POST A COMMENT

27 Comments

Back to Article

  • WooDaddy - Thursday, March 03, 2005 - link

    I'm still lost on the performance benefit of dual-core tech. In theory it sounds nice.. but benchmark have proven otherwise.

    Right now, I'm between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out which proc to go for or wait. A64 for gaming, P4 5xx for encoding, or wait for dual core from AMD or Wintel? Hell, 64-bit OS isn't readily available yet (shut up linux folks.. I'm talking Windows)
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    The Pentium processor lives again!

    Of course, we are referring to something great and new, not that old 75mhz screamer with new superscalar technology from 1995!
    Reply
  • Quanticles - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    "but i dont mind intel's move at all, if it actually leads to lower prices from AMD, or convinces AMD to hurry up with desktop duallies too... it'd be perfect for me."

    You should want AMD prices to be higher so they can make money. The competitive market wont last long if AMD starts losing money.
    Reply
  • Quanticles - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    Pentium D(umb)

    j/k, i like this better than pentium 4 - which was completely misleading.

    They should make the available features more visible, however. Most processors are the same, just with different features turned off.
    Reply
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    " while the benefit of dual core is not going to help the fps in games... maybe it may help in the sense of being able to play games while
    1) downloading "

    What in the motherfuck? I could download on my old P133 in the loft in bits just as quick as I can download on my P4 3.37Ghz.
    Reply
  • Visual - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    To those concerned about the size of the die - don't worry, it's not like intel intends to actually make/sell much (if any ?) such chips :p
    these chips are ment to be announced rather than being produced :p the lack of number in the name also makes sense, since it'd be a non-existant cpu why would they bother to number it :p

    intel's goal is just to paperlaunch something to be "first dualcore to the desktop", announce cheap prices to force AMD to drop prices too, reducing their margin, etc.

    but i dont mind intel's move at all, if it actually leads to lower prices from AMD, or convinces AMD to hurry up with desktop duallies too... it'd be perfect for me.
    Reply
  • ceefka - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    #* Your explanation is the only way it makes sense to me. Nice one.

    I do think however that the differences between the Intel logo's are too little and too few. They're butt ugly too, but that's just my opinion.

    With just the suffix D standing, I have the feeling that singlecore Pentiums will be a thing of the past in a year or two.

    By the way, does anybody know what names and logo's AMD will apply for the dualcore versions of the Opteron and Athlon64? The AMD logo's always look a little cheap to me.

    Maybe both companies could launch a contest between end-users to come up with new logos for their various CPU's. The reward: a system with their top CPU of that moment.
    Reply
  • defter - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    Uhm, I meant #18 Reply
  • defter - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    #17 Downloading is CPU intensive??? Well maybe if you have 10Gbps connection to the outside world... Reply
  • xsilver - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    #17
    while the benefit of dual core is not going to help the fps in games... maybe it may help in the sense of being able to play games while
    1) downloading
    2) encoding
    3) anything else cpu intensive you can think of

    whilst not taking any frame hits from your game

    I think design into running 2 systems off the 1 box -- ala jetways "magic twin" system will be quite a good idea ... maybe especially for the corporate environment?
    I imagine it would save quite a lot of money if only 1 of every 2 employee's needed a desktop box
    ... yes 2 monitors, keyboards etc are still needed but hey....
    Reply
  • Avalon - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    The D seems to be implying dual core, in which case I think I can see consumers purchasing a Celeron thinking they're going to get a dual core chip because it has the letter "D" in it. While dual core is a good thing, I'm not excited right now. I play games. Dual core is going to do nothing for me for at least a year. I'm sure there are many more like me out there. In time, it will have its benefits. Reply
  • phaxmohdem - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    Pentium "D"amn its hit in here. Reply
  • DigitalDivine - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    #14, so what, extra threads don't hurt, the sad part is that intel will disable perfectly good working chips capable of ht...

    and btw, the logos look horrible. they should hite the graphics designer of amd... i mean... the athlon 64 logos are just pretty, so is the original athlon.

    but the logos that i do hate from amd is the oblong athlon logos... *barf... they are uuuggglllyyyy
    Reply
  • ts3433 - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    "On the Pentium D, Intel adds dual-core, but takes away HyperThreading"

    That's part of the point of dual-core. Two actual cores are going to handle SMP stuff better than one real core acting as two virtual cores, so HT isn't needed.
    Reply
  • knitecrow - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    The evil plan is coming together... pretty soon it will be impossible to for the average consumer, (by defination, if you read anandtech, you are not an average consumer) to distinguish within intel's destop offering. They can throw whatever-the-hell they want into dell boxes and no one will be any wiser.

    Intel is moving towards a consumer attitude towards its chips... no one cares about the power of the motor used in blenders.

    The problem is, computers haven't reached that point.

    If AMD is smart, they will exploit this stupid naming scheme


    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    "The Celeron D and Pentium D will be confused in no time."

    Well, not really. Haven't you seen the logos for Pentium M? Yes the chip used in Centrino products. So how about Pentium M then? Does people get Celeron M confused with Pentium M? Theoretically Pentium M vs Celeron M is more confusing since its logo with same design and BOTH M.

    "D as in Dual core? or D as in the 4th letter of the alphabet? :D"

    I think it means Pentium Desktop, like Pentium M is Pentium Mobile(I think).

    "Doesn't this all seem a bit artificial? Intel is purposely disabling features on the Pentium D's to give people a reason to buy the Pentium EE... it was one thing when the Pentium 4 EE was a different chip and had different characteristics, but this is a bit silly now. I guess the EE is quite the cash cow for them to go to such lengths to cripple their volume product to support EE sales."

    Or you can say that since people with EE has likely has more money then for regular versions, and since adding hyperthreading adds a little to power consumption and therefore heat, maybe Intel thinks the EE guys can afford more for cooling?

    "I swear, Intel has an evil plot division specifically to come up with things like the Pentium D/Celeron D naming overlap to furstrate geeks. That or they're intentionally trying to confuse consumers in to getting the cheap Intel chip over the cheap AMD chip because it must have dual cores(it has a D!). Either way, this is a terrible name."

    Aren't we "geeks" here to make those non-geeks know the difference? :D.

    Pentium D EE at: 2.8GHz, 3.0GHz, and 3.2GHz. I wonder that means. Since the highest price on the current EE's are $999, does it mean the highest price increases for the highest EE's, or the price for the lowest price EE decreases? Like this:
    Either for example: 2.8GHz=$999, 3.0GHz=$1299, 3.2GHz=$1499,

    OR

    2.8GHz=$649, 3.0GHz $=799, 3.2GHz=$999?

    I hope its second one.

    Reply
  • dm - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    very nice....the logo looks much more like the Mobile logos =) Reply
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    So let me get this straight... On the Pentium D, Intel adds dual-core, but takes away HyperThreading and still doesn't support the 1066FSB, even though any chipset that supports the Pentium D will have 1066FSB support (unless artificially disabled by Intel!).

    Then they give HT back on the Pentium EE, and support 1066FSB.

    Doesn't this all seem a bit artificial? Intel is purposely disabling features on the Pentium D's to give people a reason to buy the Pentium EE... it was one thing when the Pentium 4 EE was a different chip and had different characteristics, but this is a bit silly now. I guess the EE is quite the cash cow for them to go to such lengths to cripple their volume product to support EE sales.

    And no, before anyone suggests it, I doubt Intel gets a bunch of cores with HT broken or that won't take a 1066FSB. Bad cache and clock speed are the main bin-splits, and now add to that a bad core.

    AMD doesn't arificially cripple A64's to make the FX worth buying; the FX is just AMD's current fastest, biggest-cache chip. (though it'd be more worthwhile if the FX always held both a clock-speed and cache advantage over the regular A64's, instead of just one or the other (i.e. FX-55 vs 4000+=same cache, higher clock while FX-53 vs 3800+ was same clock, bigger cache).

    And of course, FX chips are multiplier unlocked. Intel doesn't even throw EE users that bone...

    (OK, yes, AMD does cripple A64 cores to make Semprons. I think that's stupid too... Semprons should be Socket-A only; if AMD wants to sell low-priced Socket-754 chips, then sell a 1.6Ghz Athlon64 2600+, or even a 1.6Ghz/256k cache Athlon64 2400+ or whatever number they want to give it... disabling perfectly good 64-bit instructions when Windows XP 64-bit is about to ship and even many Celerons will have 64-bit is pointlesss)


    Reply
  • Doormat - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    D as in Desktop?

    I'm more of the mind until there is a major switch (itanium, something else), everything will be a Pentium ?. D = desktop, M = mobile, etc.
    Reply
  • Chuckles - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    The new labeling actually makes more sense than previous iterations. Now there is the Pentium D(esktop), Pentium M(obile), Celeron D(esktop), and Celeron M(obile). Makes more sense than Pentium 4, Pentium 4M, Pentium M, Celeron, Celeron M... Reply
  • mikecel79 - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    I agree it is a terrible name. It even looks like the Celeron D label. Why not just call the thing Pentium 5 and get it over with? Or is this just part of a new naming scheme for a platform (chipset/cpu/nic) liek Centrino? Reply
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    I swear, Intel has an evil plot division specifically to come up with things like the Pentium D/Celeron D naming overlap to furstrate geeks. That or they're intentionally trying to confuse consumers in to getting the cheap Intel chip over the cheap AMD chip because it must have dual cores(it has a D!). Either way, this is a terrible name. Reply
  • ksherman - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    damn you anand... "for those that are wondering, Gelsinger's keynote was infinitely better than Barrett's, in terms of interesting information."

    i cant wait!!
    Reply
  • IceWindius - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Ohhhh let the confusion of Celeron and Dual Core lables begin!!! Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    D as in Dual core? or D as in the 4th letter of the alphabet? :D Reply
  • raskren - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    The Celeron D and Pentium D will be confused in no time. Reply
  • IamTHEsnake - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    I think it's about time they changed the name. Average Joe was getting tired of the same old P4. Of course oblivious to the numerous enhancements made to the orignal debut core. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now