[pers]

hello all,

i have always woundered, and here is my quick question:

Why are Pentium D's horrible CPU's, as everyone says... i'm just woundering, i myself have an Core 2 Duo e6600, but my friend has a Pentium D 840 3.2 GHz (overhears like [bleep]), so can anybody explain to me why Pentium D is bad??? And why on this web site i saw somewhere that pentium d's aren't true dual-cores.. .anyways, could you please explain??

thanks

[Advertisements]

The D was two pentium 4 dies, while the more recent are 2 cores on one single die.

[SOORENA]

The Pentium D has known heat issues and as you stated is not really a dual core. And if you read furthur I'm pretty sure that James explained why its not a real dual core in the other topic.

[pers]

read further?? is it a topic? could i please have the link?

I have seen somewhere on the forum that it's not a true dual-core, but it was an extremely short description in someone's system building topic.

if i could have the link for a discussion or something that would be great.

cheers

pers

[james_8970]

lol, k this is how it worked.
Pentium 4's, an already hot chip because of the Ghz wars in 2000-2002 and both companies pushed the microarchitecture to the max. Then the idea of Dual core came up because they(AMD and Intel) began to see that they couldn't push the processors any further and saw this as the next great innovation. So Intel wanting to be the first one to say I did it, released the Pentium D. It is essentially two Pentium 4 dies glued together. So if you glue two already hot chips together you'll get an end result of a extremely hot chip to cool. It was o.k., but you can't compare it to anything today, because what AMD(AM2) and Intel (Conroe) have to offer is a more advanced microarchitecture, meaning better and more efficiency per clock cycle. Because of this the Pentium D, was a quick put it together thing and is generally nothing, also it suffers some bottle necks due to how the cache works. These issues have been fixed with the now native dual cores, but the issue is once again present with the quad core processors offered by Intel, it's just like the Pentium D and quick put me together. But since the new microarchitecture is more advanced and much cooler some of the issues arn't present.

Edited by james_8970, 25 April 2007 - 04:18 PM.

[AnthonyJ]

lol, k this is how it worked.
Pentium 4's, an already hot chip because of the Ghz wars in 2000-2002 and both companies pushed the microarchitecture to the max. Then the idea of Dual core came up because they(AMD and Intel) began to see that they couldn't push the processors any further and saw this as the next great innovation. So Intel wanting to be the first one to say I did it, released the Pentium D. It is essentially two Pentium 4 dies glued together. So if you glue two already hot chips together you'll get an end result of a extremely hot chip to cool. It was o.k., but you can't compare it to anything today, because what AMD(AM2) and Intel (Conroe) have to offer is a more advanced microarchitecture, meaning better and more efficiency per clock cycle. Because of this the Pentium D, was a quick put it together thing and is generally nothing, also it suffers some bottle necks due to how the cache works. These issues have been fixed with the now native dual cores, but the issue is once again present with the quad core processors offered by Intel, it's just like the Pentium D and quick put me together. But since the new microarchitecture is more advanced and much cooler some of the issues arn't present.

so a p4 is faster than pd? i have a p4 ([email protected] 800 bus at 9??) is a pd worth upgrading to? i heard the pd 805 is a great OC chip

[james_8970]

No, a Pentium D would be faster then the Pentium 4, it's the same thing but two processors in one. Yes it's a great overclocking chip, but you'll have to buy a 60$ fan to cool it. I really don't recommend them though, Pentiums are old and it's time to move on and invest in the present and not the days of yesterday. The reason why I say this, is because you'll probably need to buy high clocked ram to reach the clocks you want to reach, but why invest into DDR when DDR2 is already here and DDR3 is going to be released to the public in the summer. Though it won't be mainstream and will be as expensive as [bleep]. Not to mention you'll have to increase the voltages, people have read articles that claim they have reached 4.1GHz, this is true, but around the 3.6GHz area you have to up the voltages. With the increased voltages and massive amouts of heat (even more heat from the voltage increase) the processor will only last around 6 months. No i'm not kidding, if you keep the overclock at this point for 100% of the time you use it, that's all it'll last. So it's up to you.
If you want a great overclocking chip I highly recommend the E4300 or the E4400 Core2duo chips. But you'll be forced to upgrade you ram, motherboard, CPU and probably a new fan, stock coolers can't hold a match to aftermarket coolers (most anyways).
James

Edited by james_8970, 25 April 2007 - 09:22 PM.