I used to have a Northwood based (early) Pentium 4 system, that worked really well. Mostly played UT2003/2004 at that time. You have to understand back than we had really slow hard drives, that meant long loading times as well. Later I got a RAID0 Raptor setup, but I think with this one, I was still on a 5400 rpm HDD. That is something these retro test videos don't show. Also I keep on using Windows 2000 pretty long, because it had fewer background tasks runnig. And you would not just TAB out of a game, to switch your music. Single core CPUs had a really hard time with such actions. [EDIT] I also tended to have more memory than most builds, that allowed me to disable HDD swap. I don't want to downvalue this test - it is very true. But at the time, the whole system was much slower and other bottlenecks existed at the same time. [EDIT] If you test a retro setup with a modern SSD, you work around many issues of the time.
Neither does "the D was smoother." :P Though in all seriousness, I'm sure it was smoother. Back in the Vista days, I upgraded from an A64 3000+ to an X2-3800+. The dual-core really did add a layer of creamy smoothness to the heavy new OS.
I have a Dell Optiplex GX620 that my buddy gave me from corporate e-waste and upgraded it to a Pentium D 945 for a few bucks. It makes a great space heater.
It does perform better though. I had a 631 P4 in my HP DC7600, running Linux but no power to play RUclips videos. Upgraded to a 945, and it manages to play 360P video’s without stuttering.
I remember having a D805 @ 3.4GHz as a poor teen about 16 years ago, it was fine back in the day. But to be honest, Netburst is a no-go even for this day's XP rig, I prefer a Phenom/Phenom II or a Core 2 based setup. :D
That Dell at the end... I almost bought the exact same Dell SFF PC because it was selling for cheap back in 2008 while I still had the original Pentium 4 1.5. If I recall, that Dell PC had a Pentium D 915 with a total of 4MB of L2 cache whereas my 1.5 just had 256KB. But then I realized how hard it was to find good, low-profile GPUs so I ultimately abandoned the idea. Kept that rackety old machine for a few more years until I'd enough money to buy a 'proper' PC with a Core 2 Duo E8400. Now THAT was an upgrade! In hindsight, I should've gone with a used Q6600, which would've cost me the same as the E8400, but I thought frequency would trump core count. Boy was I wrong!
Yeah you are right, but do not forget that many software and games that we used did not support multi-thread anyways. The single core thread performance of an e8400 vs q6600 is impressive to say the least and faster then the 'slower' q6600 cores. I did my homelabs for MCSA with vm's on a Dell clampshell like this one with H.T. ! ;-) I remember it ran well and had no issue at all.
Oh man you're so lucky that you decided not to. We had school districts filled with them. They were awful! At one district we had one guy an intern who's job it was to just go around and replace hard drives and ghost the machine. At least a dozen a day died. There was no ventilation.
Hey there! I came across your videos cause RUclips randomly recommended it. I was surprised by the quality of your videos, I usually don’t expect such a quality with your sub count. Also I find your comparisons quite interesting, since I started pc gaming right around that time. Please keep it up!
RUclips doesn't push his stuff I think because they're such short videos, I think. That's what I like about em though, straight to the point. I try to promote the channel wherever I can without spamming.
This channel is gold. Take you down through memory lane, provides entertainment and lastly, is so honest about past hardware that as a kid I would have never accepted hard facts but as an adult can only chuckle about it.
I was still on an AMD XP 2600 back in those days before upgrading much later to a Phenom II X4. Athlon 64 was the way to go, but because of the Hyper-Threading, the Pentium-HT is a very cool cpu. Kinda new technology that had much potential ( we still use it today ). For Office work the HT was superior and the Pentium D, meh we rather avoid it. But to be fair and needs to be said, it was faster with some game titles as shown in the video. I think most of us were playing World of Warcraft in that time. Which did not require that much cpu power anyways. Thanks for the content Jim !
HT was one way to squeeze some more performance out of the mediocre core with weak IPC. Netburst's pipeline was so deep that hyperthreading made perfect sense. The penalty of a miscalculation was just far too great! It's strange that Intel is now considering dumping HT altogether in favor of 'rentable' tile i.e a single tile can act like either a fast P-core or weak dual E-cores, depending on the workload. Now, on paper it, it sounds better than HT but in practice, who knows?!
Pentium D was Intel's rush to enter the "dual Core" race against AMD's Athlon 64 x2 line. Pentium D is just 2 Pentium 4 Cores "glued" together on the same substrate. The achilles heal of the Pentium D was the fact that if Die 0 needed to communicate with Die 1 it had to send that request along the FSB to the Memory controller hub then back to the other die. Think of it rather than Dual core as more of Dual CPU, like back when Pentium 2 and Pentium 3 were around and you had 2 CPU''s on the board, same deal here. The worst thing intel did to the Pentium D was disable HT on the individual dies.
My only experience with Pentium D was around 2018 when my bech PC (a Compaq laptop with Pentium M@1.8GHz) had some problems; then I grabed quickly a HP Compaq with Pentium D 945, maxed the RAM to 4G and throwed a PCIe ATI x1800. Anyway, I did not felt the computer slow (it ran XP) and for office, quick internet browsing it was very good. The temperatures you are right, were quite high (60C at idle) but with Win7 they lowered when selected the max economy power plan. However, it was a beast of PC and I did not felt any difference when I upgraded to a DualCore CPU (it was the max the was supported by that HP computer). I must asy that I did not played games, just used it for the bench (Office 2007, Opera to browse internet, software to control my scope and other devices in the lab) things that a 1.8GHz Pentium M did quite well.
As long as you don't plan to get any use out of it, its actually fun to mess with something so bad. Just make sure you turn on your A/C first. Or heat an entire room in the winter. In my previous life working in IT, we had this one client that I talked about in the video. One PC the user complained was locking up. I took off the side and found that the intel heatsink had melted its plastic mounts and was just dangling from the fan wire. It was extremely clogged with dust, but still it got so hot that it melted the plastic that held it to the board.
I used a Pentium D 925 back in the days but as far as I can remember it wasn't good at anything. Strangely enough temps never went over 70°C for me and I had stock heatsink too. Either it was a "better" model of the heatsink or the CPU wasn't pushed that hard. Yet it was a nice space heater.
My dad bought a Dell Dimension E521 back in late 2006 and it came with an Athlon 64x2 4400+, and it was a monster. Unofficially handles 16GB RAM and with a GT 220 1GB upgrade it kept trucking for years and years. Even ran Skyrim pretty damn well from what I remember.
I used an HP OEM cooler for a Pentium D for my Core 2 Duo build. I've since upgraded that original build to a Core 2 Quad using that same cooler and even significantly overclocked that cooler has been more than enough for them. Even overclocked the Q9550 uses less power than the Pentium D 830 that this cooler was intended to be used with so it just works. Funny.
The difference between the two makes me think of having SLI or Crossfire. Games that could take advantage of it could double performance, but if it was written for one core, good luck.
I was given a Dell Dimension E510 a while back so I decided to turn it into a retro gaming PC for playing early and mid 2000 games. I upgraded it to a Pentium D 945 (max supported), 4GB of RAM in dual channel, a superclocked 9800GT, sound blaster X-Fi, and Windows XP Pro. It runs era appropriate games perfectly fine and its a lot of fun. Doom 3, Half-life 2, Fallout 3, Jedi Knight II, NFS: Most Wanted, Portal 1, they all play great. Yes the D was slow compared to the Athlon but in the right setup it works pretty well. When Philscomputerlab benched it, it was comparable to a P4 Extreme Edition and I thought that was pretty interesting.
I feel it is not fair, cab you test it with pentium D 925 (3GHz) because netburst architecture hugely depends on frequency. Its exactly use 2x pentium 4 3Ghz cores without hypertreading. Also D945 extreme have hypertreading enabled cores.
Core2 had shared caches... Besides that aspect of architecture making Pentium D terrible is just an urban myth. If that was an issue then preventing e.g. game (cause games were most susceptible to memory/cache performance) from being shuffled between cores to stick to single core (note: games ran single threaded back then) would make big difference in performance. Yet nothing like that happened - also why you always hear how bad the design was but never get any benchmarks to show how it affected users. Instead it was Athlon 64 X2 users had to change affinity of games (and some software) because cores in X2 ran their times with different tick values causing software reading these values to crap out when being moved from core to core. AMD fixed this bug in their K10 architecture... and maybe even later revisions of K8 X2 and why I think it was a bug.
@@e8root Core2Quad has two dies with two dual core chips, each die has it's own L2 cache. Penryn is a good example, 12mb L2 combined but each dual core sees it as 6mb of L2. Half the die is also said L2 cache interestingly.
@@TheLawnWanderer C2Q sounds like Pentium D indeed, just with dual-core modules. Though if there was any communication mechanism between cores or it was just FSB like Pentium D I don't know. Intel could cook up something there to help with the performance. Either way just like with Pentium D it was not widely known you can get some performance in games when making sure game only uses one dual-core block and e.g. other programs can only run on second one. In fact since performance of C2Q and C2D in games with the same clock was nearly identical I don't think there was much to performance to squeeze. Same with Pentium D.
My first ever pc that I owned was a dell optiplex pentium D. I loved it granted it was a epic space heater and lime wire was strangling the poor thing but it did chug along. I would definitely say pentium D was like a gate way to the internet at the time for those who weren't well off money wise
man i sure dont miss my pentium D dell i had in 2016 or so with a 750ti in it lmao. even once i got a q6600 i still was bottlenecked so bad. all i wanted was to play dayz at the time but had no chance. fun fact tho i had a old celeron d emachines in 2010 and i used some program that over clocked with the pll chip or something or another and i was able to get that p4 with less cache up to 5 ghz stable while gaming atleast on the likes of cod 4 etc. framerate was still slow as all hell tho with my 8600gt attempting to play cod 4 at 768p.. once i got a pentium dual core 775 system with a 8800gts i finnally had something some what capable but that celeron d god i dont miss using that mfer lmao think it was a e5700 pentium dual core based off c2d's i think it wasnt the dual p4 chip tho thank god.
My Pentium D 925 3GHz is had idle temps in the low 50C range 50-52 mostly if I remember correctly. Sometimes the idle temps would be around 48C. Load temps would be similar to your idling temps around 58-62C.
@@jims_junk I have also experienced that the temperatures (especially the latest D0 revisions) had absolutely no issue. More precisely, I had one Pentium 4 631 sSpec SL9KG and goes to idle below 40 with EIST/C1E on etc.. If I remember corectly, it was accompanied by a "large" standard Intel stock cooler (not the low-profile ones that Intel then sold with later C2D), but it didn't have a copper base. The problem was rather that the specification and solution were wrong. Many coolers did not fit very well. Those plastics legs simply broke and litterally it was one-time instalation product. And if, IF! was installed correctly, it works well.
I’ve used the original Pentium D (the 800 series (90nm) instead of the 900 series (65nm)), and the 830 that I’ve used runs WAAAY hotter than the 900 series that I’ve also used. Even in a big ATX case with fans everywhere the CPU would routinely get up to 80-90c under load with the stock Intel cooler. Also idled at 60c too.
lol and I've had people comment on the original video saying that 'there's no way it runs that hot'. Some don't realize what great space heaters they were.
3:22 benefited from the D and also the D was a lot smoother... that will be one of the things aliens will find when they discover the reminisces of the internet and its gonna be funny :p
probably ran at a lower resolution and/or lower quality settings. I kept the settings kind of high. Not trying to get the best score, but just keeping it even across the tests while pushing the cpu hard.
This was when AMD called Intel for gluing and calling it fake dual cores. Guess karma bites AMD back, AMD glued, and they have fake high core count CPU/APU.
What are you blathering about? Glue logic is the circuitry that connects two disparate ICs, it's not a slur. Pentium D was an utter disaster. Bulldozer is a similar-scale disaster. Ryzen is leading Intel in... quite literally everything from gaming to servers for not only performance per watt, but also cores per socket and outright performance period. Equating Infinity Fabric to forcing all inter-core communication through the FSB is the silliest thing I've heard in a while.
@@tim3172 What are you even blathering about? AMD called Intel for gluing their chips back in P4D and early C2D and C2Q. Except, Aymdiots still claim that Faildozer wasn't a fail, and it's the only design from AMD in-house and not relying on Jim Keller. Speaking of Ryzen, it's merely a souped up K10 uarchitecture, modularised and modernised. This shows that AMD has no good engineers and had to rely on Jim Keller. Except, AMD went full Intel by releasing a glorfied low-end 6c for US$350-400!!! That's insane! AMD continues to sell a glorified low-end 6c to this day! That's insane as well! Plus, I remember AMD calling out Intel for being greedy by making 2S2P (2 sockets, 2 platform), guess what AMD pulled? Because it is and advanced version of FSB, since IF rely on memory speed and its latency, which was gimped in Zen++, and further gimped in Zen++++. Oh, it's also has latency. What? Not allowing the IF-MC to run 1:1 when it reached the thresold is worst than 2:1? If you must know, it's inversely proportional, basic mathematics. If the memory is running 2GHz (using 4GT/s kit), the IF is running at 2GHz at that latency. Now with the gimped Zen++, the IF is running at 1GHz.
The Pentium 4 era were dark days for Intel. It's like AMD's FX era in my memory.
Agreed!
amd fx forever!
I wasted so damn much money on Pentium 4 refused to intel until 9th gen i5, lol.
I used to have a Northwood based (early) Pentium 4 system, that worked really well.
Mostly played UT2003/2004 at that time.
You have to understand back than we had really slow hard drives, that meant long loading times as well.
Later I got a RAID0 Raptor setup, but I think with this one, I was still on a 5400 rpm HDD.
That is something these retro test videos don't show.
Also I keep on using Windows 2000 pretty long, because it had fewer background tasks runnig.
And you would not just TAB out of a game, to switch your music.
Single core CPUs had a really hard time with such actions.
[EDIT] I also tended to have more memory than most builds, that allowed me to disable HDD swap.
I don't want to downvalue this test - it is very true.
But at the time, the whole system was much slower and other bottlenecks existed at the same time.
[EDIT] If you test a retro setup with a modern SSD, you work around many issues of the time.
except that AMD FXes are having good days with their 13 years
"GTA also benefitted from the "D"" doesn't sound right lol
Neither does "the D was smoother." :P
Though in all seriousness, I'm sure it was smoother. Back in the Vista days, I upgraded from an A64 3000+ to an X2-3800+. The dual-core really did add a layer of creamy smoothness to the heavy new OS.
Damn bro I still remember when you had below 100 subs. Continue with these types of videos cause it's very very entertaining
Thank you! This one meh..i just used old footage and filmed newer, but the scores were so hard to read in the old one.
@@jims_junk Can you try to add Fallout 3 or New vegas on your gaming tests in the future using these older cpus. Or even like far cry 1
@@marshal7969 Sure! Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see what I can do. I do need to add stuff
I have a Dell Optiplex GX620 that my buddy gave me from corporate e-waste and upgraded it to a Pentium D 945 for a few bucks. It makes a great space heater.
It does perform better though. I had a 631 P4 in my HP DC7600, running Linux but no power to play RUclips videos. Upgraded to a 945, and it manages to play 360P video’s without stuttering.
I remember having a D805 @ 3.4GHz as a poor teen about 16 years ago, it was fine back in the day. But to be honest, Netburst is a no-go even for this day's XP rig, I prefer a Phenom/Phenom II or a Core 2 based setup. :D
That Dell at the end...
I almost bought the exact same Dell SFF PC because it was selling for cheap back in 2008 while I still had the original Pentium 4 1.5. If I recall, that Dell PC had a Pentium D 915 with a total of 4MB of L2 cache whereas my 1.5 just had 256KB. But then I realized how hard it was to find good, low-profile GPUs so I ultimately abandoned the idea.
Kept that rackety old machine for a few more years until I'd enough money to buy a 'proper' PC with a Core 2 Duo E8400. Now THAT was an upgrade! In hindsight, I should've gone with a used Q6600, which would've cost me the same as the E8400, but I thought frequency would trump core count.
Boy was I wrong!
Yeah you are right, but do not forget that many software and games that we used did not support multi-thread anyways. The single core thread performance of an e8400 vs q6600 is impressive to say the least and faster then the 'slower' q6600 cores. I did my homelabs for MCSA with vm's on a Dell clampshell like this one with H.T. ! ;-) I remember it ran well and had no issue at all.
Oh man you're so lucky that you decided not to. We had school districts filled with them. They were awful! At one district we had one guy an intern who's job it was to just go around and replace hard drives and ghost the machine. At least a dozen a day died. There was no ventilation.
@@jims_junkHow much of the massacre do you think was caused by the students?
Hey there!
I came across your videos cause RUclips randomly recommended it. I was surprised by the quality of your videos, I usually don’t expect such a quality with your sub count.
Also I find your comparisons quite interesting, since I started pc gaming right around that time.
Please keep it up!
Thank you! I really appreciate that.
RUclips doesn't push his stuff I think because they're such short videos, I think. That's what I like about em though, straight to the point. I try to promote the channel wherever I can without spamming.
This channel is gold. Take you down through memory lane, provides entertainment and lastly, is so honest about past hardware that as a kid I would have never accepted hard facts but as an adult can only chuckle about it.
I was still on an AMD XP 2600 back in those days before upgrading much later to a Phenom II X4. Athlon 64 was the way to go, but because of the Hyper-Threading, the Pentium-HT is a very cool cpu. Kinda new technology that had much potential ( we still use it today ). For Office work the HT was superior and the Pentium D, meh we rather avoid it. But to be fair and needs to be said, it was faster with some game titles as shown in the video. I think most of us were playing World of Warcraft in that time. Which did not require that much cpu power anyways. Thanks for the content Jim !
HT was one way to squeeze some more performance out of the mediocre core with weak IPC. Netburst's pipeline was so deep that hyperthreading made perfect sense. The penalty of a miscalculation was just far too great!
It's strange that Intel is now considering dumping HT altogether in favor of 'rentable' tile i.e a single tile can act like either a fast P-core or weak dual E-cores, depending on the workload.
Now, on paper it, it sounds better than HT but in practice, who knows?!
@@Sam-K I still despise the P and E core garbage; very few things can make proper use of it. I won't use anything Intel newer than 11th generation.
Pentium D was Intel's rush to enter the "dual Core" race against AMD's Athlon 64 x2 line. Pentium D is just 2 Pentium 4 Cores "glued" together on the same substrate. The achilles heal of the Pentium D was the fact that if Die 0 needed to communicate with Die 1 it had to send that request along the FSB to the Memory controller hub then back to the other die. Think of it rather than Dual core as more of Dual CPU, like back when Pentium 2 and Pentium 3 were around and you had 2 CPU''s on the board, same deal here.
The worst thing intel did to the Pentium D was disable HT on the individual dies.
My only experience with Pentium D was around 2018 when my bech PC (a Compaq laptop with Pentium M@1.8GHz) had some problems; then I grabed quickly a HP Compaq with Pentium D 945, maxed the RAM to 4G and throwed a PCIe ATI x1800. Anyway, I did not felt the computer slow (it ran XP) and for office, quick internet browsing it was very good. The temperatures you are right, were quite high (60C at idle) but with Win7 they lowered when selected the max economy power plan. However, it was a beast of PC and I did not felt any difference when I upgraded to a DualCore CPU (it was the max the was supported by that HP computer). I must asy that I did not played games, just used it for the bench (Office 2007, Opera to browse internet, software to control my scope and other devices in the lab) things that a 1.8GHz Pentium M did quite well.
I've never actually owned a Pentium D. I went straight from my Prescott to a C2Q. Maybe I should get one, for shits and giggles.
As long as you don't plan to get any use out of it, its actually fun to mess with something so bad. Just make sure you turn on your A/C first. Or heat an entire room in the winter. In my previous life working in IT, we had this one client that I talked about in the video. One PC the user complained was locking up. I took off the side and found that the intel heatsink had melted its plastic mounts and was just dangling from the fan wire. It was extremely clogged with dust, but still it got so hot that it melted the plastic that held it to the board.
@@jims_junk credit where due though, the thermal protection works really well! 😀
@@Aruneh LOL YEAH!
I used a Pentium D 925 back in the days but as far as I can remember it wasn't good at anything. Strangely enough temps never went over 70°C for me and I had stock heatsink too. Either it was a "better" model of the heatsink or the CPU wasn't pushed that hard. Yet it was a nice space heater.
My dad bought a Dell Dimension E521 back in late 2006 and it came with an Athlon 64x2 4400+, and it was a monster. Unofficially handles 16GB RAM and with a GT 220 1GB upgrade it kept trucking for years and years. Even ran Skyrim pretty damn well from what I remember.
I used an HP OEM cooler for a Pentium D for my Core 2 Duo build. I've since upgraded that original build to a Core 2 Quad using that same cooler and even significantly overclocked that cooler has been more than enough for them. Even overclocked the Q9550 uses less power than the Pentium D 830 that this cooler was intended to be used with so it just works. Funny.
The difference between the two makes me think of having SLI or Crossfire. Games that could take advantage of it could double performance, but if it was written for one core, good luck.
I was given a Dell Dimension E510 a while back so I decided to turn it into a retro gaming PC for playing early and mid 2000 games. I upgraded it to a Pentium D 945 (max supported), 4GB of RAM in dual channel, a superclocked 9800GT, sound blaster X-Fi, and Windows XP Pro. It runs era appropriate games perfectly fine and its a lot of fun. Doom 3, Half-life 2, Fallout 3, Jedi Knight II, NFS: Most Wanted, Portal 1, they all play great. Yes the D was slow compared to the Athlon but in the right setup it works pretty well. When Philscomputerlab benched it, it was comparable to a P4 Extreme Edition and I thought that was pretty interesting.
GTA V requires at least a quad-core processor to run smoothly.
The Northwoods though, those where pretty decent.
Yes..yes it was that bad.....man i wish I could say that. Really wanna pick one up to play with it.
I feel it is not fair, cab you test it with pentium D 925 (3GHz) because netburst architecture hugely depends on frequency. Its exactly use 2x pentium 4 3Ghz cores without hypertreading. Also D945 extreme have hypertreading enabled cores.
Core2Quad used the same config, but they didn't suffer from this shared FSB issue.
Core2 had shared caches... Besides that aspect of architecture making Pentium D terrible is just an urban myth. If that was an issue then preventing e.g. game (cause games were most susceptible to memory/cache performance) from being shuffled between cores to stick to single core (note: games ran single threaded back then) would make big difference in performance. Yet nothing like that happened - also why you always hear how bad the design was but never get any benchmarks to show how it affected users. Instead it was Athlon 64 X2 users had to change affinity of games (and some software) because cores in X2 ran their times with different tick values causing software reading these values to crap out when being moved from core to core. AMD fixed this bug in their K10 architecture... and maybe even later revisions of K8 X2 and why I think it was a bug.
@@e8root Core2Quad has two dies with two dual core chips, each die has it's own L2 cache.
Penryn is a good example, 12mb L2 combined but each dual core sees it as 6mb of L2.
Half the die is also said L2 cache interestingly.
@@TheLawnWanderer C2Q sounds like Pentium D indeed, just with dual-core modules. Though if there was any communication mechanism between cores or it was just FSB like Pentium D I don't know. Intel could cook up something there to help with the performance. Either way just like with Pentium D it was not widely known you can get some performance in games when making sure game only uses one dual-core block and e.g. other programs can only run on second one. In fact since performance of C2Q and C2D in games with the same clock was nearly identical I don't think there was much to performance to squeeze. Same with Pentium D.
My first ever pc that I owned was a dell optiplex pentium D. I loved it granted it was a epic space heater and lime wire was strangling the poor thing but it did chug along. I would definitely say pentium D was like a gate way to the internet at the time for those who weren't well off money wise
man i sure dont miss my pentium D dell i had in 2016 or so with a 750ti in it lmao. even once i got a q6600 i still was bottlenecked so bad. all i wanted was to play dayz at the time but had no chance. fun fact tho i had a old celeron d emachines in 2010 and i used some program that over clocked with the pll chip or something or another and i was able to get that p4 with less cache up to 5 ghz stable while gaming atleast on the likes of cod 4 etc. framerate was still slow as all hell tho with my 8600gt attempting to play cod 4 at 768p.. once i got a pentium dual core 775 system with a 8800gts i finnally had something some what capable but that celeron d god i dont miss using that mfer lmao think it was a e5700 pentium dual core based off c2d's i think it wasnt the dual p4 chip tho thank god.
My Pentium D 925 3GHz is had idle temps in the low 50C range 50-52 mostly if I remember correctly. Sometimes the idle temps would be around 48C. Load temps would be similar to your idling temps around 58-62C.
stock heatsink or larger non intel heatsink?
@@jims_junk I have also experienced that the temperatures (especially the latest D0 revisions) had absolutely no issue. More precisely, I had one Pentium 4 631 sSpec SL9KG and goes to idle below 40 with EIST/C1E on etc.. If I remember corectly, it was accompanied by a "large" standard Intel stock cooler (not the low-profile ones that Intel then sold with later C2D), but it didn't have a copper base. The problem was rather that the specification and solution were wrong. Many coolers did not fit very well. Those plastics legs simply broke and litterally it was one-time instalation product. And if, IF! was installed correctly, it works well.
I’ve used the original Pentium D (the 800 series (90nm) instead of the 900 series (65nm)), and the 830 that I’ve used runs WAAAY hotter than the 900 series that I’ve also used. Even in a big ATX case with fans everywhere the CPU would routinely get up to 80-90c under load with the stock Intel cooler. Also idled at 60c too.
lol and I've had people comment on the original video saying that 'there's no way it runs that hot'. Some don't realize what great space heaters they were.
3:22 benefited from the D and also the D was a lot smoother... that will be one of the things aliens will find when they discover the reminisces of the internet and its gonna be funny :p
Pentium D.. Disappointment
This shows how 2 processors is only 2x power in theory. But in practice the whole system matters to deliver speed.
Exactly
impressive d Pentium d has
I had a 4 HT and a 500mb gpu and gta 4 worked fine
probably ran at a lower resolution and/or lower quality settings. I kept the settings kind of high. Not trying to get the best score, but just keeping it even across the tests while pushing the cpu hard.
Penrium D, pentium D-umb
So intel used chiplets (kinda) long before amd
No. Chiplets are substrate interconnect tech, while pentium D was just 2 dies separated
I have such a twisted mind
This was when AMD called Intel for gluing and calling it fake dual cores.
Guess karma bites AMD back, AMD glued, and they have fake high core count CPU/APU.
Had*? Or do you imply that modern ryzen are fake?
@@Перчатки I mean AMD called P4D and C2 fake dual and quads, so Ryzen/TR are fakes.
What are you blathering about? Glue logic is the circuitry that connects two disparate ICs, it's not a slur.
Pentium D was an utter disaster. Bulldozer is a similar-scale disaster.
Ryzen is leading Intel in... quite literally everything from gaming to servers for not only performance per watt, but also cores per socket and outright performance period.
Equating Infinity Fabric to forcing all inter-core communication through the FSB is the silliest thing I've heard in a while.
@@tim3172 What are you even blathering about?
AMD called Intel for gluing their chips back in P4D and early C2D and C2Q.
Except, Aymdiots still claim that Faildozer wasn't a fail, and it's the only design from AMD in-house and not relying on Jim Keller.
Speaking of Ryzen, it's merely a souped up K10 uarchitecture, modularised and modernised. This shows that AMD has no good engineers and had to rely on Jim Keller.
Except, AMD went full Intel by releasing a glorfied low-end 6c for US$350-400!!! That's insane! AMD continues to sell a glorified low-end 6c to this day! That's insane as well!
Plus, I remember AMD calling out Intel for being greedy by making 2S2P (2 sockets, 2 platform), guess what AMD pulled?
Because it is and advanced version of FSB, since IF rely on memory speed and its latency, which was gimped in Zen++, and further gimped in Zen++++. Oh, it's also has latency.
What? Not allowing the IF-MC to run 1:1 when it reached the thresold is worst than 2:1? If you must know, it's inversely proportional, basic mathematics.
If the memory is running 2GHz (using 4GT/s kit), the IF is running at 2GHz at that latency. Now with the gimped Zen++, the IF is running at 1GHz.