So, what's the scoop on Dothan.....................

Message

sktn77a · #1 Post by **sktn77a** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:12 pm

The performance improvement from the Pentium 4M to the Pentium M (Banias) was remarkable. I attributed much of this to the 1M L2 cache although I'm sure it was more than just this. The performance improvement from the P4 (Northwood) to P4 (Prescott) seems to have been a backward step, despite the increase in L2 cache to 2M (if reviews are anything to go by).

How does Dothan stack up against Banias? Does the increase in L2 cache from 1M to 2M make a big difference in performance (anybody know of any benchmark reviews)? What about the other improvements?

Bottom line - is the 1.7 Dothan T42 significantly better than the 1.5 or 1.6 Banias T40/41?

akerman · #2 Post by **akerman** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 4:52 pm

Have you tried Google? I can't imagine that you'll have any difficulty finding some dothan vs banias reviews/benchmarks.

alfa_romeo · #3 Post by **alfa_romeo** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:08 pm

sktn77a wrote:
Bottom line - is the 1.7 Dothan T42 significantly better than the 1.5 or 1.6 Banias T40/41?

Tests say that Dothan processors are up to 10% faster than equivalent Banias processors. So 1.7 Dothan is definitely faster than than 1.5/1.6 Banias and slightly faster than 1.7 Banias.

devbuzz · #4 Post by **devbuzz** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:35 pm

My 1.6 banias rocks but I hope the 1.7 dothan is at least 10% better. On the performance side it's also the 72k drives plus the added CPU muscle that will make the T42 snappier than the t40/41. But I'll admit it's the perfomance junkie in me that is saying this...

sktn77a · #5 Post by **sktn77a** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:46 pm

I haven't found anything definitive on Google. Some reports say the processor "should" be faster but the limited data I've found suggests it isn't. The theoretical speed advantage of the smaller die size (shorter distances to travel) appears to be offset by higher latencies of the larger cache with only 8 associative pathways.

More Intel Hype???!!!

NotANitWit · #6 Post by **NotANitWit** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:04 pm

There's no one "speed" for a CPU since some tasks are cache sensitive, some love hyperthreading, some are pretty much RAM bandwidth based, some love a fast FPU.

Dothan has a huge cache, so it does well on cache limited tasks. Laptops tend to have poor memory bandwidth (and the cache really helps hold that). Dothan isn't as good with FPU as a P4 but it's still not bad.

Some anecdotal rough personal benchmarks.
For compiling large C programs, my 2.0 Ghz (755) T42p is almost exactly as fast as my 3.2 Ghz P4. Remarkable! [But compiling loves cache, and uses no FPU.]

For 3D rendering, the 3.2 P4 is about 25% faster, because of faster FPU and memory bandwidth [my theory.]

I happen to do a lot of both compiling and rendering (both CPU speed limited tasks!), which is why I got the overkill-for-most-people 2.0 Ghz T42p. If I were getting the laptop for web browsing and word processing and DVDs and a few games, I'd get the cheapest 1.6 Ghz machine and never ever worry about the speed.

Matt_ · #7 Post by **Matt_** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:10 pm

Here're a few articles:
Intel's Dothan Makes Its Late Debut

Preview: Intel's New Pentium M CPU

Dothan Offers Improved Speed

First Tests of Intel's New Pentium M

JaimitoBond · #8 Post by **JaimitoBond** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:37 pm

Most of these tests extrapolate the performance gain. They never compare 1.7 Banias VS 1.7 Dothan, using the same machine or close cousins (T41p T42p), with similar specs (same video chip, RAM, HD speed etc).

Anyone know where someone has done a direct comparison on the effect of the CPU? My guess is that it isn't that impressive. The main thing for it is that if you get a 2GHz chip, it still draws less power than the 1.7 Banias. Now that's progress.

3bqruk · #9 Post by **3bqruk** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:35 pm

huh,huh,huh,......he said EXTRAPOLATE.......HEH HEH HEH HEH.

sktn77a · #10 Post by **sktn77a** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:03 pm

Yeah, I saw these reviews and with one exception, the Dothan doesn't look that impressive. Problem is, they never compare apples with apples - always different computers (with different graphics/chipsets) and different processor speeds. I guess Dothan does draw less power under some (but not all) circumstances.

I think I'll hold off for a while!

plucky duck · #11 Post by **plucky duck** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:42 pm

Looks like for the 2Ghz Dothan 755, there are 4 different variants of the chip with different voltgages, based on yield.

They rank for Vid#A to Vid#D. Vid#D being the lowest voltage, yielding better power-usage and possibly lesser heat? The differences most likely are not noticeable though.

2.0 GHz 1.340 V 1.324 V 1.308 V 1.276 V

Greg Gebhardt · #12 Post by **Greg Gebhardt** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:24 am

Not scientific but my T42p (2373 KXU) is faster than my R50. No doubt about it.

v_parthi · #13 Post by **v_parthi** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:21 am

Hi,

Definitely there may be a performance improvement for dothan against banias, but only negligible in my opinion considering the price difference, no need to mention tomshardware review & conclusion. I am going to invest on a T41p, cos I get a lot of goodies for a reasonable price.

Probably, there will be some 533 Mhz FSB stuff by the end of this year, and then the price will reduce for T42p. However, it's not good to invest on a brand new processor anytime if price matters. The price vs feature ratio is not attractive for dothan for me atleast. People with a heavy wallet, please forgive me.

Parthiban.

So, what's the scoop on Dothan.....................

So, what's the scoop on Dothan.....................

Re: So, what's the scoop on Dothan.....................

Not great

Who is online