Portcolumbus From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1612 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1726 times:
Core 2 Duo > Pentium D
The Core 2 Duo may have lower clock speeds, but it will still outperform the Pentium D by a mile.
The Pentium D is based on the (failed) netbust technology - it simply does not scale well and has a huge long pipeline (31 parts in the last netburst core verses ~10 for other processors) which makes both branch prediction and utilisation a nightmare. Thus its slower than its contemporaries, even at higher clock speeds.
Spend the extra on an AMD or a Core2Duo - but wait until end of June to buy if you are buying a Core2Duo system....
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20858 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
The Pentium D is one of the least efficient and most power-hungry CPUs out there. Up-front acquisition is the only thing that's cheap about it.
As Moo already explained, it's one of the last remnants of the Pentium 4 architecture which Intel has retired by now. They only fill a niche in the channel at the lower end to keep AMD under price pressure even below the new Core 2 CPUs.
Clock frequencies are indeed deceiving here. The current Core 2 is much faster and still consumes much less power than the old Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. Cache, pipeline and execution unit layout are some of the reasons for that.
KaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12027 posts, RR: 43 Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): The Pentium D is one of the least efficient and most power-hungry CPUs out there. Up-front acquisition is the only thing that's cheap about it.
As Moo already explained, it's one of the last remnants of the Pentium 4 architecture which Intel has retired by now. They only fill a niche in the channel at the lower end to keep AMD under price pressure even below the new Core 2 CPUs.
Clock frequencies are indeed deceiving here. The current Core 2 is much faster and still consumes much less power than the old Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. Cache, pipeline and execution unit layout are some of the reasons for that.
Pentium D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Intel Core 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did I just see a post from Klaus that didn't mention either Apple or Mac? The world is coming to an end...
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8357 posts, RR: 47 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): The Pentium D is one of the least efficient and most power-hungry CPUs out there.
I can definitely confirm that... unfortunately I have a PC with a Pentium 550 (single core 3.4 GHz, NetBurst) and the thing it's best at is heating my room. That CPU has a Thermal Design Power, which is the amount of heat that it produces, of 115W.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
AC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 9): I can definitely confirm that... unfortunately I have a PC with a Pentium 550 (single core 3.4 GHz, NetBurst) and the thing it's best at is heating my room. That CPU has a Thermal Design Power, which is the amount of heat that it produces, of 115W.
That reminds me...
Klaus (or anybody, really) - what's the prevalence that you know of of Speedstep-like technologies in desktop processors? You know, something that throttles down the clock speed when more power isn't needed.
The reason I ask is because I run an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ processor that's a special energy-efficient version. It's rated at 65w and has the aforementioned throttling technology. Is this a standard feature set on some desktop CPUs or just relegated to certain versions?
(If this post has substandard spelling or grammar, it's because I typed it on a G4 PowerBook, which has probably one of the most vague keyboards I've ever used. Grrrr!)
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
KaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12027 posts, RR: 43 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
Dell has some good sales going again.
What can be said about the AMD Turion and Sempron?
AC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 12): What can be said about the AMD Turion and Sempron?
They're not bad for the money (Sempron def. beats Celeron, which is still based on NetBurst). Anecdotally, the Pentium M actually had to be based on a modified version of the Pentium III because NetBurst was so hot & thirsty.
Just a guess, but maybe the sale is partly due to AMD's Phenom debut today.
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5445 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1419 times:
I bought a Dell in late December of '05 that has the original Pentium D 2.8ghz dual core. Given the graphics card I have in it (FX6600,) the only game that I've found that can NOT run very well on it is EverQuest (the designers at SOE can't seem to restrain themselves in the design and layout department. Plus, everything has just run slow in the game since they started mandating DX9.) FSX, one of the most demanding games out there, works just fine with everything turned up.
Now, that said, unless you are doing things such as: decoding the human genome, modelling quarks, and calculating a jump to light speed so you can avoid meteors, comets, and the occasional blown-up planet—you're not going to need the absolutely most power CPU on the market.
Heck, the Linux server I'm setting up right now only has a P4 Celeron 1.8 ghz processor.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Everyone has their own definition of fast. I can also tell you that most games will run fine on systems like that; you just won't get a lot of detail that you will see with better systems. It may work well for you, but getting a Pentium 4-vintage processor has been a bad idea for quite a while now, largely because of the better, cheaper processors out there.
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 15): FSX, one of the most demanding games out there, works just fine with everything turned up.
With an FX6600? I'll believe in God before I believe that.
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20858 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Quoting AC773 (Reply 11): Klaus (or anybody, really) - what's the prevalence that you know of of Speedstep-like technologies in desktop processors? You know, something that throttles down the clock speed when more power isn't needed.
As far as I'm aware most CPUs today use some form of this technology, to varying degrees.
But there are also significant differences in the baseline power consumption and of course in the way the opportunities are exploited by the motherboard and the operating system.
Quoting AC773 (Reply 11): (If this post has substandard spelling or grammar, it's because I typed it on a G4 PowerBook, which has probably one of the most vague keyboards I've ever used. Grrrr!)
Your post looks fine to me. Maybe your PowerBook isn't all that dyslexic after all...!
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5445 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Quoting AC773 (Reply 16): With an FX6600? I'll believe in God before I believe that.
Or was it a 6800? I'll have to double check the specs when I get home. Either way, it runs smooth. Granted, it's a PCI-Ex16 card with 512 graphics RAM, complimented by 2 gigs of DDR2 on the main board.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5445 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Quoting AC773 (Reply 19): Ah, you must have the 6800 something-or-other. The FX series is 4 generations old by now, and your card is newer than that.
After browing the nVidia website, I can see your confusion. I'm used to calling anything with an nVidia chipset in it as FXxxx because of their long-running (now low-end) numbering scheme.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1612 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20858 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
