So sánh cpu pentium d820 và pentium 4 630 năm 2024

OpenGL acceleration I think. But the framerate skyrocketed when I upgraded to a core 2 duo before I even upgraded from the crappy onboard graphics

Reply 21 of 44, by swaaye

Rank

l33t++

Posts

8122

Joined

2002-07-22, 21:24

Location

WI, USA

Core 2 CPUs are so cheap these days that I find it hard to ponder even Athlon 64 X2 or Phenom, let alone Netburst stuff. I mean Wolfdale E8600s are under $30 on ebay! People can barely give away the lower end SKUs.

I do have a Intel D875PBZ with Northwood 3.4 HT for use as a beastly Win9x setup though. Very solid hardware.

Reply 22 of 44, by m1so

Rank

Member

Posts

343

Joined

2013-03-11, 14:17

Honestly I will NEVER understand Netburst hate. Lots of good times on a P4 3.2 Ghz + GF 6600, played Oblivion to point of addiction. If you seek efficiency, get the.... out of the retro world right now.

Reply 23 of 44, by alexanrs

Rank

l33t

Posts

2349

Joined

2005-10-14, 14:48

Location

Brazil

My Pentium D served me well... but the speed increase I felt when I replaced it with a C2D E6700 (the board didn't support anything higher than Conroes) was significant. That Pentium D managed to bottleneck a lowly DDR2 GT 8600. IMHO I'm not sure Pentium D's are good for retro systems. Anything an Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 can't handle will probably be better off on a C2D anyway... or even an actual modern system it the game runs fine on Win7+.

Reply 24 of 44, by NJRoadfan

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

1062

Joined

2012-05-26, 03:54

Location

Northern NJ

swaaye wrote: Core 2 CPUs are so cheap these days that I find it hard to ponder even Athlon 64 X2 or Phenom, let alone Netburst stuff. I mean Wolfdale E8600s are under $30 on ebay! People can barely give away the lower end SKUs.

The 45nm Core2Quads are still stubbornly expensive for some reason.

As for the Pentium D, I got a Dell Dimension E520 that came with a Pentium D 820. I replaced it with a Core2Duo E6700 and the performance boost was quite noticeable despite the slightly lower clock speed.

Reply 25 of 44, by smeezekitty

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

1302

Joined

2009-09-26, 18:28

NJRoadfan wrote:

swaaye wrote: Core 2 CPUs are so cheap these days that I find it hard to ponder even Athlon 64 X2 or Phenom, let alone Netburst stuff. I mean Wolfdale E8600s are under $30 on ebay! People can barely give away the lower end SKUs.

The 45nm Core2Quads are still stubbornly expensive for some reason.

As for the Pentium D, I got a Dell Dimension E520 that came with a Pentium D 820. I replaced it with a Core2Duo E6700 and the performance boost was quite noticeable despite the slightly lower clock speed.

The 65nm parts are still pretty good though.

Honestly I will NEVER understand Netburst hate. Lots of good times on a P4 3.2 Ghz + GF 6600, played Oblivion to point of addiction. If you seek efficiency, get the.... out of the retro world right now.

Basically x86 CPUs have been getting faster per clock since the 8088/8086.

The 286 was faster per clock than an 808* and a 386 was faster per clock than a 286 and a 486 was faster per clock than a 386 and a Pentium was faster per clock than a 486. Then suddenly the Pentium 4 was slower per clock and significantly hotter than the Pentium 3. It was a terrible processor (when compared to to previous generations) that was manufactured way too long (because Core 2 took too long to develop)

Its not just about efficiency. It is about being a step backwards.

Reply 26 of 44, by QBiN

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

500

Joined

2005-01-14, 19:18

Location

Mêlée Island

smeezekitty wrote:Basically x86 CPUs have been getting faster per clock since the 8088/8086. […]

Show full quote

Basically x86 CPUs have been getting faster per clock since the 8088/8086.

The 286 was faster per clock than an 808* and a 386 was faster per clock than a 286 and a 486 was faster per clock than a 386 and a Pentium was faster per clock than a 486. Then suddenly the Pentium 4 was slower per clock and significantly hotter than the Pentium 3. It was a terrible processor (when compared to to previous generations) that was manufactured way too long (because Core 2 took too long to develop)

Its not just about efficiency. It is about being a step backwards.

I have to agree with you here. I've been a student of superscalar micro-architecture for many years (it is what I got my degree in many years ago). From an objective point of view, NetBurst (in hindsight) was doomed in that it pursued sheer clock speed over everything (including efficiency and IPC [instructions per clock]). Some speculate it was Intel's product management teams' fault because they dictated that customers wanted "more megahertz". In the end, the gains NetBurst made in pure speed were mainly due to cache design, branch prediction, and (most importanly) semiconductor process advances. It was so deeply pipelined to support the clock speeds, that missed branches were extremely detrimental to IPC.

Intel essentially acknowledged this by abandoning NetBurst in favor of continued work on the Core micro-architecture (itself, based on the P6 / P-III micro-architecture) which had come out of Intel's Israeli design division.

I had a Northwood core / NetBurst (P4C-3.4GHz), and I can understand people's emotional defense of the platform... especially if they had lots of good memories from their PC's at the time. It's just not an objective evaluation, though. Truth be told, NetBurst left the door open for AMD to really pummel Intel with their introduction of the K8 architecture and AMD64 (clawhammer core). Intel really wouldn't turn the tide until the Core2 series a little later. It needed to happen. If AMD hadn't been there to make Intel pay for it's mistake with Netburst with hard-nosed competition from the AMD64 line, we wouldn't have the Intel processors we have today.

Reply 27 of 44, by idspispopd

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

1212

Joined

2012-02-15, 21:08

Location

Hamburg / Germany

NJRoadfan wrote: The 45nm Core2Quads are still stubbornly expensive for some reason.

In my experience the best (latest/fastest) possible upgrade components for a system stay quite expensive for a long time, even when the system would be too slow to be usable today which doesn't even apply to C2Q. Examples: K6-3/3+ (inexpensive now but quite dear for a long time), Tualatin PIII-S (inexpensive now), faster MMC-1 cartridges (P2/Celeron CPUs >= 300MHz for early P2 notebooks, 400MHz ones still fetch 30€, latest AGP cards (Radeon HD 4650/4670) even today (PCIe ones are much cheaper), some fast PCI 3D cards (Voodoo3).

Reply 28 of 44, by Skyscraper

Rank

l33t

Posts

3582

Joined

2013-09-18, 15:36

Location

Sweden

If you use your computer only for running the Everest Ultimate ... 2006 ... CPU test "PhotoWorxx" then Netburst rocks 😀. In my testing an overclocked Pentium D with very fast memory really shines in this test.

New PC: i9 12900K @5GHz all cores @1.2v. MSI PRO Z690-A. 32GB DDR4 3600 CL14. 3070Ti. Old PC: Dual Xeon [email protected], EVGA SR-2, 48GB DDR3R@2000MHz, Intel X25-M. GTX 980ti. Older PC: K6-3+ 400@600MHz, PC-Chips M577, 256MB SDRAM, AWE64, Voodoo Banshee.

Reply 29 of 44, by nforce4max

Rank

l33t

Posts

2451

Joined

2012-05-05, 22:55

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote: I'm not a big fan of the Pentium D. They work well as space heaters though. 🤣

Pentium D 805 with a bit of overclocking = 200w+ D:

On a far away planet reading your posts in the year 10,191.

Reply 30 of 44, by fyy

Rank

Member

Posts

215

Joined

2013-11-25, 19:34

NJRoadfan wrote:

swaaye wrote: Core 2 CPUs are so cheap these days that I find it hard to ponder even Athlon 64 X2 or Phenom, let alone Netburst stuff. I mean Wolfdale E8600s are under $30 on ebay! People can barely give away the lower end SKUs.

The 45nm Core2Quads are still stubbornly expensive for some reason.

As for the Pentium D, I got a Dell Dimension E520 that came with a Pentium D 820. I replaced it with a Core2Duo E6700 and the performance boost was quite noticeable despite the slightly lower clock speed.

The Dimension E520 is surprisingly capable. My grandmother had one with a Pentium 4, 512MB Ram, 250GB HD with Windows XP. Last year or so though she said it was too slow and wanted a new computer so I helped her get an all in one newer system with a touch screen that she could show off, and then she gave me the Dimension E520. The chipset on this thing is an Intel G965, so it can support up to a Core2Quad and 8GB of ram, and the Southbridge supports SATA2 as well. It basically became my main machine that I been upgrading here and there for a while now, was a pleasant surprise.

So her old computer has been almost completed gutted and is now:

Core2Quad Q6600 4GB DDR2 800 (up to 8GB if I can find it cheap enough) Radeon HD 4800 series 1TB HD (getting an SSD later on as well) Intel Pro/1000 Gigabit NIC 500W Power Supply

It's now faster than her new computer. I reckon it was only "slow" before because she was limping along on the same XP install for YEARS.

Even swapped out the heatsink to a beefier one to support my quad:

Things to do are get it an SSD, a more modern video card, and perhaps 8GB of ram or atleast a set of 2x2GB so I can have 2x2GB+2x1GB for a 6GB configuration.

Reply 31 of 44, by mockingbird

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

1168

Joined

2013-06-17, 02:57

Gamecollector wrote: By the way, IIRC there was 2 Pentium D 9xx revisions, C1 and D0. The D0 ones are much less heated.

Mine was an SL9D9, C1 stepping (Pentium D 925). Found it in a system on the curb a few years back one summer night. Served me well for a while.

Right now I have an SLANU C0 Harpertown, which is 80W, and it runs a heck of a lot cooler. The exhaust in the back of the case is nowhere near as warm. I know Harpertown is a completely different architecture, but it's quad-core and the Pentium D was dual core.

Maybe the idle states on the Pentium D weren't as efficient.

Reply 32 of 44, by smeezekitty

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

1302

Joined

2009-09-26, 18:28

QBiN wrote:I have to agree with you here. I've been a student of superscalar micro-architecture for many years (it is what I got my degree […]

Show full quote

smeezekitty wrote:Basically x86 CPUs have been getting faster per clock since the 8088/8086. […]

Show full quote

Basically x86 CPUs have been getting faster per clock since the 8088/8086.

The 286 was faster per clock than an 808* and a 386 was faster per clock than a 286 and a 486 was faster per clock than a 386 and a Pentium was faster per clock than a 486. Then suddenly the Pentium 4 was slower per clock and significantly hotter than the Pentium 3. It was a terrible processor (when compared to to previous generations) that was manufactured way too long (because Core 2 took too long to develop)

Its not just about efficiency. It is about being a step backwards.

I have to agree with you here. I've been a student of superscalar micro-architecture for many years (it is what I got my degree in many years ago). From an objective point of view, NetBurst (in hindsight) was doomed in that it pursued sheer clock speed over everything (including efficiency and IPC [instructions per clock]). Some speculate it was Intel's product management teams' fault because they dictated that customers wanted "more megahertz". In the end, the gains NetBurst made in pure speed were mainly due to cache design, branch prediction, and (most importanly) semiconductor process advances. It was so deeply pipelined to support the clock speeds, that missed branches were extremely detrimental to IPC.

Intel essentially acknowledged this by abandoning NetBurst in favor of continued work on the Core micro-architecture (itself, based on the P6 / P-III micro-architecture) which had come out of Intel's Israeli design division.

I had a Northwood core / NetBurst (P4C-3.4GHz), and I can understand people's emotional defense of the platform... especially if they had lots of good memories from their PC's at the time. It's just not an objective evaluation, though. Truth be told, NetBurst left the door open for AMD to really pummel Intel with their introduction of the K8 architecture and AMD64 (clawhammer core). Intel really wouldn't turn the tide until the Core2 series a little later. It needed to happen. If AMD hadn't been there to make Intel pay for it's mistake with Netburst with hard-nosed competition from the AMD64 line, we wouldn't have the Intel processors we have today.

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately AMD is suffering the same fate as Pentium 4 since faildozer (bulldozer); the FX series has poor IPS performance so they only way to compete is to crank up the clocks. That means lots of power consumption and lots of heat.

Reply 33 of 44, by swaaye

Rank

l33t++

Posts

8122

Joined

2002-07-22, 21:24

Location

WI, USA

QBiN wrote:

I have to agree with you here. I've been a student of superscalar micro-architecture for many years (it is what I got my degree in many years ago). From an objective point of view, NetBurst (in hindsight) was doomed in that it pursued sheer clock speed over everything (including efficiency and IPC [instructions per clock]). Some speculate it was Intel's product management teams' fault because they dictated that customers wanted "more megahertz". In the end, the gains NetBurst made in pure speed were mainly due to cache design, branch prediction, and (most importanly) semiconductor process advances. It was so deeply pipelined to support the clock speeds, that missed branches were extremely detrimental to IPC.

Intel essentially acknowledged this by abandoning NetBurst in favor of continued work on the Core micro-architecture (itself, based on the P6 / P-III micro-architecture) which had come out of Intel's Israeli design division.

I had a Northwood core / NetBurst (P4C-3.4GHz), and I can understand people's emotional defense of the platform... especially if they had lots of good memories from their PC's at the time. It's just not an objective evaluation, though. Truth be told, NetBurst left the door open for AMD to really pummel Intel with their introduction of the K8 architecture and AMD64 (clawhammer core). Intel really wouldn't turn the tide until the Core2 series a little later. It needed to happen. If AMD hadn't been there to make Intel pay for it's mistake with Netburst with hard-nosed competition from the AMD64 line, we wouldn't have the Intel processors we have today.

Intel wanted P4 to reach 10GHz eventually. The physical barriers to this weren't entirely evident in the late 90s I suppose. On the other hand they had parallel CPU projects going specifically for notebooks, including Tualatin PIII-M, Pentium M and Core. I'm not convinced that engineering wasn't hopeful and determined to get their desktop racer to 10GHz and vindicate the design philosophy.

Eventually as it became clear that going beyond 4GHz doesn't work out well, they switched gears and threw together Core 2 as a desktop+mobile solution. Considering they canned a new Netburst design in the process, I don't think this was the plan all along. If you look back though, the Pentium M and Core CPUs were already similar to AMD's best and certainly better notebook CPUs.

But still, Netburst was pretty competitive even if it wasn't dominating. It certainly looked better back then against AMD than AMD today looks against modern Intel products. Or even Phenom vs Core 2 for that matter....

There were even some use cases that ran quite well on Netburst. Physics killed the dream though.

Reply 34 of 44, by mr_bigmouth_502

Rank

Oldbie

Posts

1959

Joined

2009-05-16, 19:43

Location

Canada

m1so wrote: Honestly I will NEVER understand Netburst hate. Lots of good times on a P4 3.2 Ghz + GF 6600, played Oblivion to point of addiction. If you seek efficiency, get the.... out of the retro world right now.

The Netburst CPUs weren't necessarily bad, they were just horribly inefficient. I once had a 2.4GHz non-HT Prescott that ran Win98 like a dream, and it wasn't too bad for XP either. It was actually my main box for about 4 years.

Reply 35 of 44, by ultimate386

Rank

Member

Posts

127

Joined

2015-01-05, 18:13

Location

New Mexico

swaaye wrote: I do have a Intel D875PBZ with Northwood 3.4 HT for use as a beastly Win9x setup though. Very solid hardware.

This. I also have a D875PBZ with a 3.4 running XP. No plans to ever get rid of it.

AMD386/IIT387DX40, 32MB, ATi Mach64, AWE64 Compaq Prolinea 4/33, 32MB, Tseng ET4000, SB16 AMD X5, 64MB, S3 Virge/Voodoo1, AWE64 AMD K62+550, 256MB, Voodoo3, AWE64 Gold P3 1.2Ghz, 512MB, Radeon 7500/Voodoo2 SLI, SB Live!

Reply 36 of 44, by fyy

Rank

Member

Posts

215

Joined

2013-11-25, 19:34

swaaye wrote:Intel wanted P4 to reach 10GHz eventually. The physical barriers to this weren't entirely evident in the late 90s I suppose. On […]

Show full quote

QBiN wrote:

I have to agree with you here. I've been a student of superscalar micro-architecture for many years (it is what I got my degree in many years ago). From an objective point of view, NetBurst (in hindsight) was doomed in that it pursued sheer clock speed over everything (including efficiency and IPC [instructions per clock]). Some speculate it was Intel's product management teams' fault because they dictated that customers wanted "more megahertz". In the end, the gains NetBurst made in pure speed were mainly due to cache design, branch prediction, and (most importanly) semiconductor process advances. It was so deeply pipelined to support the clock speeds, that missed branches were extremely detrimental to IPC.

Intel essentially acknowledged this by abandoning NetBurst in favor of continued work on the Core micro-architecture (itself, based on the P6 / P-III micro-architecture) which had come out of Intel's Israeli design division.

I had a Northwood core / NetBurst (P4C-3.4GHz), and I can understand people's emotional defense of the platform... especially if they had lots of good memories from their PC's at the time. It's just not an objective evaluation, though. Truth be told, NetBurst left the door open for AMD to really pummel Intel with their introduction of the K8 architecture and AMD64 (clawhammer core). Intel really wouldn't turn the tide until the Core2 series a little later. It needed to happen. If AMD hadn't been there to make Intel pay for it's mistake with Netburst with hard-nosed competition from the AMD64 line, we wouldn't have the Intel processors we have today.

Intel wanted P4 to reach 10GHz eventually. The physical barriers to this weren't entirely evident in the late 90s I suppose. On the other hand they had parallel CPU projects going specifically for notebooks, including Tualatin PIII-M, Pentium M and Core. I'm not convinced that engineering wasn't hopeful and determined to get their desktop racer to 10GHz and vindicate the design philosophy.

Eventually as it became clear that going beyond 4GHz doesn't work out well, they switched gears and threw together Core 2 as a desktop+mobile solution. Considering they canned a new Netburst design in the process, I don't think this was the plan all along. If you look back though, the Pentium M and Core CPUs were already similar to AMD's best and certainly better notebook CPUs.

But still, Netburst was pretty competitive even if it wasn't dominating. It certainly looked better back then against AMD than AMD today looks against modern Intel products. Or even Phenom vs Core 2 for that matter....

There were even some use cases that ran quite well on Netburst. Physics killed the dream though.

It's all relative really. FX processors would be fine for 95% of people, it's just that they aren't that competitive with Intel's processors when all factors are considered - except price. Be honest, you think anyone is going to notice they are on an FX 6300 or FX 8320 vs an i5 in regular everyday usage? Nope, not unless they're doing development work of sorts where they can measure a difference, but as far as Office, Browsing, and most games? Nope.

The problem I have though is that here is my line of thinking with AMD right now:

-"Ok, so AMD's processors aren't as strong as Intel's that's fine. -"But they are much cheaper and still very capable!" -"Ok but the stock heatsink fan is a piece of shit so I'm going to need a 3rd party HSF" -"Ok, so with that factored in they're still a little cheaper overall... maybe.." -"Well.... also many AMD based boards VRM's can't handle a proper 8 core FX without throttling tons" -"So I'll get a high quality board!" -"Oh just screw it, go with Intel"

Last edited by fyy on 2015-01-28, 02:42. Edited 2 times in total.

Reply 37 of 44, by ODwilly

Rank

l33t

Posts

2307

Joined

2013-06-18, 02:07

Location

Wa. U.S

^ the reason why I went AMD was because I originally put together my system for under $400 using a 120gb IDE drive and a free Athlon llx2 250. After two years of slowly upgrading it I can not feel a difference between my fx-8350 990fx machine and my best friend's i5 3570k machine in general usage and gaming. Now that he has a brand new Geforce 970 there is of course 😁

Main pc: Asus ROG 17. R9 5900HX, RTX 3070m, 16gb ddr4 3200, 1tb NVME. Retro PC: Soyo P4S Dragon, 3gb ddr 266, 120gb Maxtor, Geforce Fx 5950 Ultra, SB Live! 5.1

Reply 38 of 44, by fyy

Rank

Member

Posts

215

Joined

2013-11-25, 19:34

ODwilly wrote: ^ the reason why I went AMD was because I originally put together my system for under $400 using a 120gb IDE drive and a free Athlon llx2 250. After two years of slowly upgrading it I can not feel a difference between my fx-8350 990fx machine and my best friend's i5 3570k machine in general usage and gaming. Now that he has a brand new Geforce 970 there is of course 😁

No doubt, an FX 8350 is a beast of a CPU. Your 8350 should actually be better in heavily multithreaded situations too would think, like if you were gaming + streaming at the same time.

Reply 39 of 44, by Living

Rank

Member

Posts

165

Joined

2014-01-26, 20:01

Location

Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The hate with the Pentium 4 began not only with the low IPC and consumption. You have to include the strict need of Rimm AND ATX 2.03 (wich means new power supply). On top of that the socket 423 was a dead end and the FPU performs below a pentium 3 if you dont use SSE2.

The amount of money you needed for such machine was astronomical compared with a Athlon XP (refering to a platform with future upgrades). In the first year it was very hard to justify such investment as you could buy a matching AMD system for less than half the price!.

Heck! i paid 130u$s for an Athlon XP 1800+ Palomino in April 2002 here in Argentina (king of the hill in october 2001) and paired with 256 DDR 266Mhz and MSI SIS 745 Ultra (i used to joke about one of my friends who bought a Pentium 4 1.3Ghz, 128MB - 64x2 - Rimm and a Intel 850GB 1 month earlier for twice the price!)

considering all this it carried a bad reputation for about 2 years until parts like Northwood's 533Mhz w/HT began to outperform the Athlon XP. When things were getting better the Athlon 64 made the debut and rushed Intel to finish the Prescott, wich was a BIG piece of shit...

need more reasons to hate netburst? the difference on performance you see nowadays between Athlon XP and Pentium 4 its because everyone uses SSE2, but back in the day there was no much difference between a u$s200 AMD and a u$s400-500 Intel. You have to see it from that point of view, today doenst really matter who's the best (talking about proccesors of 10 years ago)

PS: oh yeah! the retention system on the 478 and 775! the first breaks with the pressure, the 2nd was a nightmare at least the first 5 or 10 times. dont get me started!