do you remember how badly people wanted to have it? I remember how badly I wanted to have it, Pentium 4 wasn't a standard until like 2004-2005ish
>>108794296I had a 733MHz model, later upgraded it to one of the 1GHz ones, never had a pentium 4 and went from that to an athlon 64x2
>>108794352dangerously based
>>108794296Only ultra-poorfags were still using a Pentium III by 2004 (unless you were a real Intel die-hard and had an overclocked Tualatin). AMD stepped in during that time with the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 ranges, which comfortably outperformed the Pentium 4s whilst drawing less power and running much cooler. It wasn't until 2006 that Intel really got their shit together with the Core 2 lineup that absolutely blew everything else on the market away and heralded more than a decade of total dominance. Pentium 4s were the scourge of shitty prebuilts in the early-to-mid 2000s though thanks to Intel's bribes.The Pentium III is amazing for retro builds though. I have a 600MHz Katmai in my main retro PC along with a GeForce 3 and Voodoo 2s in SLI. The CPU is a major bottleneck for both, but I'm not interested in much past 1999 anyway and being held back a bit keeps the Voodoo 2s cool(er). I also have a Tualatin setup and a few Coppermines hanging around (one of which is from a childhood PC).
>>108794296grandpa, it's time to stop posting and take your meds
>>108794404yeh by 2004 is was pretty much over, but I remember some games still having Pentium 3 listed as a requirement in 2004
>>108794404>AMD stepped in during that time with the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 ranges, which comfortably outperformed the Pentium 4sIt's funny how AMD fanboys have always been totally delusional
>>108794422it's unc now
>>108794296I recently got a P5-100. What vidya should I try on it?
>>108794542daggerfall
>>108794296I used to play Half-Life 2 on my dual P3 when the game came out. Dual Slot1 IBM NetVista.
>>108794296I want straight from a P3 800mhz to a core 2 duo in 2006
>>108794296I remember a big deal over the Pentium processors, but I was too young and retarded to actually know anything about how computers worked.
>>108794296Oddly no, Athlon had better preformance per clock and then came Athlon XP and demolished the P3. Just about eveyone I knew at this time had an AMD CPU and Intel was considered overpriced and overvalued.I feel like both the Pentium 2 and 3 were over before the began. Everyone was rocking Pentium 1 or 1 MMX then nobody touched Pentium until 4 at least thats how it was in Croatia where I grew up. Man tech moves so fast back then.
>>108794956Oh also I remember people were buying Duron 500-900 with the most popular being Duron 700 they came out like 1 year after P3s and were like half the price and from what I remember they were almost 1:1 with a P3.Probably helped a lot that on a Socket A motherboard you could have gone from a Athlon 600 to Athlon XP 2333 Mhz.
https://youtu.be/qpMvS1Q1sos
>>108794434You're the one who is delusional. I built computers back then and AMD CPUs were easily better than Intel, although it wasn't a big advantage in favour of AMD before Prescott. Northwood was still pretty good.
>>108794422>typed from an iphoneok kid
>>108794296I really really love the aesthetics of that box. Comfy and sovlful. This would never make me think of Intel as evil or bureaucratic.
>>108794434Open any cpu review from 2001-2006, you can see netburst was complete dogshit that makes bulldozer look like sandy bridge
I don't remember anyone wanting it that bad. we only played mmos and diablo then.
>>108794404You are forgetting in those years most people were tech illiterate and only dark corners of the internet had cpu benchmarks. The saying back then, even among people who loved computers, was that the more megahertz your processor had the better it was; which is why AMD had to come with that weird nomenclature of calling a processor with 900mhz a "1300+" because it performed as good as an intel of that frequency. Not to mention Intel went as far as crafting that flop P4 architecture that had a huge pipeline with a trash prediction unit in order to squeeze more hertz out at the cost of even less performance. Northwood was bad but Prescott should be erased from history altogether.This is the reason why, regardless of how bad these uArch were, they still sold pretty well due to lack of knowledge. AMD did good but if we had the same level of access to information that we have today I don't know how different history could had been. I remember AMD made enough cash to buy ATI thanks to the success of Athlon, yet it had to go fab-less years later because it was overpriced and didn't make them enough money in the short term to compensate. At the same time they messed up with the Bulldozer arch while Intel did good with the Core architecture.
>>108795435
>>108795435I could keep going but it's easy to find this info and it's obvious that netburst was fine. Anecdotally having used both the hyperthreaded P4s are noticeably smoother systems than the Athlons.
>>108795724>>108795750cherry picking
>>108795724>>108795750pentium 4s are garbage ewaste and will forever have 0 collector value. It's not worth bothering with p4 because you'll have to recap any shitty p4 motherboard anyway. They run hot and have shit performance.
>>108795753ok
>>108794434Intel absolutely fumbled the bag with P4 and putting their faith in IA-64 as the future. It’s not that Intel couldn’t make better CPU’s as is evident by the later core series, it’s just they fell into the GHz hype meme and also wanted a fresh new standard for 64 bit to cuck AMD out of that market. Clearly that backfired massively for them and they had to repo or from the inefficient cesspit that was P4
