Pentium-M BEATs the Desktop Pentium-4 3.2GHZ

**VTboy** · 10-31-2003, 01:54 AM

The 1.6GHZ Pentium-M beats the 3.2 GHZ P4 when it comes to Seti@home. Aparently the 1.6GHZ Pentium-M can finish work units faster than the Athlon XP 3200 and the 3.2GHZ Pentium 4. This shows how great the Pentium-M really is.

**imayoda** · 10-31-2003, 02:19 AM

Sounds good. Is this from your personal experience or do you have a link?

**VTboy** · 10-31-2003, 03:34 AM

Site with Times for top processors

This site has some times for people with a 1.6Ghz Pentium-M notice how some of their scores beat much higher clock P4s and Athlons. This is clearly a great chip when it comes to seti.

**ua549** · 10-31-2003, 09:27 AM

Seti work units are not directly comparable because the work is different for each unit.

The new Seti II workunits will vary greatly depending upon the system to which they are downloaded.

**VTboy** · 10-31-2003, 11:03 AM

The average seti WU takes about the same FLOPs to compleate. These are average scores. I have seen other test to show me that the 1.6gHZ pentium-m is indeed faster than the P4 3.2GHZ when it comes to seti. This is due to its much larger cache size.

**ua549** · 10-31-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by VTboy
The average seti WU takes about the same FLOPs to compleate. These are average scores. I have seen other test to show me that the 1.6gHZ pentium-m is indeed faster than the P4 3.2GHZ when it comes to seti. This is due to its much larger cache size.

Whatever you want to believe. On my workstation some Seti WUs complete in a few minutes while others take 3 hours. Over a period of 2 years this machine completed about 12 WUs per day or one every 2 hours. The variance for time to complete is tremendous. WUs are simply not comparable because the amount of work is determined by analysis of the data itself. EMI is the chief cause of this behavior.

**Terry** · 10-31-2003, 01:33 PM

For FYI, if you guys are going to use your CPU cycles for something useful, then do it for Folding@home.

Research for cancer is much more useful than finding ETs.

edit: unless of course you find an ET that would cure cancer with the touch of a button.

**VTboy** · 10-31-2003, 03:53 PM

Terry actually recently I downloaded the GRID. It is a program like seti@home but for cancer research and smallpox research. Their are around 2.4 million computers on the grid.

**Thermo** · 11-01-2003, 01:09 AM

To bench with seti, you need to use the same unit on each machine. Some of the seti fan sites have bench mark units for just this use. As to the P3-M, I doubt it! I have a stack of brand new D500's with 1.3's and they are total dogs! They drive about the same as our old 800MHz units they are replacing.

**Thermo** · 11-01-2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by VTboy
Terry actually recently I downloaded the GRID. It is a program like seti@home but for cancer research and smallpox research. Their are around 2.4 million computers on the grid.

Hey people, why not fold for Sharkys? We have a team now.
http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...hreadid=211327

**VTboy** · 11-01-2003, 02:20 AM

Thermo first I have a 1.6GHZ PM Laptop. It is faster than my old 2.4GHZ P4 laptop. It was already explained that your laptop with only 128MB was suffering from a lack of RAM not from the processor being slow. Also you keep calling it the Pentium-3M. Its NOT the Pentium-3M its just the Pentium-M. I have doubts if you really have one. I know people with the 1.3GHZ PM and they tell me its just as fast if not faster than their old 2.0GHZ P4.

**Thermo** · 11-01-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by VTboy
Thermo first I have a 1.6GHZ PM Laptop. It is faster than my old 2.4GHZ P4 laptop. It was already explained that your laptop with only 128MB was suffering from a lack of RAM not from the processor being slow. Also you keep calling it the Pentium-3M. Its NOT the Pentium-3M its just the Pentium-M. I have doubts if you really have one. I know people with the 1.3GHZ PM and they tell me its just as fast if not faster than their old 2.0GHZ P4.

Believe what you want, but there are 90 of them set to be deployed at my work, and I have been working with them for the past few weeks. And they are slow! We doubled the ram to 256Megs on one and retested, still a dog. I use a 2.4GHz Prostar laptop as a reference mark, and it is no speed king as lap tops go. But these D500’s are not even close to it. And when they are in speed-step on the battery, they are absolute junk. Check the newsies, people are up in arms about them and Dell has closed ranks on it. Now to be fair about it, this could be a Dell issue with a bad bios or something, but until (if and when) they fix it, these D500’s suck!

Next week when I get to work, I put some shots up for you. But then since you have a good one [sic], how bout some bench shots from yours.

**VTboy** · 11-01-2003, 02:24 PM

Thermo what are you talking about. Most people think the Pentium-M are great. Every one says they are much faster than the P4 per clock. Also a 1.6GHZ PM will beat a P4 2.6 GHZ when it comes to Business type programs.

**Thermo** · 11-01-2003, 06:18 PM

Well, I guess me and the folks complaining to dell aren't everyone. But don't take my word for it, show us some benches from that 1.6 you have.

**doctor15** · 11-02-2003, 02:22 PM

maybe the d500 has some problems, but pentium Ms in general are fast. My 600m is pretty fast, and i know plenty of people with d600s that love them.

Some random theory i just come up with of why the d500s might be slow:
It uses a built in POS intel integrated graphics chip. Every other Pentium M ive seen includes a nice independent graphics chip with independent memory. since the PMs excel at productivity type stuff, and not graphics, it could be that without a good graphics chip the processor gets lagged down trying to pick up the slack.

Has anyone else used a PM laptop w/ integrated graphics?

Thread: Pentium-M BEATs the Desktop Pentium-4 3.2GHZ

Thread Tools

Display

Pentium-M 1.6GHZ BEATs the Desktop Pentium-4 3.2GHZ

Posting Permissions