Benchmarks: Intel's 64-bit Pentium 4 660
Summary: The Pentium 4 6xx-series sees Intel finally entering 64-bit desktop CPU market. The new chips also offer improved power management (EIST) and memory overflow protection (XD bit).
AMD has led the 64-bit desktop processor field up to now with the Athlon 64 -- although there is, as yet, no shipping 64-bit Windows operating system, which is necessary to make the most of a 64-bit CPU. However, at the beginning of February Microsoft made Release Candidate 2 of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition available to testers, and the final version is due to ship at the beginning of April.
With its 6xx-series Pentium 4 processors, Intel has finally jumped on the desktop 64-bit bandwagon. Intel's EM64T architecture can implement Windows' x86-64 mode, and is also compatible with the AMD64 architecture. This means that you don't need different Windows operating systems to take advantage of 64-bit processing.
Intel's new processors offer some other innovations besides the 64-bit EM64T architecture. For example, all 6xx-series CPUs deliver 2MB of Level 2 cache -- double the amount on the 5xx-series chips. There's also improved power management in the shape of Enhanced Intel Speedstep Technology (EIST) and protection from malware infection via memory overflow thanks to the eXecute Disable (XD) bit.
The 6xx-series Pentium 4 chips have an 800MHz frontside bus (FSB) and are designed for use in standard desktop PCs. Intel is also offering a new Pentium 4 Extreme Edition clocked at 3.73GHz with a 1,066MHz FSB. This expensive ($999), high-end chip is only likely to appeal to a limited market -- mainly power users and gamers.
According to Intel, the 6xx-series Pentium 4s will replace the older line in the medium term. However, it may be some months before you can no longer buy 5xx-series chips.
| 6xx-series Pentium 4 processors | ||||
|
| ||||
| Processor |
Clock speed |
Level 2 cache |
EM64T / XD / EIST |
Price |
|
| ||||
| Pentium 4 660 | 3.6GHz | 2MB | yes / yes / yes | $605 |
| Pentium 4 650 | 3.4GHz | 2MB | yes / yes / yes | $401 |
| Pentium 4 640 | 3.2GHz | 2MB | yes / yes / yes | $273 |
| Pentium 4 630 | 3.0GHz | 2MB | yes / yes / yes | $224 |
|
| ||||
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Well, I'm writing this on an AMD64 laptop running pure 64 bit Linux, using a pure 64 bit version of Firefox. And I have several hundred pure 64 bit applications installed. The above may be true for the majority, but to the millions of Linux users worldwide 64 bit desktops have been a reality for a long time. I'm happy to finally see a desktop AMD clone from Intel. Competition in the 64 bit desktop/laptop scene is going to benefit us all.
And to clarify something that many people wonder about - Yes, Intel's EM64T technology is a 100% compatible clone of AMD64 (except for the 3DNow* component)
As for desktop users who don't even have 4 GiB RAM that can be mapped (few people even have 4 GiB _virtual_ memory), 64-bit computing matters very little. While it doesn't hurt either, I don't see what the hype's about.
That said, I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of 64-bit Linux benchmarks, considering x86_64 Linux has been out there for a long time and is probably a lot more mature that x86_64 Windows. It would probably give a more fair comparison.
Also, I'm a bit impressed by how well AMD's CPU, running at 2.4 GHz, matches the performance of Intel's 3.6 GHz CPU. I have to admit, I wouldn't have guessed.
Last, a few corrections:
* The author sounded almost surprised to see that the 32-bit version of Quake II ran faster than the 64-bit version. This isn't very strange. 64-bit computing does not yield any performance advantages in and of itself (outside the large-number-crunching world, that is), since almost no programs have any major use for that large numbers anyway. Considering that, it's not very surprising that 32-bit versions are more mature and have been more optimized than the more recent 64-bit versions.
* The power management technology is not called Cool 'n' Quiet, but PowerNow. Cool 'n' Quiet is the name given for the combined effect of a K8-PowerNow-compliant CPU, compliant motherboard and thermistor-regulated CPU fan.
Then, the Athlon 64 would have shown a much larger advantage over the Pentium (not 4 anymore) 660.
I need 64-bit Windows to make the most out of my 64-bit processor? Blatantly WRONG. Linux on 64 bit runs absolutely beautifully, as it has for a long time.
The least a reviewer could do is acknowledge their limited scope.
How about an article about Intel's new 64-bit Pentium 4 660 and its performance for Linux applications with some benchmarks. That's what everyone is waiting for.
As for why AMD's 64-bit architecture shows so much of a performance gain over the 32-bit architecture and UltraSparc's 64-bit architecture largely doesn't, that's an easy answer: 32-bit x86 is horrible and the 64-bit x86 architecture improves on it drastically, whereas 32-bit UltraSparc was not horrible, so the 64-bit version didn't have as much to improve. I know AMD Opterons currently pwn UltraSparcs on raw performance these days. But you can buy a machine with 106 UltraSparc IV processors with two cores each (do the math) sporting hundreds of GB of RAM. Show me the Opteron box that can do that. :-) (Fortunately this isn't a case of Sun vs AMD, as Sun is now deeply in bed with AMD for their smaller servers)
Why would that be? Do I need 64-bit Windows to
install SuSE?
It's just funny to note though.
How can you rely on that for even a second? Thus, the use of Linux (which ahd a stable 64-bit development) for benchmarking would, indeed, be more reasonable. But I guess, everything is good enough to promote Wintel...
Um ok, intel JUST released these and they have already sold more than AMD who has been selling 64bit processors for about a year and a half now? I'd love to see where they drew this conclusion from...