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

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

Reply

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

Reply

Ohhhh let the confusion of Celeron and Dual Core lables begin!!!

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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