Intel Mobile Pentium 4 HT 3.06

The Intel Mobile Pentium 4 HT 3.06 is a single-core, dual-threaded processor built on Intel’s NetBurst architecture, specifically the Northwood core, fabricated on a 130 nm process. Released on September 22, 2003, this mobile chip carries a base clock of 3.07 GHz, a TDP of 70 watts, and is now end-of-life. With no benchmark scores or nearest rivals listed in the data, this analysis relies strictly on the specification set provided, focusing on what the architectural choices and numbers imply for potential users.

Who Should Consider It

Given the processor’s profile, this chip is aimed at a narrow, legacy-oriented audience. The data shows a 1-core, 2-thread configuration with a 3.07 GHz base clock and no boost clock, which means workloads that depend on a single, fast execution stream are the only ones that can leverage its strengths. For office productivity, the high base clock suggests responsiveness in single-threaded tasks like word processing, spreadsheet calculations, and web browsing from that era. However, the 8 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 cache indicate limited data buffering, so modern, cache-hungry office suites would likely tax the memory system heavily. For gaming, the picture is constrained: the dual-threading via Hyper-Threading helps with some early 2000s titles that were optimized for it, but the single physical core and the lack of integrated graphics (a chipset feature on certain motherboards) mean a discrete GPU is mandatory. Gamers from that period with simple 2D or early 3D titles might find the 3.07 GHz clock adequate, but the architecture’s long pipeline (NetBurst) typically penalized heavily on branch-heavy code. For content creation, the data is unfavorable: video encoding, 3D rendering, and photo editing generally scale with core count, and with only one core, multi-threaded creation workloads would see severe stagnation. The 55 million transistor count and 131 mm² die size are historical markers, not performance indicators, but they underline the era’s design priorities. In short, this is a processor for retro computing enthusiasts, industrial PC maintenance running legacy single-threaded software, or as a collector’s item, not for modern multitasking environments.

Power and Thermals

The TDP is specified at 70 watts, which is notably high for a mobile processor of its time, reflecting the NetBurst architecture’s tendency toward high power draw to achieve clock speed. For a mobile chip, this implies a substantial cooling solution relative to the thin-and-light laptops of 2003; a capable air cooler with a heat pipe or a small fan would be necessary, not a passive heatsink. The 130 nm process node and 55 million transistors suggest that heat density was moderate by today’s standards, but the 70-watt TDP means sustained operation at 3.07 GHz would generate significant heat, especially in a laptop chassis. The data does not list a boost clock or any thermal throttling mechanisms, so the chip likely runs at a fixed 3.07 GHz under load, which would require the cooling system to handle that steady output. In a desktop replacement or a large mobile workstation, this TDP is manageable with a robust fan, but in a slim notebook, it would be a challenge. The lack of integrated graphics further reduces the thermal burden, GPU and CPU heat are separate, but the CPU alone still demands a serious cooling tier. Users pairing this with a discrete GPU must account for combined thermal output, which would push any small form factor system to its limits. The 70-watt TDP also implies that battery life on laptops would be short, as the processor’s power draw dominates the system’s energy budget, but the data does not provide battery metrics to confirm.

Platform and Compatibility

The processor uses Intel Socket 478, a socket that was common for desktop Pentium 4 chips but less so for mobile variants, meaning motherboard availability is limited to specific laptop or mini-PC designs from the early 2000s. The architecture is NetBurst with the Northwood core, which dictates that the chipset must support the 130 nm process and the 3.07 GHz front-side bus (though the FSB speed is not listed in the data). Memory support is given as DDR1 and DDR2, which is unusual, most Socket 478 boards supported only DDR1, so this suggests a hybrid chipset that could accept either memory type, but the data does not specify memory bus width or bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported, so this is not for error-correcting workloads. The PCIe support field is null, which means the platform likely uses AGP for graphics, not PCIe, further dating the system. The integrated graphics option is noted as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, meaning the CPU itself has no graphics, but some boards might have an embedded GPU controller. The upgrade path is essentially nonexistent: as an end-of-life mobile chip, there are no faster processors in the same socket that the data would support, and the memory and graphics interfaces are obsolete. The part number is SL77P, which helps identify the exact stepping, but the multiplier is locked, so users cannot overclock to extend usability. The release date of September 22, 2003, places this in the late NetBurst era, just before the transition to Pentium M (which was more efficient), so compatibility is strictly with boards from that narrow window. For anyone building a retro rig, they must source a Socket 478 motherboard with DDR1/DDR2 support and an AGP or early PCIe slot, but the data does not confirm PCIe availability.

FAQ

Q: Does this processor have integrated graphics?

A: No, the integrated graphics are a chipset feature available on certain motherboards, not on the CPU itself.

Q: What is the maximum memory type it supports?

A: The data lists support for DDR1 and DDR2 memory, but does not specify a maximum capacity or bandwidth.

Q: Is this processor overclockable?

A: No, the multiplier is locked (multiplierUnlocked is false), so users cannot adjust the clock multiplier.

Q: What is the physical size of the die?

A: The die size is 131 mm², with a transistor count of 55 million.

Q: When was this processor released?

A: The release date is September 22, 2003, and it is now end-of-life.

Q: Does it support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported (eccMemory is false).

How It Compares

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals for this processor, so a direct comparison to specific competing chips is not possible from the data. However, the absence of rivals is informative: it suggests that in the benchmark database, this chip’s performance profile is so isolated that no other processor falls within a meaningful percentile distance. The percentileVsAllCpus is 50, meaning it sits at the exact median of all CPUs in the database, not fast, not slow, but exactly average in aggregate. That median position implies that many processors outperform it in multi-core metrics, but the 3.07 GHz clock might place it above older or low-clocked single-core parts. Without rival names, scores, or deltaPct values, any comparison would be speculative. The data does not provide a single benchmark score (avgBenchmarkScore is 0), so quantitative comparisons are impossible. Readers should interpret this as a chip that occupies a middle ground historically, neither a flagship nor a budget part, but its practical value today is limited by its single core and high TDP.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The processor’s configuration, 1 core, 2 threads, is a critical differentiator. The single physical core means that any workload that is strictly single-threaded (e.g., legacy DOS applications, simple scripting, or single-threaded database queries from that era) will run at the full 3.07 GHz without contention. The second thread, enabled via Hyper-Threading, allows the operating system to schedule two logical threads on one core, which can improve throughput on tasks that have idle gaps, such as I/O-bound operations or interactive applications. However, the data shows only 8 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache, which limits the effectiveness of Hyper-Threading because the two threads must share that small cache. In practice, the dual-threading might yield modest gains in multitasking (e.g., running an antivirus scan while typing), but for compute-intensive multi-threaded workloads (e.g., video encoding), the single core becomes a bottleneck, and the second thread cannot recover that loss. The NetBurst architecture’s long pipeline also means that branch mispredictions are costly, so single-threaded integer performance could vary widely depending on code predictability. The 3.07 GHz clock is high for the era, but the architecture’s instructions-per-clock (IPC) was lower than later Pentium M or Core designs, so the single-thread advantage over a lower-clocked but higher-IPC rival is unclear without benchmark scores. For real workloads, the split implies that the chip excels at responsive, latency-sensitive single tasks (like opening a large file) but fails on parallel processing (like rendering a 3D scene). Users should treat this as a single-thread-first processor, with Hyper-Threading as a background aid, not a performance multiplier.

Benchmark Performance

The FACT PACK provides an avgBenchmarkScore of 0 and a percentileVsAllCpus of 50, but no actual benchmark scores or nearest rivals are listed. This is a data void that prevents any quantitative performance analysis. The percentile of 50 indicates that, across all CPUs in the database, this processor’s aggregate performance is exactly median, meaning it outperforms half of all processors and underperforms against the other half. However, since the database likely includes many modern chips with multiple cores, the median position likely reflects the fact that the 3.07 GHz clock is high for a single-core part, but the lack of cores drags it down in multi-core benchmarks. Without deltaPct values, we cannot state how far ahead or behind it is from any specific rival. The benchmark data is empty, which suggests that no tests have been run or recorded for this processor in the database. Therefore, any claims about its performance relative to rivals are unsupported. The only factual numbers are the base clock of 3.07 GHz, the cache sizes, and the TDP. The data indicates that the processor’s performance profile is unmeasured, leaving users to infer from architecture: NetBurst at 3.07 GHz with 512 KB L2 would historically be competitive in single-threaded tasks against early 2000s chips, but the 70-watt TDP and single core would make it poor in modern multi-threaded benchmarks. In summary, the benchmark section is a placeholder, and the analysis must rely on the architectural specifications, which point to a processor that is a high-clock, low-core-count relic, useful for single-threaded retro tasks, but with no measured scores to validate its standing.