Why is Pentium 4 shit?

>>58843038
Because Intel noticed how people believed a higher clock speed always meant faster. So they just designed the P4 around one aspect and one aspect only - hitting high clock speeds to fool the plebs. This involved shit like 20+ pipeline stages and liquid nitrogen cooling. Sadly, their strategy worked, and plebs bought up P4's like hotcakes. Clock for clock, the older Pentium 3 design can do much more than the P4. Hence why they threw out everything Netburst-related for the Core 2 Duo and up.

>>58843038
They wanted to impress retards with MUH GHZ but realized too late that you can't scale up frequency as easily as they thought

File: 1483737017981.png (973KB, 801x1500px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 801x1500px

>>58843038

File: BIPELINE.png (3MB, 1786x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1786x2000px

>>58843038

>>58843294
They were originally wanting to push 10GHz out of the NetBurst architecture. Could you imagine 10GHz CPU's today, let alone fifteen years ago on an architecture known for insane cooling requirements?

>>58843314
300W TDP.

File: 1485355243366.png (26KB, 603x222px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 603x222px

>>58843038
Because it gets hot enough to cook with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uBNCN6v_gk

>>58843359
The FX-9590 is pretty close at 220W.

>>58843372
The old AMD Athlons are worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto&t=1s

>>58843399
I'm not here for the CPU circle jerk, AMD Intel shill.

>>58843434
Then what are you here for?

File: 2017-02-07-184939_1680x1050_scrot.png (786KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1680x1050px

>>58843038
fuck you, guy

>>58843469
>using linux
>not using catalogue
Fucking plebs and their computer/space heater/toaster oven combo units.

hiber-bipelining
which meant fucke huge latency
which meant the necessity for retardedly huge clocks to resolve the aforementioned problem.

Dont forget, the cancelled successor of P4 was supposed to have a whopping 50+ stages and a core clock of 7ghz.

>>58843439
To bash the Pentium 4, a shitty CPU.

>>58843600
That's what I'm here for too. I'm just showing that the early model P4's were cooler-running than their (much faster) AMD counterparts. It wasn't until Prescott that heat became a serious issue for Intel.

File: giant think.png (44KB, 598x595px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 598x595px

>>58843038
im posting in a b8 thread

>>58843637
Hell yeah. I used a fucking Northwood until 2009. Still runs nice and cool.

>>58843671
it's not bait, the p4 ht was a poor choice compared to the a64 and a64x2. even the p3 was better

but fucking normies bought it because muh ghz

>>58843671
Guess why intel threw away the P4 design and developed the Core line from the pentium M (aka pentium 3)

>>58843734
No, they bought it because it was basically all they had.

Dell didn't start shipping AMD machines until 2006, after the C2D was out.

HP's Athlon XP/64 machines were ridiculously expensive because of all the bells and whistles they threw in (card reader, camera dock, lightscribe, media centre XP, etc.)

HP's budget line, Compaq, also came in AMD flavour, but they were single-core Semprons with 512MB of RAM, being advertised as "Vista Capable."

Gateway and its budget subsidiary, eMachines, had the same problem as HP.

Those and >muh ghz.

File: file.png (56KB, 417x413px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 417x413px

>pentium 4
ewww

>>58843861
>Yonah
Get a T7200, they're like $10 on ebay and add 64-bit support among performance increases.

>>58843886
Looks like that has a slightly higher TDP. The cooling in my T60p already sucks anyway, not sure if it's worth it.
And I don't care about 64bit on this machine.
Are the performance gains even noticeable?

>>58843236
this describes amd also. it wasn't just intel, every manufacturer of desktop CPUs went after MHz

>>58843993
I had a regular T60 with a T7200 and no heat issues.
According to PassMark (which is by the way not always an accurate source) the T2500 scores 876, and the T7200 1,166. For a reference as to how old these chips are, the legendary Pentium G4560 scores 5,258.

If Pentium 4 was so great, how come Intel never made Pentium 5?

>>58843993
You should get a W500 cooler. It'll knock a good 10C off your temperatures and make less noise while it's at it.

>>58844050
Really makes you think

>>58844050
pentium is already based off the prefix "penta" which already means 5

File: file.png (40KB, 873x262px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 873x262px

>>58844032
This machine has the FireGL gpu and I don't want to kill it.
Pic related are the temps.

>>58844087
Interesting, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. I already have a W520 as my main machine

>>58844144
ATI GPU's get hot, but not desolder-themselves-from-the-mobo hot. That award goes to the Nvidia chips of the infamous T61.

>>58844144
it's $10, makes for a neat project, will give you more shitposting power, and if it doesn't work you're out $10 and you can just put the old T2500 back in it

what do you have to lose?

>>58844165
>and if it doesn't work
And it will work, because to the best of my knowledge, all Yonah laptops support Merom as well. I don't think any manufacturer crippled the BIOS to only boot with Yonah, but damn me if they did.

>>58844157
I know, but I read something about self-desoldered video memory chips in the T60p.

>>58844165
I will probably do the CPU upgrade. What I'm not sure of is the heatsink swap

>>58844144
>>58844206
Alternatively, if you're rocking that sweet 4:3 you could get a sacrificial T61 and make yourself a T601F Frankenpad with a T9300 CPU. It's pretty much the ultimate in shitposting machines.

>>58844231
>T9300
Why stop there? Get the Q9000, or hell, the QX9300! The availability of working 4:3 T61's is the limit!

>>58844243
But those are full retard expensive. The T9300 is like $25 and only 300MHz behind the Q9000.

>>58844231
The IPS display in this machine is sadly fucked up. There are broken lines when moving the screen and dust particles inside the screen.

>>58843827
Still everyone had one of those AMD HP media computers.

Pleb.

>>58844527
I've only come across a few in my days. Contrast that to around 32,768 Dell Dimensions.

>>58843038
Shitty branch prediction and long ass pipeline.
3.4ghz p4 extreme is slower than a Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.2ghz.

>>58843359
More like 1400W TDP

>>58843038
long pipeline susceptible to branch fuckups, lackluster clock-for-clock efficiency and the later prescott core had apocalyptic heat output for its time, all mostly for the sake of marketing

because its performance was so tied to its clock frequency, advancement was unsustainable forcing them to go back to the drawing board and work with the old P6 architecture once again

on their own however they were perfectly reasonable performers, they simply just used a different design paradigm from the competition that didn't pan out as expected

>>58843734
>even the p3 was better
only for a short time during the willamette era, and even then you were still stuck on outdated motherboards running shitty slow SDRAM most of the time while most socket 423 systems got RDRAM

>>58845172
A 1.4GHz P3 will still outperform a 1.4GHz P4, regardless of the RAM. A 2GHz Pentium M (which is in itself a higher-clocked P3 with SSE2 and loads of power-saving features) will steamroll a 2GHz P4, and make for a close race with even a 3GHz model.

>>58845214
>A 1.4GHz P3 will still outperform a 1.4GHz P4
the 1.4 GHz Tualatin isn't really a fair comparison because it came out quite late in Willamette's lifetime and was undoubtedly eclipsed by Northwood by the time it was actually available in meaningful volume, the 1 GHz Coppermine or maybe 1.2 GHz Tualatin are probably better comparisons depending on what particular chips you're comparing them to

however with those pedantics out of the way, through most of Willamette's lifetime it was indeed in the shadow of the already circulating Pentium IIIs (though my personal experience with both tells me it's not as clear-cut for every situation) up until they hit around 1.7-2 GHz and started showing some improvement

>A 2GHz Pentium M (which is in itself a higher-clocked P3 with SSE2 and loads of power-saving features) will steamroll a 2GHz P4, and make for a close race with even a 3GHz model.
and a 1 GHz Itanium could steamroll them both, you can't pick on chips on a basis of clock-for-clock efficiency alone, in the end Intel was able to simply raise the clock to compensate for most situations, and as long as it's sustainable that's fine. the problem ultimately was that it wasn't.

>>58845330
>and a 1 GHz Itanium could steamroll them both
I don't know what you're smoking, but the first-gen Itanium was a piece of shit. It required perfectly optimised code to be on par with a equal-clock P3, and if you didn't give it perfectly optimised code, it ran at half the speed while sucking down twice the electricity.

File: g5-spec2000.png (33KB, 611x638px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 611x638px

>>58845348
>first-gen Itanium
those were dead and buried and long replaced by the second-generation McKinley/Madison chips by the time the Pentium M hit 2 GHz in May '04, and those were quite capable clock-for-clock even in integer maths, while floating point was in another league

that's not really relevant to my point anyway, replace "Itanium" with HPPA, SPARC, POWER, whatever you want, it all comes out the same, clock-for-clock efficiency doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of what the end product actually delivers

>>58843469
arch is discontinuing i386

>>58845578
good thing he's running i686

Everyone's saying the Pentium 4 has overheating problems, but if that's the case, why does it run cooler than the i3?

>>58846009
because they're mostly retards who only know how to spew memes and marketing hype to feel like they fit in

prescott was pretty damn hot compared to what preceded it though, even if it's nothing special nowadays in the age of 220W consumer chips

>>58843299
ebinXDDD

>>58844185
>because to the best of my knowledge, all Yonah laptops support Merom as well.
nnnno that's not quite true
a lot of manufacturers are particularly cunty and make it so only certain CPUs will work
not all of them, of course, but i've had trouble upgrading an HP before as well as a Dell

>>58844026
I don't think so, AMD obviously pushed clocks reasonably but they never went for Intel levels, they just offset it with their retarded PR ratings

just fug my bipeline senpai ;DDDddddddd

>>58845589
kek

>>58843038
I had several Pentium 4 computers and they were just fine. I just wasn't a big step up from P3. AMD was way more progressive back then. For some time I really believed they were gonna sack Intel and become #1 for good

>>58849704
btw I never experienced any worrying temperature issues. My first P4 computer didn't even have a dedicated CPU fan. Just a sort of heat tunnel from the power supply cooler to the CPU.

>>58849704
well intel hit them where it hurts and they never recovered. rather, they were never given the time to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp.

>>58843038

Because around that time computers were reaching such normie status that middle aged and even elderly people were starting to get them, desktop sales were exploding at the turn of the century and households with computers were starting to become the mainstream in the US. This caused the market to explode with a new demographic, the clueless regular consumer who just understands numbers. Horsepower could sell cars with traction problems, wattage could sell speakers with bad response, square footage could sell houses with leaking roofs

Enter the new strategy to sell CPUs:

CLOCK
L
O
C
K
SPEED
P
E
E
D

3.20ghz? Nah man, buy the 4.0 ghz. That's like 25% more GIGAHERTZ. It must be 25% better!

>>58850132
AMD
M
D

40 GHz 9590

File: 1485703519490.jpg (185KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1080x1080px

>>58843236
>tfw we're all still using hepped-up Pentium III machines with 64-bit AMD strapons
I thought the future would be more impressive honestly.

>>58843827

i'm glad someone remembers how affordable pentium 4's were.

I still have my gateway 2.4 B northwood core machine. cheapest prebuilt i could get my parents to afford that actually came with an AGP slot which was a rarity back then for prebuilts. came with a MX 440 which i quickly swapped out to a Ti 4200 128 MB.

that thing was a gaming beast for it 's time. the HT p4's hadn't dropped iirc and the 3.06 ghz was the fastest and holy shit overpriced. 2.4/2.53 was the sweet spot as northwood's 133 mhz fsb came to market.

I ran it up until late 2011.

got a 2.8 HT machine to play around with now.

>>58851901
We stopped doing that with Core, only the M and CD were actually directly P6-based.

If you're going to use that analogy, we're basically using Pentium Pros or really 386es with 64-bit support tacked on to them.

>>58843038
P4 was, essentially, closer to current GPU stream processors then a typical CPU. It fared well in code that didn't branch like an idiot.

Except general purpose code branches like an idiot, so most of the time P4 spent doing nothing in particular.

It was a failed experiment.