My Pentium D 830 was the only CPU that died on me without overclocking, I was playing Bioshock and the the game just crashed, I then noticed a burning smell and the PC just wouldn't start up again. After opening it up, I found my CPU had burn marks on them, luckily the MB was fine, so I got a Core2Duo, and was impressed how cool it was.
The 800 series was definitely a good bit worse than the later 900 line of Pentium D’s. They were made on a bugger node and chewed enough power to have a TDP of 130W! Later D’s we’re 90W
@@burntoutelectronicsOnly later, I find out my Zalman Cooler (the old circular ones with the fan blowing through isn't of down into the MB) was rated 95 TDP while the CPU was 130.
I overclocked a 945 to 5GHz. It was drawing 200W or so. But the Rampage Formula X48 held up. 1.7v as I did not care about the CPU at all, I just wanted my CPUZ Validation file :) The 8xx series was easier to kill as it was a hot mess and it barely held itself together. But in general, besides that 8xx series, socket 775 CPUs are really hard to kill
1st versions A0 B0 was very hot...I had D805 90nm B0...That was slow but hot :D ...but later 65nm C1 and finally the D0 revision D935 D945...yeah that was good, modarated warm. Good speed. Very sad...the D970 3.8GHz not appear on market and Intel not create extreme edition D0 revision too... that would be interesting CPU But yeah core2 E6600 easy beat it
The lead dev on the 'id' engines, John Carmack is a wizard of computer science! Look him up, he created many of the 3d technology's used today and worked on those engines first hand. The original Quake and Doom, were ground breaking and I believe most of the engine work was all him. Doom 1 can run on pretty much anything with a screen, even a pregnancy test IIRC.
@@Cypher402 used to be back in the days he left id a long time ago and had nothing to do with doom 2016 but left his mark in his id tech engine for other devs to expand on!!
It also runs 60fps locked on PS4 with close to max graphics. I was pleasantly surprised to see it run as well as it does considering that most recent games don't bother with major optimization.
and the core2 quad was the same thing a "dual dual core"... ..... google core2quad delided it was not tel the I7 because of the High speed DMI much better
Nothing wrong with the late Core 2, sure E8400 are only good for protecting LGA sockets, but I own Q9300,Q9400, Q9650 and to this day run a QX9770. My QX9770 has a gentle 800MHz OC (400x10, RAM at 1600C8) in a P5E64 WS Evolution that just so happens to be RTX equipped. Ark survival evolved, 1080P Ultra :50-60FPS, WOT 1080P ultra will see up to ~200FPS on standard client (haven't updated). Due to my lack of data I don't have the ability to download titles I won't play just to use them as a benchmark but it's holding in well.
@@spicywolf6718 - I personally don't believe you, just because of Ark game. It's such a taxing PC game, that virtually there's no evidence of someone in YT running it smoothly on ultra, when recorded off-screen with that hardware config, be it C2Q or C2E. It's one of those so-called "PC melters" no high-end older PCs can run without stutters, even with overkill RAM and storage solutions, like SSDs.
I remember arguing with a mate because I told him his Pentium D is not the same as my Core 2 Duo. He said "but mine has also two cores" - "Yeah but they're both bad!"
@@camthesaxman3387 The Core 2 Duo, despite its slower clock speed, mainly because it is better designed than the Pentium D. The Pentium D is just two NetBurst processors slapped together into a single chip while the Core 2 Duo is a proper dual-core chip designed from the ground up.
There's even more terribleness to it than "two of the most inefficient CPUs slapped together". It's two of the most inefficient CPUs slapped together _and_ with mind numbingly slow communication between them. Yeah, AMD 100% deservingly wiped the floor with them. It really wasn't hard to beat P4 in every category.
On one dead Pentium D desktop I examined, one the inductors around the CPU socket fell off as I removed the heatsink . This meant that it got hot enough to weaken the solder joint. :O
I have a gx620 mt I just upgraded with a Pentium D 945 however I also bought the oem dell copper heatsink designed for it. Unfortunately there is no temp sensor you can read so I used a temp gun to read it and it runs nice and cool. Never over 50 c on the heatsink. This also goes with saying the pc is also upgraded with a 600w psu and an Nvidia 9800gt. Wonderful for mid 00's games.
I suggest you to also take a look at Intel's Celeron D(isaster). The Celeron D was essentially a crippled Pentium 4 with 75% less L2 cache, disabled hyperthreading and a slower FSB. The "D" in it's name might let you think, it's a dual core CPU, but actually, it's in fact just a single core processor. As a result, it suffered from severe performance issues. I consider the Celeron D to be much worse than the already awful Pentium D and Pentium 4, mainly because how poor it performed, compared to it's (Netburst) Counterparts and other CPUs at the time. But this should be obvious, since it was only a low-end and low-priced product. But still, that doesn't change the fact, how terrible the Celeron D was. Even for a low budget product at it's time, this processor was just bad. In today's standards, these CPUs struggels in almost every modern applications. This makes the Celeron D barely usable in 2020, unless for very basic office tasks. As a matter of fact, this CPU has aged so incredibly bad, that even a potato is worth more money, than this piece of electronic waste. In my opinion, Netburst was just pathetic and possibly one of the worst CPU architectures in computer science history. By the way, this was a awesome, informative and entertaining video, I really enjoyed it. Keep up with the great work. One can see that you put a lot of effort into your videos. I hope my comment wasn't a disaster though.
Takeshi7 I agree with you, that is definitely true. I have a Pentium 4 630 that overclocks quite good. It appears, that celeron d and lower clocked Pentium 4 processors, aren't that bad overclockers in generall. But even if they do overclock well, I just don't prefer Netburst as much as other microarchitectures, like core or nehalem for example.
@@wiliusundefined8666 Definitely, I only had a Celeron D because I needed a cheap CPU to use in my new gaming PC while I was waiting ~6 months for Core 2 Quads to be released.
This is kind of where Intel is at again with their upcoming Rocket Lake CPU's. Based on the rumors so far, it doesn't really bring anything and is mostly just a rebranded Coffee Lake CPU but with more cores and a new socket, not to mention the extremely high TDP (around 200W if I remember correctly) for the i9 K series.
@@UnrealOG137 I'm from the future,anandtech test the 11700k.The fps difference are quite big but it still lose to 5800x heavily despite consume power at almost 300w (in testpower benchmark) Rocket lake is 2nd netburst
I had one of the slightly lower model Pentium D in a Dell. Came with a MASSIVE heatsink. Lasted over a decade of daily use, for a couple of years I literally never turned the system off. Still worked when I sold it. With the right cooling, these things were just fine, and it did loads better than my P4 during multitasking.
Messed about with a core 2 duo e8400 a while ago, overclocked too 4 ghz with 1066 mhz ddr2 ram in a p5q premium motherboard, id say its day & night difference between the pentium d & the core 2 duo probably even without the overclock & overclocking the pentium d.
@@Mini-z1994 I have a Pentium EE 965 on a P35 board. And I can get some decent clocks out of it, and its hyper threading really does make it feel a lot better than the other P4D cpu's I have. But even at close to 5 ghz it still gets outpaced by an e8400 at stock.
We had a TON of these at work (training classrooms). It's sad when a 2GHz Core2Duo (or even a 1.8 Pentium Dual Core) ran circles around a 3.4GHz Pentium D. They ran Word and Excel decently though, so they stuck around for basic classes many years past when they should have been junked. Thankfully many failed caps on the motherboards reduced the fleet after a few years.
I bought my wife one of these and OMG hot is an understatement! The cooler was a blower style and it sounded like a f18 at full throttle 100% of the time. I should know I use to work on them. Eventually a capacitor popped and in the trash heap it went.
Capacitors are easy to replace. The capacitor issue was quite common for the era due to corporate espionage among the capacitor manufacturers. I know, because I've replaced the caps on literal dozens of boards in the 2000's.
Man I would've killed for one of these back in the day in my Inspiron 8100. I think it had the Celeron D option, bare bones basic stuff. I had to get into the bios to up the VRAM allocation from 64MB to 128MB, but there was a system cap at 92MB... good God how frustrating.
Inspiron 8100, a typical Quanta-made heavyweight laptop with two bays up front? That one is Pentium 3 and Celeron, it has no Pentium 4, Pentium D or Celeron D option. The processor can be replaced if you fully disassemble the computer, it's held in a screw actuated PGA ZIF socket, it's not soldered in, but of course still only of that same generation supported by 815EP chipset. But i wager a guess, you misspoke and actually mean an entirely different computer.
@@SianaGearz yep, fuzzy memories at this point. I bought it in late 2005 or early 2006 to go to uni with. It was a desktop. May have been a Dimension? It's still in a spare room or garage somewhere, I should dig it out and see what it's up to.
@@boingkster Mhm a Dimension 8100. Closer, but still not it. A really arcane early Pentium 4 box, from the era when Pentium 4 was flat out significantly slower, in absolute terms, than a Pentium 3 or Celeron, before they doubled the clock rate on it and it started making a little bit of sense. The RAM on those was exotic RDRAM with terminator cards that were supposed to prevent RAM bus oscillation, which is not something seen before or after. I'm going to say we're looking at a Dimension 5100, 3100, or 9100.
@@thealien_ali3382 It was second rate compared to Athlon XPs and Athlon 64s of the day, and it certainly isn't "holding its own" well in anything that isn't a 2D indie title.
FYI, the Pentium-D's were sold for much less than the Athlon X2's. The notable one was the Pentium-D 805 ($132). The cheapest Athlon X2 was $350. It was a decent overclocker, and if you did a lot of media encoding, it was a very compelling alternative to single core Athlon 64's.
Had my 805 @ 3.7Ghz no problem. crazy cheap for the performance. intel really screwed up with how much they cannibalized their product line during that time.
Man the Conroe architecture was so damn optimised in terms of power consumption and computational prowess! So much so that the lower end Conroe chips were on par with the highest end Pentium D chips clocked much higher and having 4 times or 2 times as much L2 cache!
@@JeskidoYT Believe he may be referring to the FX series, although they weren't glued together. More that the core count wasn't exactly accurate. For example, the 8xxx Bulldozer chips were foul dual core modules but still not as horrible as the Pentium D. Good article explaining it: www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/8/28/20837336/amd-12-million-false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit-bulldozer-chips
Well - and Intel was right. It is funny how the AMD-Fanboys can not face reality - either you say gluing chips together is bad - or it isn't. Intel did it with the PentiumD and the consumers noticed (and were not that retarder to accept it) that the performance suffered.
Intel did basically the same thing a bit later with the Core 2 Quad : 2 Core 2 Duos piled one on the other. Some old ideas were still judged as fine, I guess...
What processor did I have around that time. Oh right the AMD 3800+, one of the first if not first CONSUMER dual core processors. Sure it was only 2x 2Ghz... eh... but it was smooth like butter! Happy I jumped ship at that time to better technology. And... of course Intel had to make a new better product.
if thats 200x10 multi Then you could likely run 250x10 for 2.5Ghz, run the ram on 266 divider and it would run at 333mhz its likely stock speed. nice and easy 25% oc
I quite loved my PD build. only retired it in 2013. Never saw any of these gaming problems with mine, never had heat issues. Loved it and never in my time heard terrible things until now. Still love it.
I was the product manager in a company that did PSUs and CPU Coolers back then, but it did improve those two techs (as well as M/B tech I imagine) so at least we can say some good came out of it.
I've had a Pentium D 820 and my goodness it is literally a space heater 🤣runs really hot especially during summer haha The stock heatsink for these pentium D is really chonky, uses copper and quite heavy. But still it is not enough to cool it down lol And i'm crazy enough to actually finish GTA IV twice! with this system (uses 9500GT and 3GB of DDR2 RAM)
Ha Ha! I also played GTA IV on a Pentium D, but mine was 945 I think, with an Nvidia GT210 and 4 GB of RAM. It was pretty playable actually. Maybe it wasn't running at 30 fps, but it ran at a stable frame rate.
You know the architecture is very bad when the company switches to the previous design from the 90s and actually does something tremendously better with it
Yeah i switched from petium d to athlon fx and i was blown away with how much performance you can get with it, while almost half the clock and running pretty cool. also its funny that a 100w processor was considered power hungry. every modern top tier chip is around a 100w, and might I remind you the fx 9590?
Well AMD Phenom stock cooler back in the day sounded like loud coffee been grinder, bought Cool master universal AMD/Intel cooler and i actually still have same cooler in my brothers pc
I had one of these in my first personal gaming rig in 2005ish. I was too young to really notice temps nor did I really care about benchmarks. It could run Battlefield 2 well-ish, so I was happy lol Then I got an E8400 Wolfdale and was blown away by that.
The Pentium D wasn't that bad at everything. That chip was a great replacement for the P4 Prescott for SETI crunching (the SETI project loved CPU's with large caches). I had one 930 cpu that ran 4ghz at the default voltage. I don't have the rest of the system anymore, but I kept that 930D and put it on a shelf. Some things you just can't part with (I kept my Prestonia Xeon's also (two systems) since those ran an almost 100% overclocks). lol If you want to talk about a bad chip, those Prescott's didn't overclock for beans and ran super hot even with a decent heatpipe and a 92mm tornado attached to it (yeah, my computer room sounded like half a dozen vacuum's were running 24/7). However, you were right about the Core 2 Duo being a much better chip. They would do the same work as the Pentium D at 60% of the clock speed. I didn't get to clock the C2Ds very far because of motherboard issues, but those were quickly replaced with Core 2 Quads. C2Qs were just Duo's squished together, but they worked and clocked pretty nicely. I had 4-5 q6600's and they all ran 3.6ghz with room to spare, but they did get toasty at those higher clocks (I modified the motherboards to cope with the extra power draw). The C2Q's also did very well with SETI. ...and then the i7 came out. My first one was a 920 c0/1 step cpu. It ran 3.6ghz and blew the C2Q's out of the water for SETI. However, shortly after that SETI moved to GPU's, so CPU's became a moot point. All hail the GTX 2xx series and 400 series for SETI. lol Anyway, thanks for the vid. It's nice to remember the old days once in a while.
this was in an old XP machine i had a while back. I put an SSD in it and it was surprisingly usable, it even browsed the web fine. Its all about the bloat of the OS you load on it.
It wasn't that bad. I have the d 805 it had significant multitasking advantage over my p4 back then. Sure it ran hot but it was no disaster. It still works as a second pc
I had a few Pentium D's myself. Certainly better performance than a Pentium 4, but the difference between a Pentium D and a Core 2 Duo is like night and day.
I recently built a WinXP machine with the ASUS P5ND2-SLI, and a 3.4ghz P4 on the LGA 775 socket. The P4 is working like a charm, but since the motherboard doesn't support the Core2Duo line of CPUs, I was considering trying out a Pentium D since that was on the list of supported CPUs. This video has convinced me to not do that haha.
Ah, the PrescHott days. If you could chill one it was incredible at certain numeric functions such as video compression (this was before the days of GPU rendering), but for everything else, it was lack lustre. If I had told my energy supplier at the time that I had one of these, my fixed rate bill would have increased dramatically I bet lol. The D805 was the prevalent variation that was best for overclocking. The low TDP (relative) allowed for a little bit of scope, but the scale-ability of the clock speed was pretty much moot. It just took more effort than it was worth. But the number crunching game, they worked and was actually worth it for that reason - in a very narrow aspect of computation.
Oh yeah, one of the things where it really had no competition: rendering. But for everything else AMD was cheaper, faster and more power efficient. But then the Core 2 changed everything.
These Pentium Ds might be hot garbage, but they're nostalgic for me. My dad got a PenD computer in 2012 when I was 10, and I had so much fun playing flash games and Diablo 2 on it. I upgraded it to 2GB of RAM (up from 1) around 2018, I used it as my main PC at his house until about 2019 when I gave it away.
I remember sitting through Pentium D era on a single core Northwood, that OCd very well. While my friend struggled to keep his Prescott CPU running on stock clocks. D is two Prescott cores sandwiched on one PCB if I’m not mistaking. P.S. Have a 955 D lying around somewhere in the office at work
We had P4's at my old work until Sandy Bridge. I threw a Pentium D 940 into the motherboard and it ran really well. Honestly I think Minecraft ran slightly faster on the Pentium D than on an i5 2400, but that was probably in my head.
I remember I had a HP laptop with one of these in them. It could only run for about a half hour before it demanded to be shut off from the heat. That thing burned my knees so many times.
A stupid CPU running really fast, that's exactly what the Pentium 4/D was. Even their mobile team put them to shame with the Pentium M (read: intelligent running slow). It was the time I went back to AMD, Athlon 64/X2 was far superior.
Eduardo Avila So that’s why the early Atoms were terrible. My first computer was an Acer D257 with an n450. Abysmal performance but it was better than nothing.
@@eduardoavila646 the Atom was completely different to the Pentium M (Celeron M performed similarly), it was essentially a Pentium III with no out of order execution and low L2 cache which crippled performance monumentally but allowed higher clock speeds for a very low TDP with low voltages. A 1.2GHz Pentium M LV ran Silent Hill 2 (2001) at 30fps locked. A 1.5GHz dual core Atom (N550) struggled to get 20.
@@joeyh5761 I didnt actually itended to say they are the same architeture, but rather the same market niche. You pointed out exactly whatvi wanted to. Intel had a decent mobile low power lineup, with the pentium M. And somehow they pooped these first atoms right when the core i lineup came. What i'm saying is that the atoms were sort of a replacement for the pentium M's wich usually came in smaller size laptops such as the d610, d520, etc. Later on they made some good, but soldered low power core2duos to that niche. Kinda outside that niche, but yet kinda simillar there were the core2duo P line, like the p8700, with a mere 25w did more than several 35w core2duos. The fact is that when the core i lineup came, you would be either with a pentium/core i3/i5/i7 at 35w or a shitty atom at 5-15w. It was so bad seeing a awready kinda old entry level laptop of a friend running games way better than my new atomn n455 for example. But even so, the atom was also kinda based off the pentium 3 architeture like the pentium M was.
@@eduardoavila646 I reckon at the time the ipad was being touted as the PC replacement which scared intel which caused them to rush out an ultra low powered line of cpus. The Core 2 Solo/duo ULV series would have been much better choices for oems but were much more expensive. And consumers clearly wanted ultra cheap laptops/tablets at the time
The 805d was a decent chip for the money since it overclocked to nearly 4ghz. Was still a good upgrade from my 3200+ athlon xp and lasted until my overclocked e2160
Yeah bur just a little bit later didnt worth a penny. This does around 522 score in cpu passmark at 95w. Even if we ignore the fact that due to ipc the performance boost wouldn't be the same at different frequencies, it would only do around 753 score, that with a way higher tdp most likelly 120w. While that a budget cpu that was compatible with most pentium D boards, a e2220 @2.4ghz has only 65w and does 1330, essentially awmost 3 times the performance at stock compared to the 805d, and a little bit more than half the tdp. It would be 2x more performance compared to the 4ghz 805d, and half the tdp. Not to mention many boards are compatible with e4xxx and e6xxx core2duos too! They are even better! So a better deal would have gotten a celeron D or p4, and just when the core2duos appeared, upgraded the processor, and maaybe overclocked the much cooler processor with a board prepares to deal with way more power hungry pentium D's, and with a way better heatsink also made to the hot processors. It would be literally overclocking the hell out of the c2d with the biggest limitatiom being your silicon luck.
@@eduardoavila646 when i got the 805 it was the cheapest dual core by miles i think the next thing up was probably double the price. at £85 with an overclock it was decent. upgrade from my athlon xp but any of the other models were just terrible for the money especially compared to the core 2.
I had an 805 paired with a zerotherm btf90 myself. I used it up until 2009 just fine OCD. It was quite hot but I ran tons of games really well until I upgraded to a phenom II.
@@eduardoavila646 the 805 was just a stop gap still i could afford something from the core 2 line up, my motherboard supported core 2 so it was just a matter of time till the chips got cheap enough. when i got my 805d the cheapest core 2 duo you could buy was the e6300 at over 200 compared to the 85 i paid for the 805, i eventually upgraded when the core 2 based pentium dual cores came out under 100. i only got my chip to 3.8ghz on my ASROCK 775Twins-hdtv, im actually surprised i didn't kill the VRM on the board, it didn't have any voltage adjustment so the chip had to be pad modded to up the voltage. it supported ddr1 and ddr2 and had ATI graphics onboard. so when i was upgrading from my athlon xp i could reuse my 512mb stick ddr1 and use the xpress 200 graphics until I could afford my pcie X800XT and 2gb ddr2. another strange fact was that it used the ULI southbridge who is owned by nvidia. so it had a Intel CPU, ATI Nothbridge and Nvidia southbridge. www.asrock.com/mb/ATI/775Twins-HDTV/
I had one in a dumpster parts linux build using a point-of-sale pc as the foundation(2011). I just retired it in 2020.. the power supply was a trooper. My secret was adding 2 more fans to circulate the case, mounting extra heat sinks inside, resting the case on heatsinks(adding another to the hot spot) and covering the top of the case in heat sinks. It was absurdly pointless but it muscled on to crank out all kinds of work on gimp while simultaneously heating the old apartment in winter.
Meanwhile I'm not. My rig has that thing, and I have enabled the aero theme in Windows 7 ultimate. Not blazing fast, but it run whatever I was asking to run.
watching this on an Pentium E2160 - core microarchitecture, 65W TDP - and have the D version, too, 2 of each. The Ds run XP and the 2160s run 7, 2Gb RAM ea, nice media servers and web surfers, run firefox multitab, h265 no sweat. The D is a little off the pace, but with lightweight XP it moves nicely. The D has no thermal sensor but the 2160 does: you can run either 100% CPU for days, never hotter than 60°C 140°F, idles at 32°C 90°F. Will render video with 20 browser tabs open, plus photoshop, plus whatever. Sure I got i7s and workstations, but these things are totally bulletproof, 64-bit, run new software fine. I dropped them to 32-bit and they work around the clock. If you ask me, between the D and 2160 (2006-2008), their price to performance ratio is unmatched.
You are wrong. The D 805 went to 4ghz on Air easy for under $100 and it's sad when you see these videos that did no research and don't actually remember the hardware
@@rene.s.s Im sorry dude, but the ipc of these processors is a joke, even if it did 8ghz it would still not be remarkable in therms of performance. Just see in cpu passmark, even when these processors were new they were garbage. Really, for just a little bit more perfornce 130w??? It would be a heck lot better even to have an older server board with 2 sockets of singlecore semprons or opterons... And it was cheaper in the time, to get them on the used market. I literally sold my pentium D and got one of these, i didnt need all that cooling, and airplane sound systems to be able to have decent performance. Heck even a old atlhon 64 or a x2 would be a heck lot better. If i had to go with a p4, i would rather get a server/workstation board and overclock 2 pentium 3 @1133mhz...
@@eduardoavila646 I'm not sure when you used the processor but 13 years ago for under $100 the chip was great for gaming with a good dedicated GPU and it also worked well for my encoding needs. I'm sure you can cite poor synthetics or poor architecture but the fact is back then the processor worked well for a lot of people, especially on a budget, especially for young enthusiasts and lower socioeconomic communities. I had a dual 1ghz p3 system before this and and it did not work as well for my needs, gaming and video editing. So once again, the chip may have been a hack job, no questions asked, but certain models performed great for the time and were loved by many people
I had one of these in college. It did "fine" and helped keep my heating bills low, but as soon as I learned my mainboard supported certain early Pentium Dual Core chips I jumped ship.
For maximum 'nostalgia', combine a Pentium D with Windows ME. You can have a D(isaster) of a CPU with a Operating system named after a debilitating disease :-)
I tried to install a Pentium D (from an Optiplex 775 USFF, that I upgraded to a Q6600) in place of an early stock P4 LGA775 on a Dell Dimension 8400 (because the motherboard has literally almost no CPU upgrade options). Not only the motherboard will not boot, but it made the exhaust fans spin like a jet engine, ready for the Dimension to take off ground :p.
The way Intel handled and put out the Pentium D was a sign of things to come of all the refreshes they'd make in the next decade before getting caught with their pants down by Ryzen.
Huh...good to know that I got one of the most volatile desktop CPUs out there. Just got a Compaq Presario PC a few days ago from a friend loaded with my first Pentium CPU (the Pentium D 925), so I've been hunting for information on it everywhere (especially considering my plan to put either Void, Arch, or 4MLinux on the thing). Thanks by the way, lovely video! ❤️
I'm still rockin' one of these, hooked up and ready to roar in a gaming rig I built back in '06'. I specifically built it to play Unreal Tournament 3 at the time. It runs decent with GTX 7900 (wish I had gotten an GTX 8800), but yes, it is literally a space heater of a PC. I had to take all the fans in the case, including modifying the power supply fan to all pull air into the case and out the front into the room, instead of roasting my wall or setting my drapes on fire. Even at idle it was probably putting out 550 to 850 watts of thermal power. It could play Minecraft, at least when the version numbers were in the 6's, and some of the other games I was playing up until about 8 years ago (Unreal Tournament 2004) when I just stopped using it when I got my MSI laptop that could run circles around that rig. Though sadly, I'm a miser when comes to spending money on my computer stuff, seeing as my "newest" computer is my cell phone, and for general "computers" is my cheap chinese Chewi Hi8 duel boot (android 4, Windows 10) Intel Atom tablet that's in pieces waiting for me to finish replacing the USB port to get it operational again. That tablet thing is similarly specced to my old Pentium D rig, and it runs Windows 10 pretty well, where the D would likely choke on it's own data stream. It's still running Windows 2000 and XP 64 bit Edition in multi boot configuration. So considering the leaps and direction in tech these days, I think a CPU that would last me the next 10 to 15 years may well be an AMD Threadripper with 64+ cores and that new V (vertical) cache in the half gigabyte range. As that may well be worth spending on, and would be hard pressed to become obsolete too fast as things are going further into multi-core every year. Though it may be a ways off before we see MEGA MULTICORE CPUs with 10's of thousands of CPU cores in one package, but we may get there one day.
I remember back then when building my first PC i had the choice between the Pentium D and the AMD Athlon 64 X2. I went with the Athlon as it was the superior platform at the time, however months later the Intel Core 2 came out and blew both chips away and would have been a easy swap into my build had I gone for Intel.
I have a Pentium D HP system from 2006 that is running only 3GB DDR2 RAM and an upgraded SSD; It came pre-loaded with XP, ran Server 2003/2008 and Linux for a while for file sharing duties, but is now running the latest Windows 10. I was actually encoding video with it the other day directly from a DVD to MP4, and it worked well, pretty fast, considering. If I could get the RAM all the way to 8GB it would keep going for another 5-10 years!
Pentium D, check. And yes... It's a 945. Paired with a GTX 470. And, no upgrading to 4 GB RAM does not help. Best browser is Opera. The other are way too slow. Strange thing, the combo runs Trackmania with 200++ FPS. =)
We were using a pentium d 915 until 2 days ago when the motherboard finally died and we decided to replace it at the same time. With optifine it actually ran minecraft with decent fps and we even managed to run a 100+ mod modpack once so maybe these things have a bit more life left in than you seem to believe.
I'm a bit late to the Pentium Party here, nice video! I actually ran a Pentium D820 for a while as my main system which at that point was an upgrade from a 3GHz Prescott P4. For what I did back then (playing a Counter Strike knockoff called Crossfire in combination with a HD5450) it was actually decent. Nevertheless it was not until I later upgraded to a Core 2 Quad when I realised just how slow the 820 really was...
I had the Pentium D back in the day, my dad gave it too me after college so I didn't have to keep using his PC for MMO Raids when he needed it. First PC I upgraded with a 8800gt from the Nvidia 6800 something, remember getting playable frames in Crysis at 720p. After I built my first PC a core2quad with a GTX 295 and gave the Pentium D system to my brother and that was its end when his son ate food over the top of it shorting out the graphics card, and then to finish it off my brother spilled brandy on the motherboard while it was on. {FYI it did have a decent cooler for the time in it being a custom build)
My Pentium D 830 was the only CPU that died on me without overclocking, I was playing Bioshock and the the game just crashed, I then noticed a burning smell and the PC just wouldn't start up again. After opening it up, I found my CPU had burn marks on them, luckily the MB was fine, so I got a Core2Duo, and was impressed how cool it was.
The 800 series was definitely a good bit worse than the later 900 line of Pentium D’s. They were made on a bugger node and chewed enough power to have a TDP of 130W! Later D’s we’re 90W
@@burntoutelectronicsOnly later, I find out my Zalman Cooler (the old circular ones with the fan blowing through isn't of down into the MB) was rated 95 TDP while the CPU was 130.
Back before they changed the socket every other week
I overclocked a 945 to 5GHz. It was drawing 200W or so. But the Rampage Formula X48 held up. 1.7v as I did not care about the CPU at all, I just wanted my CPUZ Validation file :)
The 8xx series was easier to kill as it was a hot mess and it barely held itself together. But in general, besides that 8xx series, socket 775 CPUs are really hard to kill
1st versions A0 B0 was very hot...I had D805 90nm B0...That was slow but hot :D ...but later 65nm C1 and finally the D0 revision D935 D945...yeah that was good, modarated warm. Good speed. Very sad...the D970 3.8GHz not appear on market and Intel not create extreme edition D0 revision too... that would be interesting CPU But yeah core2 E6600 easy beat it
Whoever did the optimisation for doom 2016 is a god damn wizard... the fact that doom ran better than csgo and halo reach is amazing
The lead dev on the 'id' engines, John Carmack is a wizard of computer science! Look him up, he created many of the 3d technology's used today and worked on those engines first hand. The original Quake and Doom, were ground breaking and I believe most of the engine work was all him. Doom 1 can run on pretty much anything with a screen, even a pregnancy test IIRC.
@@Cypher402 John "Only corporeal by choice" carmack
Elder wizard supreme high druid CS
@@Cypher402 used to be back in the days he left id a long time ago and had nothing to do with doom 2016 but left his mark in his id tech engine for other devs to expand on!!
It also runs 60fps locked on PS4 with close to max graphics. I was pleasantly surprised to see it run as well as it does considering that most recent games don't bother with major optimization.
Aah yes, the Pentium Doesn't. There's a reason why it's called that...
*playing TheMoreYouKnow*
Pentium deez nuts
and the core2 quad was the same thing a "dual dual core"... ..... google core2quad delided
it was not tel the I7 because of the High speed DMI much better
Nothing wrong with the late Core 2, sure E8400 are only good for protecting LGA sockets, but I own Q9300,Q9400, Q9650 and to this day run a QX9770.
My QX9770 has a gentle 800MHz OC (400x10, RAM at 1600C8) in a P5E64 WS Evolution that just so happens to be RTX equipped.
Ark survival evolved, 1080P Ultra :50-60FPS, WOT 1080P ultra will see up to ~200FPS on standard client (haven't updated). Due to my lack of data I don't have the ability to download titles I won't play just to use them as a benchmark but it's holding in well.
@@spicywolf6718 - I personally don't believe you, just because of Ark game. It's such a taxing PC game, that virtually there's no evidence of someone in YT running it smoothly on ultra, when recorded off-screen with that hardware config, be it C2Q or C2E. It's one of those so-called "PC melters" no high-end older PCs can run without stutters, even with overkill RAM and storage solutions, like SSDs.
This had inspired me to make my own product.... Ladies and gentlemen I am proud to present the front halves of two aging Ford Mondeos welded together.
So does it take a second driver to make it all-wheel drive and all-wheel steering or have you linked the mechanical components?
@@armorgeddon Yes.
@Tone. Ah you want the extreme edition... Well you'll have to pay double for about 5% more performance from the Sli engines
2 Mondeo engines welded together is what made an Aston Martin V12.
I remember arguing with a mate because I told him his Pentium D is not the same as my Core 2 Duo. He said "but mine has also two cores" - "Yeah but they're both bad!"
@@camthesaxman3387 The Core 2 Duo, despite its slower clock speed, mainly because it is better designed than the Pentium D. The Pentium D is just two NetBurst processors slapped together into a single chip while the Core 2 Duo is a proper dual-core chip designed from the ground up.
Bad?
@@sakissakissa9050 Let's say inefficient
There's even more terribleness to it than "two of the most inefficient CPUs slapped together". It's two of the most inefficient CPUs slapped together _and_ with mind numbingly slow communication between them.
Yeah, AMD 100% deservingly wiped the floor with them. It really wasn't hard to beat P4 in every category.
I threw a Pentium D in an SFF gx620 and sold it as a home media device.
Dude later contacted me about a dead power supply.
Maybe the D was dead... just saying, or it fried everything :-D
On one dead Pentium D desktop I examined, one the inductors around the CPU socket fell off as I removed the heatsink . This meant that it got hot enough to weaken the solder joint. :O
Wow I have a gx620 Sff with Pentium Dork (and I played Ac4 black flag on it in 2021)
I have a gx620 mt I just upgraded with a Pentium D 945 however I also bought the oem dell copper heatsink designed for it. Unfortunately there is no temp sensor you can read so I used a temp gun to read it and it runs nice and cool. Never over 50 c on the heatsink. This also goes with saying the pc is also upgraded with a 600w psu and an Nvidia 9800gt. Wonderful for mid 00's games.
you forgot the thermal paste
I remember back then they were calling the Prescott the "PresHOT". And then Intel combined two of them into one chip.
Introducing Preshott duo, a revolutionary heater you can use to cook yourself a nice piece of steak
Exactly what happened when you give Intel any Xeon atomic name ideas.
I suggest you to also take a look at Intel's Celeron D(isaster).
The Celeron D was essentially a crippled Pentium 4 with 75% less L2 cache, disabled hyperthreading and a slower FSB.
The "D" in it's name might let you think, it's a dual core CPU, but actually, it's in fact just a single core processor. As a result, it suffered from severe performance issues. I consider the Celeron D to be much worse than the already awful Pentium D and Pentium 4, mainly because how poor it performed, compared to it's (Netburst) Counterparts and other CPUs at the time. But this should be obvious, since it was only a low-end and low-priced product. But still, that doesn't change the fact, how terrible the Celeron D was. Even for a low budget product at it's time, this processor was just bad. In today's standards, these CPUs struggels in almost every modern applications. This makes the Celeron D barely usable in 2020, unless for very basic office tasks. As a matter of fact, this CPU has aged so incredibly bad, that even a potato is worth more money, than this piece of electronic waste. In my opinion, Netburst was just pathetic and possibly one of the worst CPU architectures in computer science history.
By the way, this was a awesome, informative and entertaining video, I really enjoyed it. Keep up with the great work. One can see that you put a lot of effort into your videos.
I hope my comment wasn't a disaster though.
I remember being told to avoid them well over 10 Years ago, and would love to cover just how bad they truely are this much into the future.
But those Celeron D definitely overclock well. I got mine from 2.66 GHz to 4.13 GHz on the stock Intel heatsink.
Takeshi7 I agree with you, that is definitely true. I have a Pentium 4 630 that overclocks quite good. It appears, that celeron d and lower clocked Pentium 4 processors, aren't that bad overclockers in generall. But even if they do overclock well, I just don't prefer Netburst as much as other microarchitectures, like core or nehalem for example.
@@wiliusundefined8666 Definitely, I only had a Celeron D because I needed a cheap CPU to use in my new gaming PC while I was waiting ~6 months for Core 2 Quads to be released.
just saw this video today, good suggestion and summary.
This is kind of where Intel is at again with their upcoming Rocket Lake CPU's. Based on the rumors so far, it doesn't really bring anything and is mostly just a rebranded Coffee Lake CPU but with more cores and a new socket, not to mention the extremely high TDP (around 200W if I remember correctly) for the i9 K series.
Generalkidd? The halo guy?
Rocket lake actually has an ~18% ipc improvement, but also fewer cores at the top end.
@@UnrealOG137 I'm from the future,anandtech test the 11700k.The fps difference are quite big but it still lose to 5800x heavily despite consume power at almost 300w (in testpower benchmark)
Rocket lake is 2nd netburst
@@monkeslayer-km5ho I hope Alder Lake's at least a little better...
@Harriette Chaderton Had a horrific experience with that site.
I'll never use them again.
I had one of the slightly lower model Pentium D in a Dell. Came with a MASSIVE heatsink. Lasted over a decade of daily use, for a couple of years I literally never turned the system off. Still worked when I sold it. With the right cooling, these things were just fine, and it did loads better than my P4 during multitasking.
“My ex girlfriend loves the d... the pentium d” ghg
A golden quote.
Messed about with a core 2 duo e8400 a while ago, overclocked too 4 ghz with 1066 mhz ddr2 ram in a p5q premium motherboard, id say its day & night difference between the pentium d & the core 2 duo probably even without the overclock & overclocking the pentium d.
She must like it slow and hot?
@@Mini-z1994 I have a Pentium EE 965 on a P35 board. And I can get some decent clocks out of it, and its hyper threading really does make it feel a lot better than the other P4D cpu's I have. But even at close to 5 ghz it still gets outpaced by an e8400 at stock.
@@wishusknight3009 Nearly 5ghz thats a overclock that needs silicon lottery
I drilled a hole through one of these (it is actually an 820), and put it on my keys.
Do your keys spontaneous combust?
@@BudgetBuildsOfficial No, but now I have two d s in my pants.
@@abcdefg9613 lol
I'm actually doing the same to the same cpu
I actually just got some CPU keychains on reddit, and one of them is a Pentium D lol
We had a TON of these at work (training classrooms). It's sad when a 2GHz Core2Duo (or even a 1.8 Pentium Dual Core) ran circles around a 3.4GHz Pentium D. They ran Word and Excel decently though, so they stuck around for basic classes many years past when they should have been junked. Thankfully many failed caps on the motherboards reduced the fleet after a few years.
They would be better to stick to the older P4's or rather PIII's for simple office work than the PD's... worst choice of me and my brothers lifes :-D
I can't even remember how many motherboards from my school's "fleets" I'd recapped during the 2000's.
That epic pokemon mystery dungeon OST hell yeah, really clocking the nostalgia in this video
I bought my wife one of these and OMG hot is an understatement! The cooler was a blower style and it sounded like a f18 at full throttle 100% of the time. I should know I use to work on them. Eventually a capacitor popped and in the trash heap it went.
Lol
Ditto, the heat from my D935 fried the neighbouring caps on the motherboard.
Same here opening a notepad for example
Capacitors are easy to replace. The capacitor issue was quite common for the era due to corporate espionage among the capacitor manufacturers. I know, because I've replaced the caps on literal dozens of boards in the 2000's.
he also got divorced
Man I would've killed for one of these back in the day in my Inspiron 8100. I think it had the Celeron D option, bare bones basic stuff. I had to get into the bios to up the VRAM allocation from 64MB to 128MB, but there was a system cap at 92MB... good God how frustrating.
The nasty thing with the celeron D is that the “D” isn’t for “dual core”. :(
@@Wokiis yeah, it standa for "dog shit". Not only it stinks but it also adhere to you when you grr in contact with it ..
Inspiron 8100, a typical Quanta-made heavyweight laptop with two bays up front? That one is Pentium 3 and Celeron, it has no Pentium 4, Pentium D or Celeron D option. The processor can be replaced if you fully disassemble the computer, it's held in a screw actuated PGA ZIF socket, it's not soldered in, but of course still only of that same generation supported by 815EP chipset.
But i wager a guess, you misspoke and actually mean an entirely different computer.
@@SianaGearz yep, fuzzy memories at this point. I bought it in late 2005 or early 2006 to go to uni with. It was a desktop. May have been a Dimension? It's still in a spare room or garage somewhere, I should dig it out and see what it's up to.
@@boingkster Mhm a Dimension 8100. Closer, but still not it. A really arcane early Pentium 4 box, from the era when Pentium 4 was flat out significantly slower, in absolute terms, than a Pentium 3 or Celeron, before they doubled the clock rate on it and it started making a little bit of sense. The RAM on those was exotic RDRAM with terminator cards that were supposed to prevent RAM bus oscillation, which is not something seen before or after.
I'm going to say we're looking at a Dimension 5100, 3100, or 9100.
You know the cpu is shit when the standard p4 can run Doom and the “better” p4D can’t run Doom
i had a pentium 4 3 ghz model and i have lot of bad memories with this cpu
SpazJR61 I had an old p4 3 ghz it ran windows xp like a charm and was always fast until the psu died
It ran all my games fine, but I don’t play Doom.
It can, not very well but it can run Doom. Sorry bad memory, it was the P4HT that ran doom not the D. Just opened up the case to double check.
@@thealien_ali3382 It was second rate compared to Athlon XPs and Athlon 64s of the day, and it certainly isn't "holding its own" well in anything that isn't a 2D indie title.
FYI, the Pentium-D's were sold for much less than the Athlon X2's. The notable one was the Pentium-D 805 ($132). The cheapest Athlon X2 was $350. It was a decent overclocker, and if you did a lot of media encoding, it was a very compelling alternative to single core Athlon 64's.
Had my 805 @ 3.7Ghz no problem. crazy cheap for the performance. intel really screwed up with how much they cannibalized their product line during that time.
I bought a Pentium D for a potato. Literally.
Id rather have the Potato
@@BudgetBuildsOfficial i mean, the Pentium D can do a lot more then a Potato, everything you can do with a Potato you can do with a Pentium D
@@aaaabababa You can use the Pentium D to cook the potato
@@panzerstef aaaaand, you can cook yout Pentium D and Eat it just like the potato, you just don't need a stove or something to cook it.
@@aaaabababa The Pentium D is not that tasty, also what am I going to use to order more potatoes
2:30 That was the time when Intel was paying OEM to not buy and sell AMD, right? Intel was practically giving the chips for free and paying some more.
was looking for this comment haha
Well at the time it was considered something new so it's different.
The ‘D’ stands for TDP
XD.
Totally draining power?
Man the Conroe architecture was so damn optimised in terms of power consumption and computational prowess! So much so that the lower end Conroe chips were on par with the highest end Pentium D chips clocked much higher and having 4 times or 2 times as much L2 cache!
Then Intel call out AMD for gluing together CPUs when they did it first and more literally
When did they do that?
@@JeskidoYT Believe he may be referring to the FX series, although they weren't glued together. More that the core count wasn't exactly accurate. For example, the 8xxx Bulldozer chips were foul dual core modules but still not as horrible as the Pentium D. Good article explaining it:
www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/8/28/20837336/amd-12-million-false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit-bulldozer-chips
@@JeskidoYT when threadripper first came out
Well - and Intel was right.
It is funny how the AMD-Fanboys can not face reality - either you say gluing chips together is bad - or it isn't.
Intel did it with the PentiumD and the consumers noticed (and were not that retarder to accept it) that the performance suffered.
@@ABaumstumpf Under Computer Engineers there are no fanboys, no emotions, just specs and work cases.
Intel did basically the same thing a bit later with the Core 2 Quad : 2 Core 2 Duos piled one on the other. Some old ideas were still judged as fine, I guess...
What processor did I have around that time. Oh right the AMD 3800+, one of the first if not first CONSUMER dual core processors. Sure it was only 2x 2Ghz... eh... but it was smooth like butter!
Happy I jumped ship at that time to better technology. And... of course Intel had to make a new better product.
Athlon 64 X2 was much better performing CPUs than Pentium D, more like 4000/6000 series Core 2 Duo
I think I might still have been on the Athlon XP 2500+ at that point, until I went back to C2Q6600.
A friend of Mine had the X2 4.000+ 2,1Ghz. Really smooth indeed. I had a single core 3800+ 2,4ghz that was really slower. Nice times.
@@rgrigio One of those moments that you didn't want to go back after experiencing it.
Multi Core was the way to go!
if thats 200x10 multi
Then you could likely run 250x10 for 2.5Ghz, run the ram on 266 divider and it would run at 333mhz its likely stock speed.
nice and easy 25% oc
I had a prototype Pentium D on a prototype Intel board. Worked wonderful and was my main system for many years in the early to mid 2000s.
Never was anything “cool” about those toasters,in any way.
I quite loved my PD build. only retired it in 2013. Never saw any of these gaming problems with mine, never had heat issues. Loved it and never in my time heard terrible things until now. Still love it.
I was the product manager in a company that did PSUs and CPU Coolers back then, but it did improve those two techs (as well as M/B tech I imagine) so at least we can say some good came out of it.
I've had a Pentium D 820 and my goodness it is literally a space heater 🤣runs really hot especially during summer haha
The stock heatsink for these pentium D is really chonky, uses copper and quite heavy. But still it is not enough to cool it down lol
And i'm crazy enough to actually finish GTA IV twice! with this system (uses 9500GT and 3GB of DDR2 RAM)
Ha Ha! I also played GTA IV on a Pentium D, but mine was 945 I think, with an Nvidia GT210 and 4 GB of RAM. It was pretty playable actually. Maybe it wasn't running at 30 fps, but it ran at a stable frame rate.
The Pentium D(on't)
D'oh!
You know the architecture is very bad when the company switches to the previous design from the 90s and actually does something tremendously better with it
Yeah i switched from petium d to athlon fx and i was blown away with how much performance you can get with it, while almost half the clock and running pretty cool.
also its funny that a 100w processor was considered power hungry. every modern top tier chip is around a 100w, and might I remind you the fx 9590?
Me in late 2008: Will my pc run great and cool?
Pentium 4: Well yes, but actualy no.
Well AMD Phenom stock cooler back in the day sounded like loud coffee been grinder, bought Cool master universal AMD/Intel cooler and i actually still have same cooler in my brothers pc
Do I hear mystery dungeon music? Niiiiice. A man of culture I see! :3
I had one of these in my first personal gaming rig in 2005ish.
I was too young to really notice temps nor did I really care about benchmarks. It could run Battlefield 2 well-ish, so I was happy lol
Then I got an E8400 Wolfdale and was blown away by that.
I used Pentium III 600 Mhz until 2010 then got E8400. I don't think I will ever be that blown away except if I replaced my 1985 golf with Tesla lol.
The Pentium D wasn't that bad at everything. That chip was a great replacement for the P4 Prescott for SETI crunching (the SETI project loved CPU's with large caches). I had one 930 cpu that ran 4ghz at the default voltage. I don't have the rest of the system anymore, but I kept that 930D and put it on a shelf. Some things you just can't part with (I kept my Prestonia Xeon's also (two systems) since those ran an almost 100% overclocks). lol If you want to talk about a bad chip, those Prescott's didn't overclock for beans and ran super hot even with a decent heatpipe and a 92mm tornado attached to it (yeah, my computer room sounded like half a dozen vacuum's were running 24/7). However, you were right about the Core 2 Duo being a much better chip. They would do the same work as the Pentium D at 60% of the clock speed. I didn't get to clock the C2Ds very far because of motherboard issues, but those were quickly replaced with Core 2 Quads. C2Qs were just Duo's squished together, but they worked and clocked pretty nicely. I had 4-5 q6600's and they all ran 3.6ghz with room to spare, but they did get toasty at those higher clocks (I modified the motherboards to cope with the extra power draw). The C2Q's also did very well with SETI. ...and then the i7 came out. My first one was a 920 c0/1 step cpu. It ran 3.6ghz and blew the C2Q's out of the water for SETI. However, shortly after that SETI moved to GPU's, so CPU's became a moot point. All hail the GTX 2xx series and 400 series for SETI. lol Anyway, thanks for the vid. It's nice to remember the old days once in a while.
this was in an old XP machine i had a while back. I put an SSD in it and it was surprisingly usable, it even browsed the web fine. Its all about the bloat of the OS you load on it.
It wasn't that bad. I have the d 805 it had significant multitasking advantage over my p4 back then.
Sure it ran hot but it was no disaster. It still works as a second pc
I had a few Pentium D's myself. Certainly better performance than a Pentium 4, but the difference between a Pentium D and a Core 2 Duo is like night and day.
I recently built a WinXP machine with the ASUS P5ND2-SLI, and a 3.4ghz P4 on the LGA 775 socket. The P4 is working like a charm, but since the motherboard doesn't support the Core2Duo line of CPUs, I was considering trying out a Pentium D since that was on the list of supported CPUs. This video has convinced me to not do that haha.
The Pentium D(readful)
Hi Mr. Budget-Builds! Nice to see you coming back to action :). This videos of yours almost make me miss my old Dual-Core E5400. Almost.
That PMD music hits me with the feels.
Ah, the PrescHott days. If you could chill one it was incredible at certain numeric functions such as video compression (this was before the days of GPU rendering), but for everything else, it was lack lustre. If I had told my energy supplier at the time that I had one of these, my fixed rate bill would have increased dramatically I bet lol.
The D805 was the prevalent variation that was best for overclocking. The low TDP (relative) allowed for a little bit of scope, but the scale-ability of the clock speed was pretty much moot. It just took more effort than it was worth. But the number crunching game, they worked and was actually worth it for that reason - in a very narrow aspect of computation.
Oh yeah, one of the things where it really had no competition: rendering.
But for everything else AMD was cheaper, faster and more power efficient.
But then the Core 2 changed everything.
Yup. Up until the C2D, the AMD naming scheme was a proper tongue in cheek jab at Intel.
pentium iii 800mhz gang (also literally first)
e4400 probably not gang
Sup boi
E7500 gang only on Wednesdays
Perfect with windows 98
@@Zerotwo-ks8rg mine runs xp sp2 lol
These Pentium Ds might be hot garbage, but they're nostalgic for me. My dad got a PenD computer in 2012 when I was 10, and I had so much fun playing flash games and Diablo 2 on it. I upgraded it to 2GB of RAM (up from 1) around 2018, I used it as my main PC at his house until about 2019 when I gave it away.
I do need to know how well it can use notepad.
But can it run Microsoft office
@@Rainbow__cookieBut can it run minesweeper?
@@Konkretertyp Can it run Microsoft Bob?
Can it run Windows at all?
I've been growing tired of people telling me to get something newer than my E8600. This video makes me feel a lot better!
Thats a heavy nostalgia, thanks.
Am I hearing Pokémon Mystery Dungeon OST? This is awesome!!
YES! It's amazing.
Lol lowspecgamer will love those GTA V textures :)
I remember sitting through Pentium D era on a single core Northwood, that OCd very well. While my friend struggled to keep his Prescott CPU running on stock clocks. D is two Prescott cores sandwiched on one PCB if I’m not mistaking.
P.S. Have a 955 D lying around somewhere in the office at work
This old cpu makes my G 4560 with ddr 3 memory feel like a rocket :D
the Pentium G4560 wasn't even a bad cpu, it was in someways a budget i3 in some ways back in it's day
@@astroidexadam5976 Yes it just didn´t had life span like for example 2nd gen i5 or the am4 platform
We had P4's at my old work until Sandy Bridge. I threw a Pentium D 940 into the motherboard and it ran really well. Honestly I think Minecraft ran slightly faster on the Pentium D than on an i5 2400, but that was probably in my head.
PMD music in the background. I approve.
I remember I had a HP laptop with one of these in them. It could only run for about a half hour before it demanded to be shut off from the heat. That thing burned my knees so many times.
A stupid CPU running really fast, that's exactly what the Pentium 4/D was. Even their mobile team put them to shame with the Pentium M (read: intelligent running slow).
It was the time I went back to AMD, Athlon 64/X2 was far superior.
And later on intel made the Pentium M even worse creating the atom n4xx.
Somehow intel doesnt learn a jack shit.
Eduardo Avila So that’s why the early Atoms were terrible. My first computer was an Acer D257 with an n450. Abysmal performance but it was better than nothing.
@@eduardoavila646 the Atom was completely different to the Pentium M (Celeron M performed similarly), it was essentially a Pentium III with no out of order execution and low L2 cache which crippled performance monumentally but allowed higher clock speeds for a very low TDP with low voltages. A 1.2GHz Pentium M LV ran Silent Hill 2 (2001) at 30fps locked. A 1.5GHz dual core Atom (N550) struggled to get 20.
@@joeyh5761 I didnt actually itended to say they are the same architeture, but rather the same market niche.
You pointed out exactly whatvi wanted to. Intel had a decent mobile low power lineup, with the pentium M. And somehow they pooped these first atoms right when the core i lineup came.
What i'm saying is that the atoms were sort of a replacement for the pentium M's wich usually came in smaller size laptops such as the d610, d520, etc.
Later on they made some good, but soldered low power core2duos to that niche. Kinda outside that niche, but yet kinda simillar there were the core2duo P line, like the p8700, with a mere 25w did more than several 35w core2duos.
The fact is that when the core i lineup came, you would be either with a pentium/core i3/i5/i7 at 35w or a shitty atom at 5-15w.
It was so bad seeing a awready kinda old entry level laptop of a friend running games way better than my new atomn n455 for example.
But even so, the atom was also kinda based off the pentium 3 architeture like the pentium M was.
@@eduardoavila646 I reckon at the time the ipad was being touted as the PC replacement which scared intel which caused them to rush out an ultra low powered line of cpus. The Core 2 Solo/duo ULV series would have been much better choices for oems but were much more expensive. And consumers clearly wanted ultra cheap laptops/tablets at the time
Glad to see you're back, I was getting worried!
Yeeeeeeeeeeees
You're back!
Happy to see you back, great video
The 805d was a decent chip for the money since it overclocked to nearly 4ghz. Was still a good upgrade from my 3200+ athlon xp and lasted until my overclocked e2160
Yeah bur just a little bit later didnt worth a penny. This does around 522 score in cpu passmark at 95w. Even if we ignore the fact that due to ipc the performance boost wouldn't be the same at different frequencies, it would only do around 753 score, that with a way higher tdp most likelly 120w.
While that a budget cpu that was compatible with most pentium D boards, a e2220 @2.4ghz has only 65w and does 1330, essentially awmost 3 times the performance at stock compared to the 805d, and a little bit more than half the tdp. It would be 2x more performance compared to the 4ghz 805d, and half the tdp.
Not to mention many boards are compatible with e4xxx and e6xxx core2duos too! They are even better!
So a better deal would have gotten a celeron D or p4, and just when the core2duos appeared, upgraded the processor, and maaybe overclocked the much cooler processor with a board prepares to deal with way more power hungry pentium D's, and with a way better heatsink also made to the hot processors.
It would be literally overclocking the hell out of the c2d with the biggest limitatiom being your silicon luck.
@@eduardoavila646 when i got the 805 it was the cheapest dual core by miles i think the next thing up was probably double the price. at £85 with an overclock it was decent. upgrade from my athlon xp but any of the other models were just terrible for the money especially compared to the core 2.
@@geofrancis2001 Yes, what i said is that, if you waited a little bit there would be way more decent real dualcores around there.
I had an 805 paired with a zerotherm btf90 myself. I used it up until 2009 just fine OCD. It was quite hot but I ran tons of games really well until I upgraded to a phenom II.
@@eduardoavila646 the 805 was just a stop gap still i could afford something from the core 2 line up, my motherboard supported core 2 so it was just a matter of time till the chips got cheap enough. when i got my 805d the cheapest core 2 duo you could buy was the e6300 at over 200 compared to the 85 i paid for the 805, i eventually upgraded when the core 2 based pentium dual cores came out under 100.
i only got my chip to 3.8ghz on my ASROCK 775Twins-hdtv, im actually surprised i didn't kill the VRM on the board, it didn't have any voltage adjustment so the chip had to be pad modded to up the voltage. it supported ddr1 and ddr2 and had ATI graphics onboard. so when i was upgrading from my athlon xp i could reuse my 512mb stick ddr1 and use the xpress 200 graphics until I could afford my pcie X800XT and 2gb ddr2.
another strange fact was that it used the ULI southbridge who is owned by nvidia. so it had a Intel CPU, ATI Nothbridge and Nvidia southbridge.
www.asrock.com/mb/ATI/775Twins-HDTV/
Love the video! Keep them coming buddy
"time per TERN" smh
Yes
lol
Just imagine how much of a disaster it would’ve been if they made the netburst quad core
The Pentium Q
Basically a sandwhiched together pentium d’s
The Pentium O
Sandwiched together Pentium Qs
When your PC is worse than Pentium D
I think the gt 210 with a big bottleneck is so much better than that x) (I know that this processor wasn't created for gaming(like the gt210😅))
Pentium II or old Atom?
@lRaziel1 i demand respect. I run Windows 7 ultimate with aero in pentium D integrated graphics.
Intel Celeron?
Ahh Grim Fandango music in the bg. I see you are a man of taste.
But, is it better than the Celeron D(isaster)? 😅
Unfortunately
Yeah, but not by alot
0:25 loving the Pokémon mystery dungeon music.
That time when Intel was like: "Pentium needs the D"
I had one in a dumpster parts linux build using a point-of-sale pc as the foundation(2011). I just retired it in 2020.. the power supply was a trooper. My secret was adding 2 more fans to circulate the case, mounting extra heat sinks inside, resting the case on heatsinks(adding another to the hot spot) and covering the top of the case in heat sinks. It was absurdly pointless but it muscled on to crank out all kinds of work on gimp while simultaneously heating the old apartment in winter.
Lol I'm impressed by what that "Pentium" is capable of doing
Meanwhile I'm not. My rig has that thing, and I have enabled the aero theme in Windows 7 ultimate. Not blazing fast, but it run whatever I was asking to run.
watching this on an Pentium E2160 - core microarchitecture, 65W TDP - and have the D version, too, 2 of each. The Ds run XP and the 2160s run 7, 2Gb RAM ea, nice media servers and web surfers, run firefox multitab, h265 no sweat. The D is a little off the pace, but with lightweight XP it moves nicely. The D has no thermal sensor but the 2160 does: you can run either 100% CPU for days, never hotter than 60°C 140°F, idles at 32°C 90°F. Will render video with 20 browser tabs open, plus photoshop, plus whatever. Sure I got i7s and workstations, but these things are totally bulletproof, 64-bit, run new software fine. I dropped them to 32-bit and they work around the clock. If you ask me, between the D and 2160 (2006-2008), their price to performance ratio is unmatched.
Homer simpson after seeing the TDP :The Pentium D('oh)
Hey Budget-Builds nice to see you kept your 3 month upload cycle
I love the pentium d (said no one ever)
You are wrong. The D 805 went to 4ghz on Air easy for under $100 and it's sad when you see these videos that did no research and don't actually remember the hardware
René S. Shabastari how am I wrong
@@notinfocus9182 plenty of people loved the Pentium D 805 and even in these comments a few other they were able to OC well
@@rene.s.s Im sorry dude, but the ipc of these processors is a joke, even if it did 8ghz it would still not be remarkable in therms of performance.
Just see in cpu passmark, even when these processors were new they were garbage.
Really, for just a little bit more perfornce 130w??? It would be a heck lot better even to have an older server board with 2 sockets of singlecore semprons or opterons... And it was cheaper in the time, to get them on the used market.
I literally sold my pentium D and got one of these, i didnt need all that cooling, and airplane sound systems to be able to have decent performance.
Heck even a old atlhon 64 or a x2 would be a heck lot better.
If i had to go with a p4, i would rather get a server/workstation board and overclock 2 pentium 3 @1133mhz...
@@eduardoavila646 I'm not sure when you used the processor but 13 years ago for under $100 the chip was great for gaming with a good dedicated GPU and it also worked well for my encoding needs. I'm sure you can cite poor synthetics or poor architecture but the fact is back then the processor worked well for a lot of people, especially on a budget, especially for young enthusiasts and lower socioeconomic communities. I had a dual 1ghz p3 system before this and and it did not work as well for my needs, gaming and video editing. So once again, the chip may have been a hack job, no questions asked, but certain models performed great for the time and were loved by many people
I had one of these in college. It did "fine" and helped keep my heating bills low, but as soon as I learned my mainboard supported certain early Pentium Dual Core chips I jumped ship.
When intel made a PowerPC G5 look more efficient and cooler.
9:43 What is the photo at the right screen? It's in the Netherlands for sure
For maximum 'nostalgia', combine a Pentium D with Windows ME. You can have a D(isaster) of a CPU with a Operating system named after a debilitating disease :-)
I tried to install a Pentium D (from an Optiplex 775 USFF, that I upgraded to a Q6600) in place of an early stock P4 LGA775 on a Dell Dimension 8400 (because the motherboard has literally almost no CPU upgrade options). Not only the motherboard will not boot, but it made the exhaust fans spin like a jet engine, ready for the Dimension to take off ground :p.
755. Optiplex
Pentium D(oodoo)
Excellent video, as usual. Thanks!
Pentium D inside - extreme smoke outside
Destruction Inside, Performance issues outside.
It's great how well iD optimized Doom, because the framerate would probably crash in the high-action sequences in any other engine.
It's great to see you back, regardless of content.
I had a d920. That over clocked quite well from memory. Went to a Q6600 after this cpu. That was quite a good cpu as an upgrade.
The way Intel handled and put out the Pentium D was a sign of things to come of all the refreshes they'd make in the next decade before getting caught with their pants down by Ryzen.
9:53 the photo on your right screen, that is the Netherlands! Have you been there?
Huh...good to know that I got one of the most volatile desktop CPUs out there. Just got a Compaq Presario PC a few days ago from a friend loaded with my first Pentium CPU (the Pentium D 925), so I've been hunting for information on it everywhere (especially considering my plan to put either Void, Arch, or 4MLinux on the thing). Thanks by the way, lovely video! ❤️
I'm still rockin' one of these, hooked up and ready to roar in a gaming rig I built back in '06'.
I specifically built it to play Unreal Tournament 3 at the time. It runs decent with GTX 7900 (wish I had gotten an GTX 8800), but yes, it is literally a space heater of a PC. I had to take all the fans in the case, including modifying the power supply fan to all pull air into the case and out the front into the room, instead of roasting my wall or setting my drapes on fire. Even at idle it was probably putting out 550 to 850 watts of thermal power.
It could play Minecraft, at least when the version numbers were in the 6's, and some of the other games I was playing up until about 8 years ago (Unreal Tournament 2004) when I just stopped using it when I got my MSI laptop that could run circles around that rig.
Though sadly, I'm a miser when comes to spending money on my computer stuff, seeing as my "newest" computer is my cell phone, and for general "computers" is my cheap chinese Chewi Hi8 duel boot (android 4, Windows 10) Intel Atom tablet that's in pieces waiting for me to finish replacing the USB port to get it operational again. That tablet thing is similarly specced to my old Pentium D rig, and it runs Windows 10 pretty well, where the D would likely choke on it's own data stream. It's still running Windows 2000 and XP 64 bit Edition in multi boot configuration.
So considering the leaps and direction in tech these days, I think a CPU that would last me the next 10 to 15 years may well be an AMD Threadripper with 64+ cores and that new V (vertical) cache in the half gigabyte range. As that may well be worth spending on, and would be hard pressed to become obsolete too fast as things are going further into multi-core every year. Though it may be a ways off before we see MEGA MULTICORE CPUs with 10's of thousands of CPU cores in one package, but we may get there one day.
This video gave me flashbacks from the Pentium D era, not much progress was made on the lower end until the launch of Core 2 Quad
I remember back then when building my first PC i had the choice between the Pentium D and the AMD Athlon 64 X2. I went with the Athlon as it was the superior platform at the time, however months later the Intel Core 2 came out and blew both chips away and would have been a easy swap into my build had I gone for Intel.
great to see you back !
I have a Pentium D HP system from 2006 that is running only 3GB DDR2 RAM and an upgraded SSD; It came pre-loaded with XP, ran Server 2003/2008 and Linux for a while for file sharing duties, but is now running the latest Windows 10. I was actually encoding video with it the other day directly from a DVD to MP4, and it worked well, pretty fast, considering. If I could get the RAM all the way to 8GB it would keep going for another 5-10 years!
Pentium D, check.
And yes... It's a 945.
Paired with a GTX 470.
And, no upgrading to 4 GB RAM does not help.
Best browser is Opera. The other are way too slow.
Strange thing, the combo runs Trackmania with 200++ FPS. =)
We were using a pentium d 915 until 2 days ago when the motherboard finally died and we decided to replace it at the same time. With optifine it actually ran minecraft with decent fps and we even managed to run a 100+ mod modpack once so maybe these things have a bit more life left in than you seem to believe.
i'm glad i stuck out the three months :) looking forward to seeing this thing explode!
I'm a bit late to the Pentium Party here, nice video! I actually ran a Pentium D820 for a while as my main system which at that point was an upgrade from a 3GHz Prescott P4. For what I did back then (playing a Counter Strike knockoff called Crossfire in combination with a HD5450) it was actually decent. Nevertheless it was not until I later upgraded to a Core 2 Quad when I realised just how slow the 820 really was...
The computer I’ve had forever ran on a Pentium D and it still runs. It’s a 2007 Dell Dimension desktop that originally ran Windows XP.
superstar64 it is not a question of “does it run”, it is more of a question of “how well does it run”
Viper vids gaming plus
Well I had to replace the PSU, but it runs pretty well.
Update: it barely still gets to the Windows XP desktop
I had the Pentium D back in the day, my dad gave it too me after college so I didn't have to keep using his PC for MMO Raids when he needed it. First PC I upgraded with a 8800gt from the Nvidia 6800 something, remember getting playable frames in Crysis at 720p. After I built my first PC a core2quad with a GTX 295 and gave the Pentium D system to my brother and that was its end when his son ate food over the top of it shorting out the graphics card, and then to finish it off my brother spilled brandy on the motherboard while it was on. {FYI it did have a decent cooler for the time in it being a custom build)