logo
wwwsharky
quicksearch


start menu
Home
Forum
PC Buyers
CPU Prices
RAM Prices
Compare Prices
About Us
spacer
bend
Sharky Extreme : CPU Reviews & Articles February 9, 2012
bend
spacer
Get the latest reviews and tutorials!
Register for the free
Hardware Daily Newsletter!




 - Most Active Threads
 - Technical Support
 - CPUs & Overclocking



RSS feed










CPU Reviews & Articles

spacer  

Intel Pentium 4-3.4E GHz Processor Review

By Vince Freeman :  March 22, 2004

Benchmark Analysis

The overall performance scores followed pretty closely to the trends we witnessed in the Pentium 4-3.2E review. The new Pentium 4-3.4E Prescott does have some performance advantages, such as in media encoding, memory performance and most CPU tests, but there are also areas where the Pentium 4-3.4C Northwood posts slightly higher scores. This creates something of a draw in the Prescott vs. Northwood comparison, as the overall benchmark scores even out, and place both 3.4 GHz processors on even ground.

Core Temperatures and Heat

The Pentium 4 Prescott may use a smaller 90nm manufacturing process, but the thermal specification numbers are higher than the 0.13-micron Northwood. For comparison, the Pentium 4-3.2E checks in at 103W, while the Pentium 4-3.2C rates at only 82W. The good news is that even though the Pentium 4-3.4E is 200 MHz faster, the core voltage has not increased, and the thermal specification is also 103W. What this amounts to is a slightly higher core temperature for the Prescott, as compared to the Northwood.

Core temperature monitoring is not an exact science, but in our testing at default speeds, the Prescott checked in at anywhere from 5 to 10 degrees higher than a same speed Northwood, but there was no real-world difference in terms of cooling performance. We tested in both open air and closed tower case environments, and found that the current Intel retail cooler is more than adequate to keep Prescott temperatures down. We even slapped on an older, pure aluminum cooler and it didn't even get warm to the touch. The only time we noticed an increase in core heat was when raising the voltage and core speed, and care should be taken when testing the overclock limits of the Prescott.

Value

The Intel Pentium 4-3.2E Prescott was initially set at the same approximate street price as the Northwood model, but this soon changed. Now the Pentium 4-3.2E entails a $15-$20 premium over the Pentium 4-3.2C GHz, throwing the price-performance rating for a bit of a loop. At equivalent or lower prices, the new Prescott models have their charms, but if the Northwood enjoys a cost saving, then we have to lean in favor of the older core. We have yet to get a read on the street price of the Pentium 4-3.4E, but we're hoping that it comes in on par with the Pentium 4-3.4C, rather than with a premium for the 90nm Prescott core.

* Please note that these prices were taken at the time of review and are not meant to reflect long-term trends.

Conclusion

The Pentium 4-3.4E release is very similar to the debut of the 3.2 GHz Prescott, and the performance comparisons against the Northwood core remain pretty constant. The core specifications and doubled L1 and L2 cache levels are certainly impressive, but at the end of the day, the real-world performance is equivalent to a same-speed Northwood. Once Intel moves up to 3.6 GHz and higher speeds, using the LGA775 socket and a faster platform base, then the Prescott core will likely start coming into its own. Until then, the Pentium 4-3.4E is another solid, if unspectacular, processor release, and likely the last upgrade stop on the Socket 478 train.

Pros:

  • Excellent Multimedia and Memory Performance
  • Socket 478 Upgradeable
  • 16K L1 and 1-MB L2 Cache Levels

Cons:

  • Equivalent Gaming Performance to 3.4 GHz Northwood
  • Runs a Bit Hotter than Northwood

Ratings:



Page 1

The Pentium 4-3.4E GHz Prescott

Page 2

Performance and Test Systems

Page 3

Business & CC Winstone 2004 and MPEG-2 Encoding

Page 4

MPEG-1 Encoding & SiSoft SANDRA 2004 Performance

Page 5

PCMark 2004 Pro Performance

Page 6

Quake 3, Wolfenstein: ET, and Comanche 4 Performance

Page 7

UT 2003, X2: Demo & 3DMark 2003 Performance

Page 8

AquaMark 3 & GunMetal Performance

  • Page 9

    Benchmark Analysis, Value and Conclusion