2.8E SiSoft Sandra CPU Benchmarks

[Motaboy]

Just slapped a 2.8E into my system which I have running at 3.3Ghz. My SiSoft Sandra CPU Arthimetic and Multimedia are lower than the scores for the 3.2GHz CPU. Should I worry or is Sandra acting funny with the increased cache?

BTW....This CPU runs hot!

 

[StaticRevenger]

its probably a consequence of the increased pipeline for the Prescotts

 

[StaticRevenger]

btw, thats assuming your other CPU is a P4 C

 

[Motaboy]

My old CPU was a "C" and I was comparing the new "E" CPU to the scores already listed in Sandra.

thanks for the replies.

 

[MrMike]

Yeah, Prescott is generally equal or slower than the Northwood clock for clock.
The only benchmark it noticeably beat the Northwood in in [H]'s review, was XMPEG DVD encoding.

 

[Josh_B]

As others have mentioned, because of the increase in pipeline length (20 vs 31 stages), the Prescotts are marginally slower. However, it is important to note that Prescotts were designed to scale better than the Northwoods. While they are running too hot to scale well right now, once Intel gets its .09u process going, I would imagine we should see some real screamers.

Currently the Prescott is marginally slower than the Northwoods, but the fact that it nearly matches the Northwood's performance with an additional 11 stages is pretty impressive. (At least to me.)

 

[Pongi]

Speaking of Sisoft's CPU benchmark, I'm getting strange results from a tualatin Celeron. My 1.0A @ 1Ghz is scoring sinificantly higher than the PIII 1Ghz in Dhrystone.

1Ghz PIII:

Dhrystone: 2700 MIPS
Whetstone: 1340 MFLOPS

My 1.0A Ghz Celeron @ 1Ghz (tualatin)

Dhrystone: 3183 MIPS
Whetstone: 1387 MFLOPS



Does Sisoft need to retest their comparision CPU's? Does anyone here have a 1Ghz PIII to test against?