Pentium D's kept my school IT room warm in winter and a death trap in summer even with 2 5kw A/C's, They did this because most people looked at ghz back then especially the untrained, they were marketed towards the uneducated, R&D already done and stock needed to go. I saw them mainly in pre builts, marketed for productivity.
I work in a school IT department. Machines are usually chosen based on existing vendor relationships because the business office often hates going through the process of switching vendors. If your school was in a contract with Dell as mine is, it means your bulk device orders run through them, and Dell was one of the most adamant about sticking with Intel. Even now, they really only will offer you a Ryzen CPU in their consumer grade offerings despite Ryzen CPUs being clearly superior in most metrics including power efficiency.
@@honkhonkler7732 And intel Paying OEM's not to use AMD's, at one stage DELL was getting more bribe money from intel than PC sales and that is not a joke lol.
I had a Core2 E8400. It was a great processor for its time. Swapped it for a Q9550. Ended up on a Gigabyte EP43-ud3l board, after a few failed EVGA boards with the NVIDIA chipsets that the network controllers would fail on. Only regret was not having the 45 board with its better chipset. What a ride.
Because it always takes a brand new architecture to pull out these level of performance jump, even AMD has to do that with Ryzen in order to pull their 52% IPC jump over the awful Bulldozer.
@@erlienfrommars The later FX chips were actually pretty good, especially for gaming and multitasking. Speaks mountains that the i3s and i5s of the era are stuttery messes while the FX chips run smoothly if at a lower fps peak.
Considering clock speed difference, performance increase is staggering. Also Duo overclocked really well hitting 3.0 GHz without hassle and obliterating everything in their way after.
The fact that a Pentium D model was released at the same time as a Core2Duo AND at a 44 percent higher price made my jaw drop. Think about the poor souls who choose to go for that D. Wow... Of course today it's no terrible mistake as both CPU's are at the point where they are considered junk and sell for next to nothing and you typically buy them in bulk so that shipping price won't be higher than that of the item itself.
I know its crazy! The stories I could tell about clients with Pentium D's. They were truly so bad that its funny. BTW Back in the P4 days I found a dual slot 1 board (yes I didn't know they existed either). Slapped in two Pentium 3's just for fun and found that it ran circles around my 2Ghz Pentium 4 Desktop at the time. I'd love to find another one of those boards and play around with it, unfortunately the only ones I've found are $$$$$$$.
Netburst sucked. Pentium 4 was such a let down compared to Pentium 3. I took a very long break from gaming back in the early 2000's. My Pentium 4 Dell Optiplex machine broke, and I never bothered replacing or fixing it. I'd spent far too many hours on Quake III OSP. When I came back to PC gaming in 2006, I built a Core 2 Duo E6300 machine with an Nvidia 7600 GT. Even at 1.86Ghz, that CPU blew me away with it's performance. I could play Total Annihilation at 1440x900, with 1000 unit cap, in big skirmishes and it remained smooth! Even on my Pentium 4 2Ghz rig just a few years earlier, a few AI opponents with a 400 unit cap resulted in some major slowdown. After I OC'ed the CPU to 2.5Ghz, it was just flying. I kept that CPU for years, giving it a 1950XTX and eventually even a pair of HD4770s before I eventually upgraded to an i3-540 @ 3.8Ghz. The only reason I upgraded was Starcraft II was very CPU intensive, If it hadn't been for that game, I'd have kept the C2D for even longer! XD
I suspect that they priced Pentium D higher based on the strength of an established brand that they spend over 10 years of marketing building. Responding to the fact that actual customers would pay more for a Pentium than for another brand. And also customers are easily convinced to pay more by a larger number in the spec. You can capitalise on an uninformed customer who shops by feel several times over.
E2160's are supremely overclockable too. I find that series make the best Windows XP retro machines. Very tuneable with a decent motherboard, ultra cheap and great performance. C2D's are wasted in XP and generally too quick for many windows 98 crossover games, and single core P4's are just a nightmare - the fastest prescotts eat power and kick out silly heat.
the irony that intel fell back to their pentium 3 Roots to destroy their netburst years in a historic era of pc gains , going from a 945 to a qx9650 quad core in less than 2 years , amazing gains that have not been replicated ever since , no wonder the meme can it run crysis is still being used lol
lol yeah it really is crazy. I still remember when these came out, most of us had moved to AMD but FINALLY Intel was catching up! It was well worth the upgrade cost. I still remember my first Pentium 4 at 3ghz. My 1.4ghz Pentium 3 blew it away in most programs. I also had a dual slot1 P3 pc and even that was faster in a lot of things.
Netburst wasn't totally trash. Intel just went for too big an overhaul. Many of the architecture functions that slowed the netburst chips and which were dropped for the core 2 were re-introduced in the core i series but with fixes. There are interesting articles and discussions online that cover this and go in deep detail if you ever want more info.
I think there's another architectural thing going on that is contributing to the similarity in performance despite the differences in speed - Netburst had notoriously bad branch prediction. In fact, it was so bad that the Core series is an evolution of the Pentium M, part of the P6 architecture line, rather than the Pentium 4 and its Netburst architecture.
Not just the branch prediction but the pipeline as a whole. It’s excessively large, fixed length, and coupled with an awful penalty for prediction mistakes. Most of a Pentium 4’s circuitry is idle most of the time lmao
@@fenixlolnope361 Which is why HyperThreading was so critical for Pentium 4s at the time: when the branch predictor failed to correctly guess the next instruction and the 1st pipeline was flushing itself to start the correct instruction, the 2nd one (the other thread) could execute code and continue using the ALU and FPU. Thus HyperThreading on NetBurst CPUs provides the biggest performance gain out of all HT implementations, up to 60% compared to a Pentium 4 without HT. This also explain why the Celerons at the time were so weak: not only did they lacked HyperThreading and could only run with a slower FSB, they also had a miserable 128k or 256k of cache (compared to 512k for Northwood P4s, 1M for Prescott P4s and 2M for Prescott-2M and Cedar Mill P4s), which made the already weak branch predictor far less accurate than on equivalent P4s, where the bigger cache could store more information to calculate the predictions. In fact, I'm pretty sure than the Celerons and Celeron-Ds really spent 80% of their execution time flushing the 20 or 31-stage pipeline in particularly unpredictable scenarios (like non-Netburst-optimized game engines or APIs).
yeah it's honestly hilarious, they designed such a brilliant way to get around problems of a CPU arch that was just awful. Imagine if Intel were actually making Pentium M based desktop chips with similar wattage levels on the high end as their Pentium D monstrosities.. I mean they did do that eventually, but I hate how they wasted our time. @@benjib2691
I have no experience with the Pentium D, but did use a Core 2 Duo as my daily for many years. I never tried gaming on it, but for use as a computer doing basic stuff, it was perfectly fine. Definitely not slow for my needs at least
@@SaraMorgan-ym6ue No, the Core architecture has more to do with P6 (the Pentium III architecture) than NetBurst (Pentium 4s, Pentium Ds, Celerons and Celeron Ds). In fact, NetBurst was so flawed that Intel rolled back to a P6 base for Core.
@@benjib2691 Also in 2003, Intel heavily modified the P6 architecture for the M lineup (not the Pentium 4M) used in mobile applications and they drew far less power than the P4 M.
And on top all you needed was a half decent cooler and board to set the E4300 to an FSB of 1333Mhz and got a 3Ghz CPU that simply anihilated all of the last gen high end cpus, for a fraction of the price. and it still draw less power :D
I picked up an MSI 955x Platinum with a Pentium 4 631. It seems a Pentium D is the max CPU I can use. I have a 945 on the way. I tested the 631 with a K600 GPU in Win7x86 and got a little over 14K for a bench score. I’m wondering if there will be much improvement with the 945. The board is really nice with tons of features including RAID, 1394, infrared, etc. I can’t believe a Duo won’t run on this thing. I did try with a couple 800MHz FSB Core2Duo CPUs but no dice.
Nice find! I'm sure you have but just incase, did you check for any bios updates? I had some ACER pc's at work that used ASUS boards. They were built before core2's were released, however I eventually found some updates that added cpu compatibility. Sure the FSB was locked at 200/800 but hey it kept some of those pc's out of the dumpster.
@@jims_junk yes the board is running the latest BIOS so Pentium D is the max. I did get the 945 in and it works pretty good with board. However, there’s so quirk with this BIOS (regardless of version) in that all ram is detected but only half is available for use. The BIOS even states total detected and what’s available for use. 1GB I can only use 512MB…4GB I can only use 2GB. Couldn’t find any BiOS setting causing that. Everyone was stumped in the XP subreddit, too, so I switched the board out with a Gigabyte board with an E8600. Faster CPU and I can use all the ram now lol.
There is, also, the e8600 which is at 3.33GHz. My personal favourite is the e7600 because of it's lower FSB speed and higher clock which helps me achieve high clock speeds (while overclocking). I ran that as a main rig back from 2017 to 2019, and honestly it was enough for me back then (at 4.38GHz aka last stable OC with the intel extreme edition cooler).
@@aavvironalex I had a Wolfdale 8400 and to be honest, it didn't need an OC. Played STALKER perfectly well maxed out with a pair of HD4770's. But it did OC like a beast, if one was so inclined. My previous E6300 was also a beast for the OC. Saved a lot of money and essentially I had E6600 performance or beyond.
It could be nothing, but I’d it possible the Pentium D didn’t do as well because the motherboard couldn’t sense the temp properly and adjust the fan speed to cool it down? Just a thought…
Hey, sorry I didn't see this sooner. Whenever I benchmark any of these netburst cpu's I always pull the PWM wire out of the fan connector. This causes the fan to run at 100% and still let the mobo see a tach signal. Sounds like a hairdryer but keeps things cool.
I bought a 2006 iMac years ago and it has the 1.8Ghz C2D and 2GB RAM. It only has integrated graphics with no hardware acceleration for video, and even the slow Duo still does ok with 480p UA-cam playback in Snow Leopard. That computer only gets used for playing music and controlling a mixer board now anyway.
You really should have covered overclocking. The pentium D would not have a lot of headroom where most core 2 CPUs were limited by their FSB. 75% plus performance gains were often not out of reach. Especially with chips that had an 800mhz FSB. Had a Core 2 1.8, that beat my E6750 @2.66ghz. The E6750 wouldn't overclock, as it hit FSB issues. The 1.8ghz chip hit 2.66 with a 1600mhz FSB
That's actually a good idea. I was just thinking about that myself. Which would be faster a slow cpu overclocked for a stock 'fast' cpu. Not sure how i'd title it though, but yeah I'm going to take a look into that. Thanks!
@@jims_junk these things almost always clock until the FSB hits a wall, or you run out of PCI dividers. Mine was stable at 3+ GHz, but nothing only the USB worked. The SATA and IDE malfunctioned. The Pentium D is already a space heater. If you use just a stock Pentium D cooler on the Core 2, you'll go a long way. They clock like crazy.
Yup I held onto a few of the Copper cored stock coolers for the pentium D's. I use em for everything. I just overclocked an E4500 to 3ghz but same deal, Sata/ide want none of it but with usb it happily boots to linux. I really do miss the C2D days..these things were OC monsters.
@@jims_junk I can't find contact details for you outside UA-cam, I've got stacks of old socket 478, 775 and 771 gear. I'd happily mod a board to handle a Xeon and send it over. Postage might be expensive though
@@JoshVennix Thanks man. I might take you up on that in the future. Right now I don't have a PO box setup and its nothing personal but don't really want to give out my home address. But I've always heard of people doing that (xeon in a 775 socket) so might actually do that in the near future on camera and see what the difference is performance wise. We once got a ton of Xeon workstations in at work, I didn't have much time but I tossed Gtaiv onto one and the performance was TERRIBLE by comparison. I don't remember what processor it was and didn't take the time to find out where the bottleneck was(was at work afterall), so I'd like to try it out again sometime.
@@jims_junk cool and thanks. I did use this cpu before it was a power house but did produce alot of heat just saying.... I would make sure get the best thermal goooop u can get for this...... lol It was best thing I could use before the core 2 dou and quad series. the solos/first gen sucked butt, and I love old cpu tech. I would also pair it with a 64bit cpu if u can vs what ever ur gonna use. If u ever wanna just talk about tech hit me up. im pretty sure we might have a good thing in the future for helping with that
What about doing a comparison using the exact versions, including contemporary patches, of the games as they were in 2006? Also maybe 2006 graphics drivers. My guess is that using 2006 versions of the games and not patches that came out years later, that the Pentium with its faster clock would be faster as many games were not properly optimized for dual processors or cores then* but may have been subsequently patched to work better some years later.
Netburst was a failure really, the core 2 duo architecture has more in common with the pentium 3, they basically wasted a solid 6 years of development.
LOL I love seeing a lot of these new pc's that people build. They have these tiny low wattage cpu's and have 17 fans in the case. Some prebuilts (cough cough dell) got away with 1 fan that ran at 1/4 its max speed. That was the one thing I hated about that job, supporting places that had pentium 4 or D Dells. "my computers slow......" "yup". We sent so many back within a year or two because we had caps burst from the heat.
It has 2mb less cache, but that doesn't matter, because it runs a lot cooler? Is that statement correct, seems not logical to me. Ps i still think i could get by easily on pentium D still, so on paper it is a not all to clever design in comparison, so what, really , if you already have it in use, and don't need the extra speed.. Kinda feel suckered in, going to quad back then, in hindsight. Live and Learn, i guess.
Um first off Netburst sucked. Secondly if you watched the video (or even used either of these cpu's in real life) the slowest c2d beat the higher clocked pentium D. Yet you are still saying the Pentium D was better? Hey that's your choice. Some people prefer to drive Yugo's. Lets summarize (and this isn't opinion): The core arch was faster than netburst, used MUCH less power, ran MUCH cooler and eventually came in quad core variants.........................but you think the Pentium D is better.
@@Pidalin Not in 240v land, infinite power!!!!!!! Probably need 4 outlets and a good refrigerant cooling system along with a 10kw compressor, all for 40fps in crysis.
Pentium D's kept my school IT room warm in winter and a death trap in summer even with 2 5kw A/C's, They did this because most people looked at ghz back then especially the untrained, they were marketed towards the uneducated, R&D already done and stock needed to go. I saw them mainly in pre builts, marketed for productivity.
I work in a school IT department. Machines are usually chosen based on existing vendor relationships because the business office often hates going through the process of switching vendors. If your school was in a contract with Dell as mine is, it means your bulk device orders run through them, and Dell was one of the most adamant about sticking with Intel. Even now, they really only will offer you a Ryzen CPU in their consumer grade offerings despite Ryzen CPUs being clearly superior in most metrics including power efficiency.
@@honkhonkler7732 And intel Paying OEM's not to use AMD's, at one stage DELL was getting more bribe money from intel than PC sales and that is not a joke lol.
@@honkhonkler7732 push to switch away. Just because things are bad and that’s the way things are doesn’t mean that’s the way things should be.
I had a Core2 E8400. It was a great processor for its time. Swapped it for a Q9550. Ended up on a Gigabyte EP43-ud3l board, after a few failed EVGA boards with the NVIDIA chipsets that the network controllers would fail on. Only regret was not having the 45 board with its better chipset. What a ride.
Wild how a generation just slightly newer has a performance impact this big while also being a far lower clock speed, you rarely see that anymore.
HUGE ANIME BREASTS
Netburst was kinda the Bulldozer of its time.
Did u forget buldozer and RYZEN 💀💀
Because it always takes a brand new architecture to pull out these level of performance jump, even AMD has to do that with Ryzen in order to pull their 52% IPC jump over the awful Bulldozer.
@@erlienfrommars The later FX chips were actually pretty good, especially for gaming and multitasking. Speaks mountains that the i3s and i5s of the era are stuttery messes while the FX chips run smoothly if at a lower fps peak.
Considering clock speed difference, performance increase is staggering. Also Duo overclocked really well hitting 3.0 GHz without hassle and obliterating everything in their way after.
The fact that a Pentium D model was released at the same time as a Core2Duo AND at a 44 percent higher price made my jaw drop. Think about the poor souls who choose to go for that D. Wow... Of course today it's no terrible mistake as both CPU's are at the point where they are considered junk and sell for next to nothing and you typically buy them in bulk so that shipping price won't be higher than that of the item itself.
I know its crazy! The stories I could tell about clients with Pentium D's. They were truly so bad that its funny. BTW Back in the P4 days I found a dual slot 1 board (yes I didn't know they existed either). Slapped in two Pentium 3's just for fun and found that it ran circles around my 2Ghz Pentium 4 Desktop at the time. I'd love to find another one of those boards and play around with it, unfortunately the only ones I've found are $$$$$$$.
It's a very similar story when you look at what some hardware prebuilt "gaming" systems include.
Netburst sucked. Pentium 4 was such a let down compared to Pentium 3. I took a very long break from gaming back in the early 2000's. My Pentium 4 Dell Optiplex machine broke, and I never bothered replacing or fixing it. I'd spent far too many hours on Quake III OSP. When I came back to PC gaming in 2006, I built a Core 2 Duo E6300 machine with an Nvidia 7600 GT. Even at 1.86Ghz, that CPU blew me away with it's performance. I could play Total Annihilation at 1440x900, with 1000 unit cap, in big skirmishes and it remained smooth! Even on my Pentium 4 2Ghz rig just a few years earlier, a few AI opponents with a 400 unit cap resulted in some major slowdown. After I OC'ed the CPU to 2.5Ghz, it was just flying. I kept that CPU for years, giving it a 1950XTX and eventually even a pair of HD4770s before I eventually upgraded to an i3-540 @ 3.8Ghz. The only reason I upgraded was Starcraft II was very CPU intensive, If it hadn't been for that game, I'd have kept the C2D for even longer! XD
I suspect that they priced Pentium D higher based on the strength of an established brand that they spend over 10 years of marketing building. Responding to the fact that actual customers would pay more for a Pentium than for another brand. And also customers are easily convinced to pay more by a larger number in the spec. You can capitalise on an uninformed customer who shops by feel several times over.
You can also overclock the E4300 to 2.4Ghz @ 1066FSB or 3GHz @1333FSB or more on a good motherboard too!
E2160's are supremely overclockable too. I find that series make the best Windows XP retro machines. Very tuneable with a decent motherboard, ultra cheap and great performance. C2D's are wasted in XP and generally too quick for many windows 98 crossover games, and single core P4's are just a nightmare - the fastest prescotts eat power and kick out silly heat.
the irony that intel fell back to their pentium 3 Roots to destroy their netburst years in a historic era of pc gains , going from a 945 to a qx9650 quad core in less than 2 years , amazing gains that have not been replicated ever since , no wonder the meme can it run crysis is still being used lol
lol yeah it really is crazy. I still remember when these came out, most of us had moved to AMD but FINALLY Intel was catching up! It was well worth the upgrade cost. I still remember my first Pentium 4 at 3ghz. My 1.4ghz Pentium 3 blew it away in most programs. I also had a dual slot1 P3 pc and even that was faster in a lot of things.
Netburst wasn't totally trash. Intel just went for too big an overhaul. Many of the architecture functions that slowed the netburst chips and which were dropped for the core 2 were re-introduced in the core i series but with fixes. There are interesting articles and discussions online that cover this and go in deep detail if you ever want more info.
I think there's another architectural thing going on that is contributing to the similarity in performance despite the differences in speed - Netburst had notoriously bad branch prediction. In fact, it was so bad that the Core series is an evolution of the Pentium M, part of the P6 architecture line, rather than the Pentium 4 and its Netburst architecture.
Not just the branch prediction but the pipeline as a whole. It’s excessively large, fixed length, and coupled with an awful penalty for prediction mistakes. Most of a Pentium 4’s circuitry is idle most of the time lmao
@@fenixlolnope361 Which is why HyperThreading was so critical for Pentium 4s at the time: when the branch predictor failed to correctly guess the next instruction and the 1st pipeline was flushing itself to start the correct instruction, the 2nd one (the other thread) could execute code and continue using the ALU and FPU.
Thus HyperThreading on NetBurst CPUs provides the biggest performance gain out of all HT implementations, up to 60% compared to a Pentium 4 without HT.
This also explain why the Celerons at the time were so weak: not only did they lacked HyperThreading and could only run with a slower FSB, they also had a miserable 128k or 256k of cache (compared to 512k for Northwood P4s, 1M for Prescott P4s and 2M for Prescott-2M and Cedar Mill P4s), which made the already weak branch predictor far less accurate than on equivalent P4s, where the bigger cache could store more information to calculate the predictions. In fact, I'm pretty sure than the Celerons and Celeron-Ds really spent 80% of their execution time flushing the 20 or 31-stage pipeline in particularly unpredictable scenarios (like non-Netburst-optimized game engines or APIs).
yeah it's honestly hilarious, they designed such a brilliant way to get around problems of a CPU arch that was just awful. Imagine if Intel were actually making Pentium M based desktop chips with similar wattage levels on the high end as their Pentium D monstrosities.. I mean they did do that eventually, but I hate how they wasted our time. @@benjib2691
I have no experience with the Pentium D, but did use a Core 2 Duo as my daily for many years. I never tried gaming on it, but for use as a computer doing basic stuff, it was perfectly fine. Definitely not slow for my needs at least
well the core two duo was a more modern cpu architecture over the pentium 3 tech of the pentium D
@@SaraMorgan-ym6ue No, the Core architecture has more to do with P6 (the Pentium III architecture) than NetBurst (Pentium 4s, Pentium Ds, Celerons and Celeron Ds). In fact, NetBurst was so flawed that Intel rolled back to a P6 base for Core.
@@benjib2691 Also in 2003, Intel heavily modified the P6 architecture for the M lineup (not the Pentium 4M) used in mobile applications and they drew far less power than the P4 M.
Good video, keep it up! I still remember my old PC based on NetBurst Pentium 4 CPU. It was really slow.
And on top all you needed was a half decent cooler and board to set the E4300 to an FSB of 1333Mhz and got a 3Ghz CPU that simply anihilated all of the last gen high end cpus, for a fraction of the price. and it still draw less power :D
I am both shocked and appalled that they are for the same socket.... Was... Was in 2006.
The lga 775 really seems like the most widely ranged socket. Took single thread pentium 4s all the way to extreme edition core 2 quads.
I picked up an MSI 955x Platinum with a Pentium 4 631. It seems a Pentium D is the max CPU I can use. I have a 945 on the way. I tested the 631 with a K600 GPU in Win7x86 and got a little over 14K for a bench score. I’m wondering if there will be much improvement with the 945. The board is really nice with tons of features including RAID, 1394, infrared, etc. I can’t believe a Duo won’t run on this thing. I did try with a couple 800MHz FSB Core2Duo CPUs but no dice.
Nice find! I'm sure you have but just incase, did you check for any bios updates? I had some ACER pc's at work that used ASUS boards. They were built before core2's were released, however I eventually found some updates that added cpu compatibility. Sure the FSB was locked at 200/800 but hey it kept some of those pc's out of the dumpster.
@@jims_junk yes the board is running the latest BIOS so Pentium D is the max. I did get the 945 in and it works pretty good with board. However, there’s so quirk with this BIOS (regardless of version) in that all ram is detected but only half is available for use. The BIOS even states total detected and what’s available for use. 1GB I can only use 512MB…4GB I can only use 2GB. Couldn’t find any BiOS setting causing that. Everyone was stumped in the XP subreddit, too, so I switched the board out with a Gigabyte board with an E8600. Faster CPU and I can use all the ram now lol.
@@mesterak wow that's weird
@@mesterak should make a custom bios at that point
@@fenixlolnope361 I may try this but not sure I’ve seen 945 Express run Core2Duo CPUs with 800MHz FSB
Something feels dishonest about this I had a Pentium D 820 and played Crysis and GTA 4 just fine
Would a comparison between the C2D E4300 against one of the last of the C2Ds such as the E8400 or E8500 be possible?
Sure I'll see what I can do
Be sure to sub. As soon as I come across one I'll throw a vid together.
There is, also, the e8600 which is at 3.33GHz. My personal favourite is the e7600 because of it's lower FSB speed and higher clock which helps me achieve high clock speeds (while overclocking). I ran that as a main rig back from 2017 to 2019, and honestly it was enough for me back then (at 4.38GHz aka last stable OC with the intel extreme edition cooler).
@@aavvironalex I had a Wolfdale 8400 and to be honest, it didn't need an OC. Played STALKER perfectly well maxed out with a pair of HD4770's. But it did OC like a beast, if one was so inclined. My previous E6300 was also a beast for the OC. Saved a lot of money and essentially I had E6600 performance or beyond.
It could be nothing, but I’d it possible the Pentium D didn’t do as well because the motherboard couldn’t sense the temp properly and adjust the fan speed to cool it down? Just a thought…
Hey, sorry I didn't see this sooner. Whenever I benchmark any of these netburst cpu's I always pull the PWM wire out of the fan connector. This causes the fan to run at 100% and still let the mobo see a tach signal. Sounds like a hairdryer but keeps things cool.
I bought a 2006 iMac years ago and it has the 1.8Ghz C2D and 2GB RAM. It only has integrated graphics with no hardware acceleration for video, and even the slow Duo still does ok with 480p UA-cam playback in Snow Leopard. That computer only gets used for playing music and controlling a mixer board now anyway.
You really should have covered overclocking. The pentium D would not have a lot of headroom where most core 2 CPUs were limited by their FSB. 75% plus performance gains were often not out of reach. Especially with chips that had an 800mhz FSB. Had a Core 2 1.8, that beat my E6750 @2.66ghz. The E6750 wouldn't overclock, as it hit FSB issues. The 1.8ghz chip hit 2.66 with a 1600mhz FSB
That's actually a good idea. I was just thinking about that myself. Which would be faster a slow cpu overclocked for a stock 'fast' cpu. Not sure how i'd title it though, but yeah I'm going to take a look into that. Thanks!
@@jims_junk these things almost always clock until the FSB hits a wall, or you run out of PCI dividers. Mine was stable at 3+ GHz, but nothing only the USB worked. The SATA and IDE malfunctioned.
The Pentium D is already a space heater. If you use just a stock Pentium D cooler on the Core 2, you'll go a long way. They clock like crazy.
Yup I held onto a few of the Copper cored stock coolers for the pentium D's. I use em for everything. I just overclocked an E4500 to 3ghz but same deal, Sata/ide want none of it but with usb it happily boots to linux. I really do miss the C2D days..these things were OC monsters.
@@jims_junk I can't find contact details for you outside UA-cam, I've got stacks of old socket 478, 775 and 771 gear. I'd happily mod a board to handle a Xeon and send it over. Postage might be expensive though
@@JoshVennix Thanks man. I might take you up on that in the future. Right now I don't have a PO box setup and its nothing personal but don't really want to give out my home address. But I've always heard of people doing that (xeon in a 775 socket) so might actually do that in the near future on camera and see what the difference is performance wise. We once got a ton of Xeon workstations in at work, I didn't have much time but I tossed Gtaiv onto one and the performance was TERRIBLE by comparison. I don't remember what processor it was and didn't take the time to find out where the bottleneck was(was at work afterall), so I'd like to try it out again sometime.
I think the cost was simply marketing. It's easier to sell a higher number.
I am still using it and using it to make this comment. So good under GNU/Linux and a good SSD + RX 580 4GB, 4GB RAM
So is the pentium d more like a system with 2 pentium 4s then a dual core p4
pretty much
To be honest I would like you to try the pentium D 965 it had hyper threading so 2 core 4 threads
I definitely will. Got a few other things I'm working on atm, but that is definitely getting added to the todo list
@@jims_junk Ya I actually owned the PD 965 and with custom mobos u can OC it just abit with Base Clock Ocing. Basically no multipliers...
@@jims_junk cool and thanks. I did use this cpu before it was a power house but did produce alot of heat just saying.... I would make sure get the best thermal goooop u can get for this...... lol It was best thing I could use before the core 2 dou and quad series. the solos/first gen sucked butt, and I love old cpu tech. I would also pair it with a 64bit cpu if u can vs what ever ur gonna use. If u ever wanna just talk about tech hit me up. im pretty sure we might have a good thing in the future for helping with that
Also note depending on board u can get some more performance with base clock OCing just keep ur ram speed multiplyer close to the same mhz
@@kirahirosho363 BTW just so you know, I've uploaded an updated version of this video here: ua-cam.com/video/mOTH-WrMC54/v-deo.html
Man, GTA 4 and 5 run at nearly the same FPS? Shows how poorly optimized 4 was.
What about doing a comparison using the exact versions, including contemporary patches, of the games as they were in 2006? Also maybe 2006 graphics drivers. My guess is that using 2006 versions of the games and not patches that came out years later, that the Pentium with its faster clock would be faster as many games were not properly optimized for dual processors or cores then* but may have been subsequently patched to work better some years later.
wouldn't that be really difficult to find the exact version of each?
why not pit a 3.4 ghz core two duo vs the 3.4 pentium D for the giggle factor make it a ghz to ghz comparison of the architectures to punches pulled.
haha I did something very similar for that exact reason. However it was 2.8 vs 2.8 ua-cam.com/video/oDUHC7JqAzw/v-deo.html
Pentium D-saster
pentium d was a failure.
Netburst was a failure really, the core 2 duo architecture has more in common with the pentium 3, they basically wasted a solid 6 years of development.
Pipeline stalls for days.
Pentium d vs dual core which is best please tell me
In threaded applications the dual will always win.
wow heat from a pentium d, shocker......lol
LOL I love seeing a lot of these new pc's that people build. They have these tiny low wattage cpu's and have 17 fans in the case. Some prebuilts (cough cough dell) got away with 1 fan that ran at 1/4 its max speed. That was the one thing I hated about that job, supporting places that had pentium 4 or D Dells. "my computers slow......" "yup". We sent so many back within a year or two because we had caps burst from the heat.
It has 2mb less cache, but that doesn't matter, because it runs a lot cooler? Is that statement correct, seems not logical to me.
Ps i still think i could get by easily on pentium D still, so on paper it is a not all to clever design in comparison, so what, really , if you already have it in use, and don't need the extra speed.. Kinda feel suckered in, going to quad back then, in hindsight. Live and Learn, i guess.
Um first off Netburst sucked. Secondly if you watched the video (or even used either of these cpu's in real life) the slowest c2d beat the higher clocked pentium D. Yet you are still saying the Pentium D was better? Hey that's your choice. Some people prefer to drive Yugo's. Lets summarize (and this isn't opinion): The core arch was faster than netburst, used MUCH less power, ran MUCH cooler and eventually came in quad core variants.........................but you think the Pentium D is better.
@@whynot9884 I modified my answer, so it is a bit more clear, i hope. Was a bit vague.
I loved my Pentium D. Why? It was free.
Try a dual socket Pentium D for a quad core.
that will melt your electric cables in walls
@@Pidalin Not in 240v land, infinite power!!!!!!! Probably need 4 outlets and a good refrigerant cooling system along with a 10kw compressor, all for 40fps in crysis.
@@REPOMAN24722 I finished Crysis on single core Celeron D 😀
Oh
Cómo un core 2 duo sea ligeramente superior ante un tanque calenton