Intel's Pentium M on the Desktop - A Viable Alternative?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 7, 2005 4:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Multitasking Content Creation
MCC Winstone 2004
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:- Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0.1
- Adobe® Premiere® 6.50
- Macromedia® Director MX 9.0
- Macromedia® Dreamweaver MX 6.1
- Microsoft® Windows MediaTM Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980
- NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b
- SteinbergTM WaveLabTM 4.0f
The more memory bandwidth and FP intensive MCC applications give the Pentium M a hard time, as it falls to the bottom of the performance charts.
ICC SYSMark 2004
The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."
The Pentium M continues to perform dismally in content creation applications.
Next, we have 2D Content Creation performance:
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."
Things are a little better in the 2D content creation world, with the Pentium M performing on the lower end of the middle of the pack.
The Internet Content Creation suite is rounded up with a Web Publishing performance test:
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."
Once again, we have another situation where the Pentium M can't cut it on the desktop compared to its faster counterparts.
Mozilla + Media Encoder
The Pentium M isn't very strong in media encoding applications, and thus, we don't see such solid performance here, thanks to its relatively weak FPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Jeff7181 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Give the Dothan a speed bump and some dual channel DDR400 and stay out of it's way...MDme - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
well, now we FINALLY have a comprehensive review of the P-M, it's strengths and weaknesses. While the P-M is good. the A64 is still better.Netopia - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Yeah, I was about to say the same as #3.Why did you go to the trouble to list what the AthlonXP system would have in it and then not actually test or reference it anywhere in the article?
I still have a bunch of AXP machines and regularly help others upgrade using XP-M's, so it would be interesting to see these at least included in reviews for a while.
CrystalBay - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Hi, I noticed in the testbed an AXP3200/NF2U400 but there are no charts with this setup.Beenthere - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
It's a pipe dream for those who wish Intel had their act together. It's already confirmed M don't scale well and is not effective for HD computing. It's performance is really some place between Sempron and A64 but certainly not a suitable competitor to A64 nor FX. Just another Hail Mary for a defunct Intel.coldpower27 - Monday, February 7, 2005 - link
Hmm, an interesting review on the Pentium M to say the least. Though are 2-2-2-10 timings for the Pentium M the best for this architecture???0ldman79 - Wednesday, January 26, 2022 - link
It's interesting coming back and reading this after it's all settled, Core 2 seemed to be an evolution of the Pentium M line.Intel did hang the Netburst architecture up, though they added a lot of Netburst's integer design to Core 2 while designing Nehalem. AMD apparently believed that Intel was going to stick with Netburst and designed the FX line, while Intel went back to their earlier designs and lowered the clock speed, massively increased the IPC and parallelism and out-Phenom'ed the Phenom with Nehalem.
Back then Intel believed that Dennard scaling would continue and they'd have 10GHz chips, turns out wider and slower is better.