
Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz vs. Intel Pentium III 1.0 GHz (2001) - bane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88ancHxItOc
======
frik
I would be interested in a benchmark of a 2004 Pentium 4 3GHz HT against the
single core performance of a 2016 i7 3 GHz. (To make it compareable, the
memory modules have to be as slow as in the 2004 era, also the hdd.)

~~~
rostigerpudel
Well this isn't _exactly_ a fair comparison, still it seems to indicate that
overall (not for specific applications eg. graphics acceleration), the
performance improvement is not that massive:
[http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1081&cmp[]=107...](http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp\[\]=1081&cmp\[\]=1074&cmp\[\]=2503)

~~~
lucaspiller
Thats not really a good comparison as Intel was back in the game then (Core 2
processors were popular, and the Pentiums were just lower end versions of that
keeping the brand alive).

The Pentium 4 519K from 2004, part of the Prescott (90nm) family, would be a
good comparison. I think it was the first CPU that was easily overclockable to
4GHz, or in extreme cases 6Ghz (with enough water cooling).

Sadly it's not on that site (or at least I can't find it on mobile).

------
Sanddancer
Lies, damn lies, statistics, and benchmarks. I'm curious as to how much of the
jerkiness and slowness in that test was due to comparing the integrated
graphics on the P3 machine with dedicated graphics on the P4. Hooray for
rigged demos.

~~~
sjwright
The benchmark is definitely misleading because the Powerpoint workload is
playing on a continuous loop. This means that when the test is over, the
Pentium III ends up performing _more overall work_ than the Pentium 4.

~~~
hodwik
Any time you have operating systems running in a test of this kind, you're
dealing with the same thing, a difference in work done the longer the test
runs.

------
redtuesday
Ah, the good old times when AMD could beat Intel in performance and efficiency
with it's XP series.

------
raverbashing
Oh it's an Ad

This is all you need to know about PIII vs P4
[http://emulators.com/pentium4.htm](http://emulators.com/pentium4.htm)

(But granted, if it was a 2.0GHz P4 it was a Northwood one, not a Willamette,
which was ok)

------
meric
How does a single core i5 2.0 ghz compare to a P4 2.0 ghz?

~~~
Dagwoodie
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10x as fast at some things. The original P4
should never have seen the light of day.

~~~
dopeboy
Just curious - can you elaborate on your second statement?

~~~
Matthias247
I think he meant that the P4 (netburst) architecture wasn't very good. It was
optimized for high clock rates und utilized a long pipeline for that. I had
some fellow students back in those days that overclocked their P4s to 4Ghz and
beyond, which was quite insane compared to other architectures (P3 and AMD).
However as a tradeoff the architecture was not very efficient.

With the Core2 line Intel then moved into a completely different direction
with higher efficiency and lower clock cycles. Core2 was considered to be a
massive success compared to P4.

~~~
RachelF
Ironically the Core2 descends from the P3M, not the P4.

------
jasonwen
Love that the logos from Pentium 3 to 4 went, from flat to embossed glossy

[https://youtu.be/88ancHxItOc?t=24s](https://youtu.be/88ancHxItOc?t=24s)

~~~
cordite
Looks like they were ahead of the vista revolution

------
santaclaus
So in 2031, what pitch videos from 2016 will we mock?

------
IE6
We knew something was wrong with the P4s when a Tualatin P3 could out-pace it
at a lower frequency.

------
ytch
I still remember the NetBurst v P6 microarchitecture debate.

------
agumonkey
Fair. Nice music though.

