Talk:Pentium D

message: Note, there should be some mention in the little Intel Processor categorization below that the Core Duo comes in a 32-bit variety and all Pentium D's are 64-bit (although they can run as 32-bit processors). It's not very good to compare Core Duo's to Pentium D's. I had a Toshiba A135-S2276 with a Core Duo 1.6 Ghz processor, and it seems slower in performance than my Pentium 4 2Ghz IBM Thinkpad T30. And my Pentium D 2.8Ghz Dell Dimension 9150 outperforms the Toshiba by quite a lot even though there is only a Ghz difference in processor speed. All of these I'm running in 32-bit mode although I've tried the Pentium D in 64-bit Xubuntu and seemed to work okay. 
97.123.21.120 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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 <I>create</I> a Pentium-based processor that works on <I>every</I> computer. Remember, there's also licensing and contracts and stuff like that. --CanesOL79 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: BUT IS IT ANY BETTER? DOES THE DUAL CORE MAKE IT FASTER IN COMPARISON TO A 2.8 gHZ NON PENTIUM D ? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, this page probably isn't the best place to discuss benchmarks, but here are links to some reviews from Anandtech:     . I hope they help. jgp 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unclear

message: What's the correct spelling? Currently the article is inconsistent on this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.19.132.65 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are dice.  "Dies" is not an English noun  vcxmvznvz,n,zmnvzvnz,vnz,mvn,zmvnm,zvnmvnz,mvnz,mvnflkajnzxmvnz,mvnasjalksnx,zmxnfhewhfscznxcm,nasiuwyrushfjkzxnbzjhvckiuerhoqifskcjxznzxas far as I know.  I'll fix it. Xezlec 22:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they dies or dice? 

message: This is a weird question, but i wanna know.
Is it true that the Pentium D processors doesn´t have 2 real cores, that they actually emulate the dual-core architecture?
And this bring another question: Which processor has a better performance?
Intel Pentium D945 dual at 3.4Ghz or the Core 2 duo E6400 at 2.1Ghz??
I know this isn´t the place to post this but, i really need to know, pleaseBig butt gangsta 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All Pentium D processors have 2 actual cores.  Any forum about computers could answer the rest.  — Aluvus t/c 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pentium 4 HT is the one that has two virtual cores, but only one real one. The Pentium D, as stated above, has two physical cores. And as for performance, the Core 2 Duo's microarchitecture is widely accepted as being superior to the Pentium D's. Less heat, and more performance, even at lower clock speeds. Look at the articles for NetBurst and Intel Core microarchitecture for more details. Suigi 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For some reason, I have a Pentium D running at a stock 2.8GHz, and yet I believe that it only has a single core... It does not have the processing power of a dual core!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.6.49 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical or emulated cores? 

message: The phrase "it will face the same bus contention issues as a pair of Xeons" seems dubious or at least ambiguous, since there are both single and dual core Xeons, according to that article. -- Beland 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding "single-core" would resolve any such issues, no?  In any case, dual-core (or n-core) Xeons would still face the same issue, just to a different degree.  — Aluvus t/c 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xeon ambiguity 

message: I've changed the text to use "dies" instead of "dice" as the plural of "die". Even if the former weren't more commonly used for the IC component anyway, "dice" has too much of a connotation of "gaming cubes" for a general encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. Besides, Merriam-Webster Online explicitly states that "dice" is the plural of the cube and that "dies" is the plural of the manufacturing term from which the IC fabrication term is derived. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dies vs. dice, redux 

message: Hey,
i'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that the successor to the Pentium D is the Core 2 Duo.
It is most likely the Dual Core "1"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_%28CPU%29
This is probably an error since many people confuse the Dual Core with the Core 2 Duo.
Perhaps someone could confirm and then change the successor part of the article... ?
purpleidea (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pentium D was principally a desktop CPU.  Core Duo was only a laptop CPU.  Core 2 Duo is both a desktop and laptop CPU, and for all intents and purposes it is the successor to both.  All of these are examples of dual core processors.  — Aluvus t/c 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The Pentium Dual Core is only a laptop part, and only a "budget" part at that.  The Pentium D was a desktop-only, mid-range-ish part.  They are targeted at completely different markets. — Aluvus t/c 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pentium dual core is indeed a budget part but it doesn't appear to be laptop only. Dell seem to be putting it in many of thier cheaper desktops. Plugwash (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 months ago, and certainly nearly a year ago when this topic was started, it was very much a laptop-only part.  Intel has quietly brought it to cheap desktops, perhaps as a reaction to the worsening economy. — Aluvus t/c 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Successor 

message: Note. For interested authors, debate and a vote is ongoing on Talk:MOSNUM regarding a proposal that would deprecate the use of computer terms like “kibibyte” (symbol “KiB”), “mebibyte” (symbol “MiB”), and kibibit (symbol “Kib”). It would no longer be permissible to use terminology like a “a SODIMM card with a capacity of two gibibytes (2 GiB) first became available…” and instead, the terminology currently used by manufacturers of computer equipment and general-circulation computer magazines (“two gigabytes, or 2 GB”) would be used. Voting on the proposal is ongoing here.  Greg L (my talk) 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. This just goes to show the issue is an old one!Glider87 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MiB and KiB v.s. MB and KB

message: In which applications does the Pentium D outperform the Pentium Dual-Core then? --85.227.229.225 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the sentence again. --Denniss (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? --85.227.229.225 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the IP does himself no favours, the paragraph is completely unsourced.-Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the purpose of the talk page to do oneself favours? I would also like to know when the Pentium D manages to outperform the Pentium Dual-Core. --Sopastar (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... outperform the Pentium D in most applications." 

message: This is the first processor I know of that can run any Operating System 32 bit or 64 bit.  With slight revision, for example, a Dell Optiplex GX-620, (if one researches this/Pentium D), there is recorded people who have been able to run operating systems, both Windows 8.1 32 Bit, 64 Bit, and Windows 10 32 Bit, 64 Bit. One person above was able to run Ubuntu 64 Bit on this processor. I know it easily runs the most modern version of Lubuntu 32 Bit.  
This chip from 2005, to present 2018, is able to run modern operating systems. Never before in the history of computing has a processing chip been able to run operating systems for 13 years! Easeltine (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the Pentium D isn't a milestone, in my opinion, mainly steaming from the fact that AMD's Athlon 64 came out around the same time and supports Windows 10 while not being a space heater. Benchmarks of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ from 2005 showed that it performed better than the Pentium D 830https://www.anandtech.com/show/1745/5. The Pentium D is really just two Pentium 4s bonded together. Vista2003 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pentium D represents a major historical milestone in processors 

message: The whole article conveys a very negative image of the Pentium D. I do not think this is justified. It was a milestone in the CPU history of Intel (C)/TM. It was the first dual core mainstream CPU from the company and its performance was not at all bad, see websites with CPU benchmarks which show the Pentium D 960 @ 3.60 GHz is more than twice as fast as the Pentium 4 670 @ 3.80 GHz ... Which again is no surprise, since the Pentium D is basically 2 x Pentium 4 glued together. Regarding the heat aka TDP, it was not as bad as portrayed in the article, either: 130 W TDP for more than two times the processing power of the Pentium 4 670 @ 3.8 GHz, which was rated at 115 W TDP -- come on, guys, you have to admit that was not bad at all. And there were power saver editions too like the Pentium D 945 @ 3.40 GHz with only 95W TDP, which was really a good value for a dual core CPU, which was faster (faster as in higher benchmark values, not as in higher GHz clock speed) than many of the later entry level Core 2 Duos and their respective Celeron and Pentium Dual Core variants. So I really think the whole article needs to be rewritten to reflect the positive values of the Pentium D in an objective light. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While yes, in a vacuum, the Pentium D doesn't seem too bad but AMD exists and they have beaten Intel to 64 Bit and dual core (Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 respectively). These processors ran cooler and were faster than Intel's offering. The NetBurst architecture that the Pentium 4 and D use is honestly a horrible architecture to the point that even Intel abandoned it in favour of all new chip designs be based on the mobile Pentium M chips which were based on the Pentium 3. Vista2003 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much negativity