Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Whats so bad about Pentium D?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 30, 2010 11:39:58 PM

Whats so bad about Pentium D's? I see on the internet and forums that people saying the Pentium D series were horrible processors...i bet half of the people that said that, never even owned one. I have a Pentium D 930 Presler 3.0Ghz 32KByte L1 D-Cache Trace Cache 24 Kuops and 4MB L2 Cache by 8way sets and its really good, the temps don't even go over 60C!

What my question is why do people think Pentium D's are so bad?

(off topic)wasn't the Pentium series that made Intel success in its early years? theres also a song called, its all about the pentium haha

if im starting to sound like a fanboy im not, cause i have no idea what i like... as i've never tried an AMD processor.

More about : whats bad pentium

a b à CPUs
November 30, 2010 11:48:39 PM

It was smoked badly by cheaper amd processors.

the same reason why the original phenom chips sucked.. they were horrible compared to Core2

Pentium D isnt anything close to the original pentium and were pretty much a fail branch of intel which moved back to a modified pentium 3 design afterwards
m
0
l
November 30, 2010 11:54:54 PM

ok, but whats exactly wrong about Pentium Ds? why don't people like them other then the above...and heat. because, i dont think its slow at all compared to a Pentium 4... for example in a game i got 20 FPS because of the P4, and in the PD i got boosted 50-40 FPS... but i dont know how fast the modern CPUs are as this is the Modernest core i have reached.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2010 12:04:35 AM

Part of the problem was the defective push-pins on Intel's otherwise
functional heatsink/fan assembly. The heatsink and fan are fine,
but the push-pins turned out to be a major reason for much of the
overheating:

http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warning.htm


And, in some instances, the overheating caused the CPU to throttle itself,
which definitely reduced its power.


We have a D 945 running with an ASUS pre-set overclocking profile;
and, with SpeedStep enabled, it alternates between 2.8 and 4.0 GHz
without overheating because we installed an HSF with a proper backing plate.

That CPU is still running strong in our ASUS P5WD2 Premium motherboard,
which has to be approaching 5 years of age.

Yes, Intel's Core2 generation are more efficient across the board
and our Q6600 and Q9550 are definitely more powerful. But,
as long as the D 945 continues to run perfectly, it makes a very
useful backup storage server and fail-safe workstation.


p.s. My favorite bumper sticker says:
"Constant change is here to stay."


MRFS

m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
December 1, 2010 12:45:50 AM

grippingline said:
ok, but whats exactly wrong about Pentium Ds? why don't people like them other then the above...and heat. because, i dont think its slow at all compared to a Pentium 4... for example in a game i got 20 FPS because of the P4, and in the PD i got boosted 50-40 FPS... but i dont know how fast the modern CPUs are as this is the Modernest core i have reached.


Netburst was intel's new design idea for the Pentium 4 CPU. The idea was that with longer pipelines, they would be able to scale to higher clock frequencies and make up for it's lack of per clock performance vs both the older Pentium III and the competing AMD processors at the time. Unfortunately, they ran into heat issues pushing into the 3GHz range. The pentium D is basically two of these chips on one chip side by side. They were not integrated into the same die.

Based on the netburst architecture, they were quickly overpowered by the Athlon 64 x2 processors which were faster at lower clockspeeds. The Athlon 64x2 was released only a couple weeks after the Pentium D. A comparison is below between the two architectures.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/93?vs=34

Intel released the core duo a year later and the core 2 duo the following year. Basically, the Pentium D was based on technology that was on its way out due to not having the potential that Intel hoped for. As rand_79 said:
"Pentium D isnt anything close to the original pentium and were pretty much a fail branch of intel which moved back to a modified pentium 3 design afterwards"
I'm just going to replace "Pentium D" with netburst to make it clear that we are incorporating all netburst processors including the Pentium 4 and Pentium D.

Now to directly answer the question "what's exactly wrong about the pentium Ds?". Wrong is relative. By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. It is a processor with no major errata or bugs and keeps within thermal specifications with it's stock cooler at stock settings.
But compared to the competition and near future (ie, athlon 64 and core) it runs hotter, uses more power and underperforms.

" i dont think its slow at all compared to a Pentium 4... for example in a game i got 20 FPS because of the P4, and in the PD i got boosted 50-40 FPS"
You are correct. I would expect the pentium D, with two cores, to be at an advantage vs the P4 with all games that can use more than one CPU core, which I believe is everything 2006 and onward. But when people say the pentium Ds are slow, they are not talking about vs the pentium 4 because the pentium 4 is also slow. They are both the same architecture and people are saying that the architecture is slow.

"but i dont know how fast the modern CPUs are as this is the Modernest core i have reached."
And that is why you think the pentium D is fast :p  . Everything is relative. When it first came out, it was fast. Just like the Pentium III was fast before the 2GHz pentium 4s came out. Technology moves fast. If I were to put a monetary value on the modern performance of the Pentium D, it would be about $50 at the most only looking at pure performance (and not heat/ technology/ instruction set/ system support considerations). It's certainly under the Athlon II 240 ($60) but definitely above the single core Sempron 140 ($40) due to the presence of two cores.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
December 1, 2010 4:50:23 AM

Your Pentium D is 4 years old in a few months, anything but new technology. It ran hot, consumed a lot of power, and performed poorly compared to the competition.
At 3.2Ghz it is still slower at most tasks than a 2.0Ghz Athlon X2.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-d-920-930.html

Oh, and since the Athlon X2 processors are also outdated antiques that perform poorly, and you've never used anything newer, take a look at this. It included 166 processors from both Intel and AMD since 2005, your Pentium D is one of the slowest in that entire list.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/778-2/giant-roundup-168-intel-and-amd-processors.html

Hope this and what others have said help you realize why people say the Pentium D sucks. If your happy with it's performance, than that's all that matters, but I would never use one in this day and age.
m
0
l
December 1, 2010 7:34:14 PM

Alright...so Pentium D aint all that great... now i guess i gotta get a new processor...
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
December 1, 2010 7:42:31 PM

grippingline said:
Alright...so Pentium D aint all that great... now i guess i gotta get a new processor...

Not if your processor can do everything you need it to do and you don't feel a faster one would be in your interest.
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:40:53 PM

I'm rocking a 2005 era Pentium D 820 and it performs "fine" for what I generally use the computer for.

On the occasions when I'm doing video conversions or editing, I have to wait longer.

That said, I'm gunning for a SandyBridge new PC in a month. Because I need the speed for those 2-3 times per month that I'm doing a CPU intensive video conversion? Uhhhh, yeahhh, sure :sarcastic: 

(actually its because I am treating myself to some new tech just because I can)
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 3:02:52 PM

enzo matrix said:
Not if your processor can do everything you need it to do and you don't feel a faster one would be in your interest.


I agree. It's the ol' "Fast enough" argument. If it handles everything that you ask it to do to your satisfaction, don't replace it.

m
0
l
!