Eh, the specs say it supports 125W processors, it should run an FX-8150 fine.
No, it wasn't. The 90nm S939 3000+:es (running at 1800MHz base clock) could easily reach 2.4ish, or a 33% overclock. If anything, overclocking them both makes the Pentium D look worse.Yeah, but if you count overclockability, the 3000+ was left far behind.
Yes, it really was much slower in single-threaded. Crucially, it's not fast enough for a seamless desktop experience. I know, I used pentium D's at school and an A64 3000+ at home. The difference in general usability was night and day. Also, I disagree with multicore being a necessity from 2007 on. If you were stuck on that chip for years, A64 would actually be a much better choice, because flash videos and the like do generally run smoothly on it, but won't on a pentium D. In fact, as my primary machine broke down, I just used that same A64 for my home desktop for about a month. It's still usable (if slow). Pentium D wasn't usable in the same way the day it was released.By then it wasn't much slower in single-threaded and much faster in multi-threaded. And as we all know, less than two years later it was pretty much a necessity to have a dual-core.
The problem was that 3.6GHz simply wasn't enough to catch up with the A64, especially if you also overclock the AMD chip. Which you could do with a lot less investment in the psu, mb, and cooling.Yes, it used a lot more power. But it was also cheap and very fast when overclocked, and you could get 3.6GHz easy out of it.
Looking at the benchmarks it was quite good in many areas except gaming:
That's the same question everyone's asking about Bulldozer.
No, it wasn't. The 90nm S939 3000+:es (running at 1800MHz base clock) could easily reach 2.4ish, or a 33% overclock. If anything, overclocking them both makes the Pentium D look worse.
No, it doesn't. And going from 2.66 to 3.6GHz is a 35% overclock.
Yes, it really was much slower in single-threaded. Crucially, it's not fast enough for a seamless desktop experience. I know, I used pentium D's at school and an A64 3000+ at home. The difference in general usability was night and day. Also, I disagree with multicore being a necessity from 2007 on. If you were stuck on that chip for years, A64 would actually be a much better choice, because flash videos and the like do generally run smoothly on it, but won't on a pentium D. In fact, as my primary machine broke down, I just used that same A64 for my home desktop for about a month. It's still usable (if slow). Pentium D wasn't usable in the same way the day it was released.
No, it wasn't. It depended on the program. iTunes is strictly single-threaded and there the Pentium D was still faster. Your experience with a Pentium D at school proves little, if nothing. Unlike Bulldozer, the Pentium D was able to overcome its huge IPC deficit by the way of much higher clock speeds. While something like the Athlon 64 maxed out at 2.5-2.8GHz most of the time the Pentium D could reach 3.6-4.0GHz.
And the Pentium D is definitely more usable in day-to-day use. Multi-tasking is an absolute chore on a single-core CPU, and even if a program can't take advantage of two cores, the operating system can schedule processes between both, making everything smoother. Flash video in SD should also run in SD fine on both, and on HD it won't run good in either. If your argument is gonna be about that it better be based on real-world usage taking into account a GPU handling the decoding. Even in 2006 with Vista, disregarding power consumption, the Pentium D would be a much better CPU for day-to-day use. While there's little difference in most computers when it comes to speed on normal applications between dual and quad-cores, going from a single-core to a dual-core makes a HUGE difference. You may also want to know that software taking advantage of two cores doesn't make it multi-threaded, but merely mildly multi-threaded.
The problem was that 3.6GHz simply wasn't enough to catch up with the A64, especially if you also overclock the AMD chip. Which you could do with a lot less investment in the psu, mb, and cooling.
The benchmarks I posted clearly prove that wrong at stock speeds, and the Pentium also had higher overclocking headroom. 3.6GHz was what you'd do without the stock heatsink, but 4GHz was achievable with a good air cooler.
Notice what's common with all those benchmarks? Media encoding. The full list at the Anandtech review is even funnier -- they basically tested a buch of apps that thread well + a few games. Pentium D sucked in general desktop use, the same way Atom does today. Like BD, having more weak cores just really isn't that interesting.
3D rendering isn't media encoding, but audio encoding is. And the funny thing is, the Pentium D still did better there despite it being completely single-threaded. The Pentium D wasn't bad for its performance but for its power consumption. Bulldozer is easily a lot worse, since it both consumes a lot more and isn't overall comparable in performance. While it has a lot lower IPC than Sandy Bridge, it doesn't have the frequencies to make up for it like the Pentium D did.
Intel offers good value for the money...
The monopoly exists not in what Intel is offering, but rather in what they are not offering. This has been posted a few times, but I really don't think it's understood.
Intel is stripping features from CPU's even if it doesn't really make sense.
Let's say that I want a CPU with the following features:
Desktop CPU
4 core / 8 thread
VT-x
VT-d
AES
http://ark.intel.com/search/advance...&AESTech=true&MarketSegment=DT&CoreCountMin=4
I have exactly two options. In reality, it's only one option. The 2600 or 2600S, both at $300. I cannot get any K part, nor a part with the better IGP.
Now, if I actually remove the limitation of it being a desktop part, a whole slew of mobile SKU's becomes available. How does it make ANY sense whatsoever that I can get more 4 core / 8 thread mobile CPU options with all virtual technologies enabled than desktop parts? Who the #^(% wants to run a bunch of virtual machines on a laptop?!
Intel is in total control. They are artificially limiting "innovation" simply because they can.
How does it make ANY sense whatsoever that I can get more 4 core / 8 thread mobile CPU options with all virtual technologies enabled than desktop parts? Who the #^(% wants to run a bunch of virtual machines on a laptop?!
Intel DESPERATELY wants AMD to stay afloat? Why, you might ask? Because AMD is the only thing that keeps Intel from being slapped and smacked down for anti-competitive and monopoly charges. AMD is the only thing that keeps the government from stepping in and splitting up Intel (see AT&T).
You could also remove the limitation and include server parts which are probably the most appropriate for the type of business that requires VMs. A lot more choices thereLet's say that I want a CPU with the following features:
Desktop CPU
4 core / 8 thread
VT-x
VT-d
AES
http://ark.intel.com/search/advance...&AESTech=true&MarketSegment=DT&CoreCountMin=4
I have exactly two options. In reality, it's only one option. The 2600 or 2600S, both at $300. I cannot get any K part, nor a part with the better IGP.
Now, if I actually remove the limitation of it being a desktop part, a whole slew of mobile SKU's becomes available. How does it make ANY sense whatsoever that I can get more 4 core / 8 thread mobile CPU options with all virtual technologies enabled than desktop parts? Who the #^(% wants to run a bunch of virtual machines on a laptop?!
I feel like with ARM around, Intel won't face anti-trust issues even if AMD goes under (which they won't).
I feel like with ARM around, Intel won't face anti-trust issues even if AMD goes under (which they won't).
ARM doesn't compete with Intel in any space other then the ultramobile market.
As I type this, there are three virtual machines running on my laptop.
You do realize that laptops can be equipped with pretty fast hard drives too, right? And that some laptop processors, especially Sandy Bridge architecture are pretty badass, right? Just because in your narrow minded view that laptop = web browsing, doesn't mean other people can't get serious work done on it.
You could also remove the limitation and include server parts which are probably the most appropriate for the type of business that requires VMs. A lot more choices there
As a developer who needs 2-3 VMs running, I don't give a rat's ass about assigning directly hardware to VMs. Once code is done and unit tested, the integrator takes care of it.Assigning PCI hardware directly to specific VM's isn't exactly useful on laptops vs desktop with several integrated devices and several expansion slots.
I got two drives in my laptop, some 15.6 inch laptops can house 3 drives, some 17-18 inch laptops can house 4 easy. Never felt the need of plugging in anything.Assigning specific hard drives to specific VM's or using RAID isn't exactly realistic on a laptop unless you are essentially turning your laptop into a desktop by plugging in a bunch of external hard drives.
Let's not put words in my mouth okay? I was only replying to your retarded statement ...Just because you think you have full virtualization working on your laptop doesn't mean you do.
... by simply pointing out that a good laptop can do virtualization just fine. And for people like me (developers on the road) it's worth gold. When you spend 2 hours on a train daily, being able to get a bit of work done is awesome (thanks Sager!). Also, all of our salesmen have powerful laptops that they use to demo our product. Guess what? They are running our product inside VMs on them.Who the #^(% wants to run a bunch of virtual machines on a laptop?!
Your original list of requirements was (without desktop restriction): 4 core / 8 thread, VT-x, VT-d, AES. It didn't mention you wanted IGP. In fact your first link doesn't have IGP checked, you only checked it now so the server parts got "conveniently" filtered out. Heh, being cunning, are we?No, there aren't.
http://ark.intel.com/search/advance...AESTech=true&MarketSegment=SRV&CoreCountMin=4
Exactly zero options with those selections.
Your original list of requirements was (without desktop restriction): 4 core / 8 thread, VT-x, VT-d, AES. It didn't mention you wanted IGP. In fact your first link doesn't have IGP checked, you only checked it now so the server parts got "conveniently" filtered out. Heh, being cunning, are we?
And to get all the stuff listed, you only need ~$40 for a cheap GPU that will also have the benefit of being better than IGP.