other tests.


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


19/30

Again, the Celerons are much more appealing than in games, for example. Anyway, you shouldnt compare them toAthlon XP models of the same price the Athlons are preferable. Note also the low speed of the Pentium 4 2.4B the 2.6GHz Celeron leaves it behind!


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


20/30

The test for encoding video into the MPEG-4 format gives you practically the same picture.

Professional Applications

Well, value processors are unlikely to be used in professional workstations so we limit ourselves with only onebenchmark, CineBench 2003, which shows the speed of final rendering in the OpenGL Cinema4D suite.


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


21/30


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


22/30


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


23/30


24/30

The testbeds remained the same as well as the set of benchmarks. The results follow.

Overclocking Performance

Office and Content-Creation Applications

Performance in Internet Applications


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


25/30

3DMark 2001 SE and 3DMark03


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


26/30


27/30

Data Compression, Video and Audio Encoding


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


28/30

Professional Applications


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


29/30

All the results fit together to form the following picture: the overclocked Pentium 4 1.8A processor wins nearly allthe tests, although it never was a leader at its regular frequencies. This processor is perhaps the best overclocker inthe current market you can raise its frequency by 80%! No other CPU model can boast this overclockability.

The processors of the Celeron family are prone to overclocking, but their value nature tells at overclocking, too.The higher clock rate doesnt help them out the performance remains low.

The results of the Athlon XP CPUs are good enough, but you should be aware that they are not as overclockable asprocessors from Intel. Thats why the overclocked Pentium 4 1.8A finds itself ahead of the overclocked Athlon XPmodels on the Thoroughbred and Barton cores. At the same time, the price of the Pentium 4 1.8A is still higher thanthat of any Athlon XP, so economical overclockers should consider the

Conclusion

Now weve got to the end and its time to say some final words. First, let me show a diagram with averagedperformance results of each tested processor. We calculated this value as the geometric mean of results in the testsnormalized to the performance of the Intel Celeron 1.7GHz:


f 30 28/06/2012 13:56


30/30

So, CPUs from AMD are the fastest processors for cheap computer systems today. All the Athlon XP familysurpasses the Celeron series, including its eldest members. For example, the Athlon XP 1900+ wins more tests overthe Celeron 2.8, especially games, although costs half of its price. In fact, elder Celeron models can only beat juniorAthlon XP CPUs in various encoding applications. Thus, if you want to have a fast computer for reasonable money,consider the Athlon XP family in the first hand. The Pentium 4 1.8A GHz may be an appealing offer, too. At itsregular frequency this processor is no hero, though. It costs something like the Celeron 2.8GHz, but performs like aCeleron 2.4GHz in a majority of applications. But there are two more points. Firstly, the Pentium 4 1.8A is quitesatisfactory in games. And secondly, it is highly overclockable. After overclocking, this processor shows the best

results among all the models of this price sector.

Among the Athlon XP assortment, Id say that the best price/performance ratio goes to junior models with a 256KBL2 cache and the 266MHz bus. Increasing the cache size and the bus frequency you do get some performancegrowth, but it is not worth of the extra money you pay for these improvements. Besides that, junior Athlon XPmodels, especially on the Thorton core, are good overclockers and you can usually give them a boost to reach theperformance level of elder Athlon XP models. And you get this for a paltry sum of $60-70.

You may have noticed that our sympathies are with the Athlon XP in the value processor field. Well, I havesomething to say to the army of Intel admirers. Cheap CPUs from this company cant boast good performance, but ifyou go Intel, you should go for more expensive products. For example, Pentium 4 processors show much betterresults on the 533MHz FSB. The Pentium 4 2.4A and Pentium 4 2.4B are selling for just a little more than elderCelerons, but they offer you considerably more performance, although its still not extraordinary against Athlon XPmodels of the same price. The NetBurst architecture spreads its wings in full only after being transferred to the800MHz bus and after enabling Hyper-Threading. But these things only occur in a higher price category as well soonsee: we are going to step up in our upcoming reviews to examine what Intel and AMD are offering us in themainstream sector.


test 24 procesoare2004

Documents