iYAN inside! Online                                                                                  Index Hardware

 

The Pentium III compared with other processors

In the past three parts of the Pentium III test we were especially focussed at the properties of the Pentium III in particular. In this fourth part we will compare the Pentium III with other available processors of different brands. This comparisment is very important for our final judgement in our fifth part.

Test 1: Integer test

Here, general performance is tested for use of business applictation like Windows and MS Office. AMD's K6-III scores the best in this test, thanks to the 256Kb extra cache at full (400MHz!) processor speed. Intel will do a similar thing to the Pentium III later this year. This test also shows the weak point of (overclocked) Celerons, that benefit most from FPU intensive environments. AMD always perfoms great in integer usage.

Test 2: FPU test

A FPU (Floating Point Unit) is the mathematical part of a processor. Not only to calculate your taxsum, but mainly for 3D realtime calculations like games (Quake, Unreal). The Cyrix chip scores very bad in this part, even lower than the Rise mP6 which has 100MHz less. These 3D performances are known to Cyrix and they are planning to released a revised version of the MII soon, with a new (3D) FPU chip. AMD is slipping away in this test compared to the above, what shows the weak point. Intel is very well known for FPU performance, that has been always superieur (untill now). According to AMD, their K7 will beat (July 1999) will beat Intels FPU though. This test also shows that an overclocked Celeron is not any less than a 'real' Pentium II or III.

Test 3: 3D Test (SSE & 3DNow support)

In the previous tests, we did not use any SSE optimalisation. 3D Games do (or will in the near future) use SSE together with FPU calculations. In part 3 we already showed some scores, so now some additions with 3D Winbench99. Again spectacular are the AMD scores compared to the Pentium II and Celeron. They use 3DNow, that is also supported in games and programs, and similar to SSE. This way the first 3DNow vs SSE comparisment is shown. Though the real difference is yet to be seen, 3D Winbench99 really shows a different between SSE and non-SSE optimisation.

Test 4: 3D Test (without support)

Another test, also focused at 3D performance in games, but without 3DNow and SSE optimisation. This shows a general result of the processortypes. Intel processsors are mixed up, but together, followed by AMD and the rest.

Compariment judgement

The Pentium III performs -in a first look- not very different than a Pentium II or even a(n overclocked) Celeron. But there is a reasonable difference: SSE. As said in part 3, SSE could really make a difference in optimized software. And it seems (in this view) superiour to 3DNow. AMD does benefit from at least one thing though: the price. AMD often scores equal (and some above) to Intel processors, but is more in reach because of its price. AMD is the only competitor that is close to the Intel processors in these tests, in contrast with Cyrix, Rise and Winchip (not added). Which processor should be in a system depends highly on the needs. As seen there is a huge difference in performance between general usage (Windows, Internet) and intensive (3D) applications.