Talk:Pentium D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Hyperthreading, is it seen as 4 processor and, if it's the case, which version of Linux / Windows can support them?

Pentium D doesn't support Hyper-Threading. You need a Pentium Extreme Edition for Dual-Core and Hyper-Threading. --DaveJB 21:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

the article claims that Some motherboards based on the 865, 875, 915 and 925 chipsets can work with the Pentium D, but most of them will not work., it be interesting to know which ones or at least include a reference to some discussion.

I agree, and the wording is rather awkward. Any suggestions on how to improve this? RashBold 14:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

One point

I hope one day they create just special Pentium that can be used in any kind of pc rather than introduce new things every day so they can take our money.

As good as a dream that may be, it's highly unlikely. If you get into the architecture of a microprocessor, you'd realize that your hopes and dreams won't probably happen. It's a complicated thing, so it's not like they can just create a Pentium-based processor that works on every computer. Remember, there's also licensing and contracts and stuff like that. --CanesOL79 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Under the "Presler" heading, the first sentence has a parenthetical comment: "note however that Presler will be a single chip with 2 physical core dies[sic] on it, enhancing yields of the processor". To me, a chip is a die. So the quoted comment contains a contradiction. Is Presler a single chip/die or is it two dice (the proper plural of die), two chips, in one package? DHR 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Presler is two dice in one package (LGA 775) Abaca 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear

BUT IS IT ANY BETTER? DOES THE DUAL CORE MAKE IT FASTER IN COMPARISON TO A 2.8 gHZ NON PENTIUM D ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diza (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 May 2006.

Yes. Benchmarks can be found at just about any hardware review site. Also, please tone down the caps lock--it makes your message hard to read. jgp 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

yea, sorry about that. so banchmark-wise do they function as a two core pentiums ? OR(sorry bout the caps) alsmost as good ? I could'nt find any non rant data on the subject...--Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this page probably isn't the best place to discuss benchmarks, but here are links to some reviews from Anandtech: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. I hope they help. jgp 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really what I was looking for, but Thanks. This article shoudl contains some general benchmarking information, or at least some links (other than those you gave me..) 10:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threads?

"Most business applications and games as of 2005 only use a single thread..."

O_o Really? I don't think I've ever seen or written a single-threaded Windows application (business or otherwise), and I'd be surprised if single-thread games have existed at any time in the last 10 years. Are you thinking of processes instead of threads? Or maybe I'm somehow mistaken... can you give a reference? Xezlec 02:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

thread, prcocess ? A thread can have many processing sub-threads, bt the main CPU takes them by turn individually.

Okay, whoever wrote that, what are you talking about? I know what a thread is. Is this supposed to be a comment of some sort? Can you elaborate? Xezlec 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to say is that threads and processes are essentially the same thing when it comes to multi-core benefits (CPU takes them by turn individually). Regarding your multi-threaded game statement, I believe most games do the actual work that is the game in one thread. There may be silly little threads handling some menu, window, or even maybe input. The main tasks that make the game like network communication, updating the game state, propagating that to graphics state, drawing a frame, and all those kinds of things are generally done in one pass (and one thread). It all blows up in your face when you try to multi-thread these things, since they depend heavily on each other and must typically be synchronized. Sure it is possible to thread them, but the architecture of the game must be done in such a way where every thread won't be waiting for another thread most of the time. Since the advantage of multi-threaded gaming is essentially non-existent when using one CPU, the added complexity of actually designing a game to take advantage of multi-threading was just not worth it (given that most gaming machines were one CPU). This mentality must now change of course since by the end of this year (2006) most everyone will be using some kind of multi-CPU machine for gaming (including the consoles).