Zoomer here. When people say the Pentium 4 was a disaster, which Pentium 4 are they referring to? Or, in other words, which one sucked the most?
All of Netburst, especially Prescott.
>>101223424oh shit im a dumbass, i was thinking intel released multiple generations under the pentium 4 name and some used different microarchitectures, my bad. though it is kinda weird how they stuck with it for so long. wikipedia is saying 2006 which would mean 6 years...
Willamette was early adopter curse, Northwood was fine, Prescott was house fire.The budget-conscious builder choose Athlon XP in the day, Palominos were already great, but Thoroughbreds and Bartons were the best bang for your buck.P4 was a dead-end for Intel, C2D was more an updated P3 than a P4.
>>101223489*OC'ing was also much more popular in the day and yielded greater results.Like 1.2Ghz CPUs going all the way up to 2.2 Ghz, simply by going from an FSB of 266 to 400 Mhz, with no or minimal voltage bumps.C2Ds and C2Qs were also extremely overclockable, but already so performant, you didn't really consider overclocking anymore unless you were gaming or doing other load-intensive work.
>89w Prescott was considered a housefirehow times have changed
>>101223413Willamette was an underperforming disappointment, Northwood was actually pretty good, Prescott was a housefire, Cedar Mill was meh, Gallatin was an overpriced meme.
didn't a bunch of the earlier P4's use RAMBUS instead of SDRAM? i vaguely remember my stepdad upgrading his ~2001 era P4 Dell and it used RAMBUS and was extremely expensive to upgrade
>>101223489>C2D was more an updated P3 than a P4.More of a descendant. The lineage goes Pentium III>Pentium M>Centrino (core 1)>Core 2.
It was so funny that Intel legitimately believed they could take NetBurst up to like 10 GHz.
>>101223413To this day I'm not sure what to do with hyperthreading.I can never get that shit to work.
>>101223645>descendantYou're right, that is the more correct term.
>>101223662and leds mage da bibeline really long :DDDDDD
>>101223450>i was thinking intel released multiple generations under the pentium 4 name and some used different microarchitecturesYou're correct, but Prescott was just a revision of Netburst. Both were designed on the principle that if they put lots of smaller pipeline stages, they could make revisions of the architecture with progressively higher clock speeds, 10 GHz and beyond. But they hit other barriers to higher speeds and got stuck with a deep pipeline with expensive stalls for incorrect branch predictions and no real benefit. So when they moved on to Pentium M and Core they went back to a modified version of the P6 architecture used in Pentium 3.>>101223424Prescott had better performance, it just ran hotter. Put a sufficient cooler on it and it's great.
>>101223413Early Pentium 4 was fine.The problem is that by Prescott they where hotter, more expensive and worse performing than Athlon 64 processors.
>>101223641Yes. I recall reading an article on overclockers.com (or was it .net?) about some dude swearing and insisting its pretty good, that, in retrospect to my childlike eyes, must've been boomer cope.I wouldn't say as bad as audiophools, there are measurable performance increases I recall, but just not worth it for the extra money.
>>101223413https://www.cpushack.com/2018/03/15/cpu-of-the-day-intel-jayhawk-the-bird-that-never-was/
>>101223645Centrino is a marketing term for intel wifi, chipset and cpu combo and not a CPU. You mean the Core Duo, which basically were 2 Pentium M cores glued together
>>101223413
>>101223924Honestly, how long did Intel make the pipeline? I remember it being said the pipeline latency was so high, it was noticeable in GUI interactions.
>>10122395931 stages on bresgodd :DDDDD xDDDD
>>101223959https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/07/28/amds-athlon-64-getting-the-basics-right/
sovl
>>101223959It really shouldn't manifest like that. A pipeline stall happens when the branch predictor mis-predicts. Simply clicking stuff in the GUI doesn't cause that any more than any other operation, and reloading a full pipeline mostly is a cached operation and even if it's not cached it's not so slow that it's measurable in human perception times. It's only bad when a certain chunk of code is causing so many mispredictions that the CPU is doing very little real work and is constantly stalled. In other words a badly written program with large conditional branches everywhere that somehow goes against standard branch optimisation practices.We have even longer pipelines in today's CPUs, but we don't criticise them like we did in the P4 era because long pipelines aren't a meme anymore, just the reality.
>>101223641Yes. RAMBUS was actually awesome. Like proper RAMBUS equipped Northwood P4s are GREAT to the point that you can actually find zoomers testing systems with the preamble that P4s are hot and slow and RAMBUS is awful and then they proceed to get BTFO by the real world numbers.RAMBUS was expensive though. And when something is expensive you get a lot of coping poorfags making shit up. And when there's nobody around to correct the record these lies become "truth." The truth is the P4 was obviously designed around RDRAM and when they had to go DDR there was a clear performance drop. But RDRAM on PC was not to be because RAMBUS the company refused to release their patents into a patent pool and this meant any 3rd party making RDRAM would have had to pay RAMBUS for the privilege, thus killing its adoption as an open standard.So it's good that DDR won in the long run, but it was really bad for P4 that RAMBUS fucked everyone since it just wasn't built for DDR.
All heat. High power usageAnd you had cap plague.
>>101223413ENTER
>>101223413All of them because they were designed to work around the enormous latencies of RAMBUS. They did this by having lots and lots of clocks.The thing with RAMBUS was that it saved some pins and traces on the mobo, and forced you to pay royalties. Intel and the RAMBUS company had an idea of free money.But the latencies of RAMBUS made the Pentium 3 extremely slow.In the end, everyone else didn't wan't to pay Intel/RAMBUS for royalties and devloped DDR SDRAM, these days just known as DDR1. It didn't save pin/trace count but was fast and had low latencies. Then it took a couple of years for Intel to throw in the towel.
>>101223701As a user? Just run Linux. The OS is made of a bunch of small processes and threads (until you run some giant thing like GNOME or a browser anyway) so hyperthreading is a very nice boost for however many cores you have. BIG.little setups on ARM and Intel's P-cores work on a similar principle.
>>101225071>Just run LinuxYWNBAW
>>101223413in an attempt to win the retarded clock wars, Intel experimented with longer pipelines and ultimately lost everything
>>101223489There was all sorts of crazy AMD CPUs at the time. Mobile Athlon XP overclocked from 1.8ghz to 2.7ghz, FSB from 333mhz to 500mhz with 500mhz DDR1.Intel just had shit IPC (willamette p4 1.7ghz being worse than 1.2ghz Pentium 3), so even a 3.4ghz Northwood got shit on hard by the 2.6ghz Athlon XPs. While using more power and making more heat.
>>101224574>>101225029RAMBUS and rest of memory vendors had a massive legal spat at the time, basically both parties were trying to screw each over. The other vendors end-up winning. RDRAM was interesting but silly issues like requiring C-RIMMs to complete it and drank considerably more power than SDR/DDR1. RDRAM's main advantage was bandwidth that scale-up as you add more chips to the channel.
>>101223413Netburst was a massively marketing influenced design. It was build around the "More MEGAHURTZ = faster!" meme. It rapidly ran out of steam when transistors (90-65nm node) could no longer could scale to 4Ghz and beyond without requiring insane of power. The architecture's weaknesses quickly caught-up.>>101223569It was a leaky SOB and vast majority of desktop computers weren't using massive tower coolers or waterblocks at the time. 30-65W chips cooled by modest HSFs were the norm at the time.
PresHOT sucked the mostConsumes insane amount of power, hot like hell and shitty 30 stage pipeline that has severe drawbacks
>>101223489Based truthpilled anon.
Had a Pentium 4 when it was popular. It just worked.
>tfw northwood chad>buy celery cpu>overclock to P4 speedsnothing personnel schlomo
Earliest P4s were slower clock for clock than outgoing P3s, especially when they later released Tualatin P3s. All P4s kinda sucked, but it was more of a dead end rather than being completely unusable. You wouldn't want to run Vista on low end P4 tho.
p4 was trash cause it was objectively slower than athlons while using more watts and higher clock speeds >le more megahertz is...le goode so said intel marketing and yet they were outperformed. once athlon64 dropped it was over.amd then buried c2d with bulldozer.
P4 was trash but I'm glad they had Itanium to fall back on.
>>101226505itanium released today would have survived
>>101223924/r/ing the PowerPC 970 edit
all of them except for cedarmill which was just mediocre
my first PC had Pentium D fucking 925. What a waste of sand.
Zoomer here.Kys zoomer
>>101223413It doesnt matter which pentium they were referring to. They are idiots.
>>101226045I went to PC world with my dad around the time the P4 was new.I remember the choice being between a 1.7ghz P4 Advent PC (stores own brand I think). Or an HP with a 1.4ghz AMD chip.I picked the 1.7ghz. Intel marketing department won that round...
>>101226806i miss leafy sm, i used to watch him when i was like 10
>>101224964Download more CPU!
>>101226856Same bro... sameHe's the true icon of our generation.
>>101226511No, it was doomed to fail just like P4.
>>101223413i unfortunatelly got the even earlier kind, the one with rdram...still used that thing with a geforce mx2 to up to the 2009 or so, i had to mess around it to make half life 2 to work in it>>101223641this, at least in my country getting the ram was almost impossible, and you were really limited in the maximum amount of ram to like half a gig? i dont remember anymoreshould boot that pc this summer when i am in the family house
>>101224964>ENTERis this a new reddit meme or something? it makes no fucking sense
>>101227707It's an /a/ meme from the Dragon Ball Super threads. People would post ENTER JIREN because he was the hyped up final villain of DBS to the point where he became a meme there.
>>101223413iirc 3Ghz prescott is like 105-115W max, with two 12cm 2800rpm case fans it might not t junktion at longer full load
P4 was basically a clockspeed gimmick. It used a shitload of power, and initially needed expensive, proprietary memory. Back in the day I had an IBM Thinkpad with a P4... I used to put my coffee mug next to the heatsink exhaust, it did a nice job of keeping the coffee warm. My recollection of P4 was it was better to hang onto your final PIII until they came out with Core and Core2.
>>101223413If you're a zoomer then you should have been alive to remember the Netburst/Prescott disasterclass. Especially since they were popular low budget build choices for a time.
>>101228207>/a/ meme from the Dragon Ball Super threadsno fucking wonder it is so obnoxious, the worst of both worlds in one package
>>101228345Very much so. I remember pentium 4 window xp shitboxes that were super slow and alright got viruses or worms. Basically, everyone that wasn't a CS major and ran windows XP during that era would eventually get some kind of malware on their computer. Don't understand why that time is glorified.
>>101223569heat pipe coolers were uncommon in mid-2000s, and plain aluminum blocks can't cool 89W without a loud fan
>>101226045Yep. Athlons were still cheaper though, because at stock, the Pentiums were faster.It's just that everyone knew you basically could push a 266Mhz FSB Athlon to 333Mhz FSB (at this time, DDR400 was becoming standard), and then you had some room to 400 to play around and the exit generation of Socket A mobos and DDR modules definitely did even more than 400Mhz.And Intel rode that marketing train hard with clock speed, ask 9/10 people in a mall about CPU and they will say "Intel" alone because it has the jingle in the ads running on TV.It was win-win-win-win, that is, the normies won (well, no, but their ignorance makes them think they do), the enthusiasts won (better performance AND cheaper), Intel won and AMD won.>I see trees of green.... red roses too...
>>101223569>>101228432>tfw you can actually overclock the p4 on a hyper 212 to 5ghz
>>101226505Itanium was doomed, it was chasing a market that was already on life support when it was under development. When the Itanium became available. The market was pretty much dead. The HPC world had rapidly changed. Itanium became another interesting architecture that didn't meet its lofty goals.
>>101228446Netburst was only faster at floating operations which K8 had addressed. It was game over once K8 came out. Intel had to resort cannibalizing theri 2P versions of their Netburst chi[ (Gallatin) just to save face (L3 cache masked the pipeline issues).
>>101228472It found a rather small but resilient market, they only just discontinued it like last year. It wasn't the new main architecture they wanted but it did them some business.
>>101228596Defense contracts that bought into the EPIC meme via a long-term contract. They drop the platform as soon as the contract had expired. That was the final nail in the Itanium platform. Itanium met the same fate as contemporaries (SPEC, DEC and other RISC-like architectures), that was designed to go up against.
>>101228448can those olds p4 be overclocked a lot?i have a couple of stock coolers for 100+w cpus
>>101223413We don't take kike companies seriously here.
>>101228768What bothers me about stupid shits like you is how you ignore the fact that you need to add two lines to show a simple line break on reddit, and that's where the meme came from. No, finding old instances of this does not prove anything, neither do double lines between paragraphs.
>>101228836People are trying to have a discussion about processors, keep your mindbroken trumpanzee shit to yourself, Cletus.
>>101228768If I ignore (You) harder (which I usually do), this comment would not exist.That is all I have to say to (You).
>>101229128A line break is a tier-1 context change, a paragraph is a tier-2 context change, it's that simple, only idiots conflate this with ledditspacing, which is, unfortunately, about 90% of everybody.TRD
>>101229483Reddit has so mind broken 4/tard's minds and keeps living rent-free by existing
>>101229156Drumpf loves Tel-Aviv though.
>>101223489this, its sad intel forgot about hyperthreading for half a decade, conroe and wolfdale were dunking on amd's ancient k8 architecture, they would have been toast if a XE6800 had 4 cores 8 threads
>>101230135Yeah, I recall that too, Conroe was extremely overclockable, making Intel timeline-exceptionally the budget king in that day.I got my hands on an "Intel Confidential" Conroe that was an E-something-something, I think it was 1.7Ghz stock and it did 2.4Ghz without a voltage boost, just by bumping the FSB to 333Mhz from 266Mhz, which were both JEDEC standards at the time.K8 was somehow already running too hot to keep up with Conroe then, idk.
>>101229483>A line break is a tier-1 context changekek no. Only ESL donkeys think each sentence needs to be on a new line.
>>101223413one of those is my first names and it's hilarious every time i see it >it came in super handy when i introduced myself to one of our nations former leaders
>>101228207excuse me that's wrong and you damm well fucking know it's wrongit's a kengan meme and you fucking damm well know it
>>101226328it was an idea, but it was a dead-end one. i'm not an expert on the subject, but i believe the original intent was to make p4 win out through sheer clock speed, they were talking about 10GHz chips by 2005 at one pointin the end though iirc they made the pentium M out of the P3 arch, and then that turned into intel core
>>101230324Only retards think a context change implies a new sentence.For the sake of correctness, considering the lexical technicality of implying a sentence as a context change, then, following my scheme above, it would also be implied that a sentence is a tier-0 context change, i.e. below or less of a change than a line break, i.e. tier-1 context change.But you're too retarded to understand that, and then fate decides to humor me with you calling me a retard, which is ironic, considering you are even too retarded to understand and know that you are retarded.But alas, I expected nothing more, so rest easy and let it slide.
>>101230188amd was slacking off, the 64 x2 dunked on the netburst based dual cores. intel did the same thing while amd was fucking around with bulldozer/piledriver/apu's
>>101223662imagine the smell of molten aluminium
>>101223489>The budget-conscious builder choose Athlon XP in the dayCan confirm. My Athlon XP 1800+ shat all over my classmate's Pentiums.
>>101225189Most of the world runs on Linux.
>>101226806>>101226856>>101226889Must've been fucked up growing up and already having Youtube available.
>>101223841>Early Pentium 4 was fine.it only performed slightly worse than a pentium 3
>>101226557Got it
>>101223413It wasn't bad. I had a Pentium 4 back in the day and it ran everything just fine.When the Core 2 Duo came out was the real beginning of modern computing though. The Pentium 4 was just more of the same, just a slightly faster P3.
>>101229156>mindbroken trumpanzee shitTrump gave more funding to Israhell than anyone before him and Sleepy Joe even moreso.>Cletus.See above. I seriously doubt hillbillies hate kikes at all. Keep your buckbroken estrogenated drivel to yourself, Tranny.
>>101228836you stupid cunt
Any celeronchads here? I almost set my bed on fire with this piece of shit.
They fucked up Itanium and Pentium lines at basically the same time.Divided focus?
>>101226045Back in the day I took an Athlon XP-M 2000+ CPU clocked at 1667MHz out of a laptop, put it into my A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard, and set it to run at 2.2GHz (3200+ speeds). Ran flawlessly at a pretty low voltage.
>>101223924>>101233713Kek, there must be more of these.Also IIRC Pentium D wasn't *that* bad and if you got a Intel 975 board (not all) Core 2 was just a drop-in upgrade.
>>101234701oh there are
>>101231180Yes.Funny how the cycle keeps repeating.
>>101230188>E-something-something, I think it was 1.7Ghz stock and it did 2.4Ghz without a voltage boost, just by bumping the FSB to 333Mhz from 266MhzMust've been the E6300, I don't think it had the extra 2MB L3 cache that warranted the xx20 number, I recall the BIOS saying it was an Exx00 CPU.That is 7x266Mhz=ca.1.87Ghz, which did 333 Mhz with stock voltage and 400 Mhz FSB with minimal increase.The multipliers were all locked, not sure if CPU's still are.I think I remember struggling to get past 3Ghz, because the mobo couldn't handle higher FSBs.I think I settled for 410Mhz or so, which resulted in 2.87Ghz clock speed.It was enough I never bothered upgrading until Core iX was released which suddenly made quad-core Conroes (Yorksfield, I think?) widely available second-hand and crashed their prices, in the mid-2010s you could get server Xeon Exxxx models for a Euro a piece, that need one LGA775 sticker put to the underside to make that server CPU usable in desktop motherboards.I mellowed out my overclocking days with an Asus P5Q3 (Pro?) and hit a final FSB of 440 stable, 454 max, but couldn't bother tweaking that to get it rock solid.
>>101228345I was three years old.
>>101223413Willamette. It was the first one that came out, to much fanfare, and it was the one that solidly underperformed PIII. Then Northwood came out and was really good, but had a tendency to shit itself when overclocking. Prescott fixed that, but it was basically overclocked from the factory and it took a long time before proper CPU coolers became commonplace. People meme about how AMD was so much faster for a given clock speed, which is true, but P4 always clocked high enough to keep the overall crown.
Original Itanium was worseWhat I remember from an old RWT article or thread:>Spent forever in development hell>Marketed before release as the architecture of the future, all others would immediately be obsolete>More power hungry than a P4>More expensive>No software>x86 emulation was slow>A little bit faster than P4 in floating point math but far slower at integer mathTruly Intel's magnum anus
What was the AMD housefire hyberbibeline:DD equivalent?
>>101237170FX-9590
>>101237170Original BulldozerTheir redeeming qualities were taking well to overclocking and being insanely cheap with cheap motherboards
>>101237273The OG Bulldozer really was complete trash, the FX-8150 faced brutal competition even from the old hexacore Phenoms. Piledriver was far, far more usable.
>>101236669>P4 always clocked high enough to keep the overall crownYour memory is faulty. Even Prescott cranked up to nearly 4GHz gets smoked by a lower-end Athlon 64 running a 1.8GHz clock deficit.The Pentium 4 was embarrassing dog shit and anybody with half a brain back then bought an Athlon instead. Figures that /g/ contrarians would simp for it. Gotta support the opposite of the popular thing, right, retard?
>>101234701Pentium D was just as bad as Pentium 4 since it was the exact same Netburst core.The worst were P4-based Celeron/Celeron D though. They had 90% of P4's power consumption for 60% of the performance due to massively gimped cache, and were always used with cheap noisy coolers.
>>101239262That was the exit generation of Pentium 4s vs. the entry generation of Athlon64, which isn't really a fair comparison, the P4 was going up against the Athlon XP, and as you can see in the chart, the final P4s did manage to keep up.However, that Athlon is stock clocked and probably has at least 25% more performance just hidden under the hood.
