Pentium is Intel's #1 (It's All About the Pentiums)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just learned last month that the cash registers of certain supermarkets (due to contract agreements I can not say which ones), still run Pentium 2 and Pentium 3's.

Many small businesses that started 4 to 5 years ago, still run Pentium single core, Pentium based computers.

A lot of poorer nations like India, China, and Africa don't have the budgets to start purchasing Dualcores. They also run regular Pentiums.
And since China, India, and africa together have more than half the world population living there, the claim of Single core pentiums would not surprise me!
 
[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]Just like i wrote though your wrong about the MMX thing while it was optional on pentium 133Mhz up to 233Mhz cpu's all Pentium II cpu's used the MMX instruction set.I know it is hard to read and even harder to google before you tell some one he is wrong.[/citation]

He is correct on this, as... during that period... I "upgraded" a Pentium 1 166Mhz to a Pentium 1 200Mhz with MMX about the time that the fastest CPU was a Pentium 2 266Mhz (all of which had MMX). It was my first experience with evolving CPU sockets.
 
"Pentium will likely be on the way out starting in 2011."
I doubt that based on the number of less fortunate countries using older pentiums and CRT monitors.
Also based on the number of people getting second hand computers.
Not everyone is an enthusiast. And not everyone can afford the latest and greatest.
 
[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]Just like i wrote though your wrong about the MMX thing while it was optional on pentium 133Mhz up to 233Mhz cpu's all Pentium II cpu's used the MMX instruction set.I know it is hard to read and even harder to google before you tell some one he is wrong.[/citation]

When did I say the Pentium II didn't have MMX? Of course it did, but MMX wasn't the main change to it. MMX really meant nothing. There were architectural changes to it besides that. The Pentium Pro was very poor on 16-bit code, so Intel cached the segmentation registers which greatly improved 16-bit code. They also doubled the L1 cache, and most importantly moved the cache off chip so it wasn't so expensive. There were other small changes as well.

MMX was rarely used, and not an important technology.

Pentium Pro, and Pentium II were nothing like the original Pentium. They were not a sub-class of it.

Pentium III had EXACTLY the same architecture as the Pentium II, they just added SSE instructions to it. They performed identically on all benchmarks that did not use SSE.

Pentium 4 was a complete departure from this technology.

If you're using Google for this, that's scary.

 
I doubt that based on the number of less fortunate countries using older pentiums and CRT monitors.
Also based on the number of people getting second hand computers.
Not everyone is an enthusiast. And not everyone can afford the latest and greatest.
Click to expand...

Pentium PRODUCTION is on the way out. not existing pentiums.
 
I am of 386/486 generation. The first good Pentium was the Pentium 100 CPU. The bus speeds of the P75 and P90 were terrible. Also most P100 had onboard IDE and onboard floppy, which most P75 boards lacked. Pentium 166mmx thru Pentium 233mmx were great as well. I still have two P233mmx systems that work.
 
I love Pentium.
Pentium = 1/2 price, 3/4 performance.
Hell, modern C2D based Pentiums are better than my old Core 2 Duo E4400.

Long live the Pentium name!

1st Pentium - 75MHz, 50MHz FSB, 2.9V.
1st Pentium II - 233MHz, 66MHz FSB, 512KB cache, 2.8V, 34.8W, 0.35 micron.
1st Pentium III - 450MHz, 100MHz FSB, 512KB cache, 2.0V, 25.3W, 0.25 micron.
1st Pentium 4 - 1.3GHz, 400MHz FSB, 256KBH cache, 1.75V, 51.6W, 0.18 micron.
1st Pentium D (dual core Pentium 4) - 2.66GHz, 533MHz FSB, 2MB cache, 1.25-1.4V, 95W, 90 nanometres.
1st Pentium dual core (based on C2D) - 1.6GHz, 800MHz FSB, 1MB cache, 0.85-1.5V, 65W, 65 nanometres.
1st Nehalem (i7) based Pentium (dual core) - 2.8GHz, 133MHz bus, 3MB cache, 0.65-1.4V, 73W, 32 nanometres.

We've gone from 350 nanometres to 32 nanometres, from 75MHz to over 3000MHz. We've gone through several architectures. We based the Pentium 2 on 1, the 3 on the 2, and the 4 very loosely on the 3. We then ignored the Pentium 4 architecture, and based the C2D on the P3, and based the Core lineup on the Core 2 lineup.

We've seen dramatic changes in our lifetimes, and best of all, it ain't over yet.

Long live the Pentium name!

=)
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;--Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,Nor arm, nor face, nor any other partBelonging to a man. O, be some other name!What's in a name? that which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet;So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,Retain that dear perfection which he owesWithout that title:--Romeo, doff thy name;And for that name, which is no part of thee,Take all myself.In other words, who cares what they call it? I do think Core is most inane name they could up with, but it wouldn't prevent me from buying it. It's like GM naming their next car "engine". As far as the Pentium name going away, that's wrong. They actually intended to kill it after the Pentium III++ (aka Core 2) came out, and then decided to add the name back into the mix.Pentium sounds more high end than something so prosaic as "Core". Core sounds like a workman like processor that might not be the fastest, but gets it done. Pentium sounds more regal, maybe because it sounds like Penultimate. I guess the Pentium 4 kind of left a bad taste in people's mouth though. They still sell Celeron, but it doesn't sell well anymore. The name sounds too much like a non-nutritive vegetable anyway. I don't know how they expected people to think "Celerity". Most people haven't even been exposed to that word. But most have been to Celery, sadly, and maybe even whacked for not wanting to eat it as a kid.[/citation]


LOL

agree.

However, not only would I buy a car named "engine", I would buy a car named "car". Wait, didn't this name exist already? I think there was a renault model named the "le car" back around 1980.

Names mean nothing to me.

a rose by any other name...
 
[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]I love Pentium.Pentium = 1/2 price, 3/4 performance.Hell, modern C2D based Pentiums are better than my old Core 2 Duo E4400.Long live the Pentium name!

Pentium 4 - 1.3GHz, 400MHz FSB, 256KBH cache, 1.75V, 51.6W, 0.18 micron.1st Pentium D (dual core Pentium 4) - 2.66GHz, 533MHz FSB, 2MB cache, 1.25-1.4V, 95W, 90 nanometres.1st Pentium dual core (based on

We then ignored the Pentium 4 architecture, and based the C2D on the P3, and based the Core lineup on the Core 2 lineup.We've seen dramatic changes in our lifetimes, and best of all, it ain't over yet.Long live the Pentium name!=)[/citation]

The P4 & PD (both netburst) was always a crappy design. The first P4s were slower than the slowe-clocked PIII. The P4 was designed for HIGH clock rates, not high performance. The P4 is crap and always will be crap.

Core2 is based off of Pentium-M/Centrino class designed... which if you look at the side, they look very much like an AMD XP/64 CPU. (Yes they do).

If Intel didn't drop the crap netburst design when they did, AMD would easily have over half the CPU market by now.

Even the $250 AMD64-3200 (2.0Ghz) was as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium4 (even the extreme editions) for gaming and general use... that was sad.

Give credit where credit is due. The P1, PII and P3 chips were good. Netburst sucked. Core2 excellent. Core-i-whatever stupid # name is, is faster but stupid names and model numbers.
 
I guess the Pentium name has stuck for a vast majority of Intel consumers after all these years. They are decent chips for every day casual users, but as we all know, definitely top of the line like they used to be.
 
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]The P4 & PD (both netburst) was always a crappy design. The first P4s were slower than the slowe-clocked PIII. The P4 was designed for HIGH clock rates, not high performance. The P4 is crap and always will be crap.Core2 is based off of Pentium-M/Centrino class designed... which if you look at the side, they look very much like an AMD XP/64 CPU. (Yes they do).If Intel didn't drop the crap netburst design when they did, AMD would easily have over half the CPU market by now. Even the $250 AMD64-3200 (2.0Ghz) was as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium4 (even the extreme editions) for gaming and general use... that was sad.Give credit where credit is due. The P1, PII and P3 chips were good. Netburst sucked. Core2 excellent. Core-i-whatever stupid # name is, is faster but stupid names and model numbers.[/citation]
Though, you have to think, we we stuck with the netburst (P4) architecture, what kind of clocks and # of cores would we have today? Just something to ponder.
My old Pentium D 820 served me like a trooper for years, and I don't regret buying it one bit.

Long live the Pentium name!
 
It's brilliant marketing. You keep the Pentium name attached to the mayonnaise sandwich eating mainstream system purchasers to distract them from historically superior value that AMD has in this segment.
 
All this Pentium talk make me gag. Ill never support a company that's so dirty and took over majority by paying off companies to take Intel's products only. Intel's a pansy who needs money to stay in top. Sure Intel got some good stuff but i refuse to buy their garbage just because of the type of business they operate.
 
[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]I love Pentium.Pentium = 1/2 price, 3/4 performance.Hell, modern C2D based Pentiums are better than my old Core 2 Duo E4400.Long live the Pentium name!1st Pentium - 75MHz, 50MHz FSB, 2.9V.1st Pentium II - 233MHz, 66MHz FSB, 512KB cache, 2.8V, 34.8W, 0.35 micron.1st Pentium III - 450MHz, 100MHz FSB, 512KB cache, 2.0V, 25.3W, 0.25 micron.1st Pentium 4 - 1.3GHz, 400MHz FSB, 256KBH cache, 1.75V, 51.6W, 0.18 micron.1st Pentium D (dual core Pentium 4) - 2.66GHz, 533MHz FSB, 2MB cache, 1.25-1.4V, 95W, 90 nanometres.1st Pentium dual core (based on C2D) - 1.6GHz, 800MHz FSB, 1MB cache, 0.85-1.5V, 65W, 65 nanometres.1st Nehalem (i7) based Pentium (dual core) - 2.8GHz, 133MHz bus, 3MB cache, 0.65-1.4V, 73W, 32 nanometres.We've gone from 350 nanometres to 32 nanometres, from 75MHz to over 3000MHz. We've gone through several architectures. We based the Pentium 2 on 1, the 3 on the 2, and the 4 very loosely on the 3. We then ignored the Pentium 4 architecture, and based the C2D on the P3, and based the Core lineup on the Core 2 lineup.We've seen dramatic changes in our lifetimes, and best of all, it ain't over yet.Long live the Pentium name!=)[/citation]

The first Pentiums were 60 and 66 Mhz, and had the FDIV bug and ran the bus at the same speed as the processor. They ran hotter than Hell too. The 75/90/100 were after the shrink.

The Pentium II 233 was released with the 266 and 300 as well, although the 300s were pretty close to a paper release since they were pretty hard to get.

Pentium 4 1.3 was not part of the initial release. They released the 1.4 and 1.5 and later released the 1.3 GHz model. They were not slower than the 1 GHz Coppermine, although they were slower clock cycle for clock cycle. The Coppermine had the dreadfully slow memory bus whereas the Pentium 4 had massive bandwidth using RDRAM.

Pentium 2 had nothing to do with the original Pentium design. Absolutely nothing. It wasn't based on it at all. The Pentium executed x86 instructions, the Pentium II did not. As with all x86 processors since the Pentium, it changes them into RISC instructions which are executed.

The Pentium 4 also had next to nothing to do with the Pentium III design. It was an extremely advanced, but ineffective design.
 
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]The P4 & PD (both netburst) was always a crappy design. The first P4s were slower than the slowe-clocked PIII. The P4 was designed for HIGH clock rates, not high performance. The P4 is crap and always will be crap.Core2 is based off of Pentium-M/Centrino class designed... which if you look at the side, they look very much like an AMD XP/64 CPU. (Yes they do).If Intel didn't drop the crap netburst design when they did, AMD would easily have over half the CPU market by now. Even the $250 AMD64-3200 (2.0Ghz) was as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium4 (even the extreme editions) for gaming and general use... that was sad.Give credit where credit is due. The P1, PII and P3 chips were good. Netburst sucked. Core2 excellent. Core-i-whatever stupid # name is, is faster but stupid names and model numbers.[/citation]

You have the tail wagging the dog, but in any rate you're almost completely wrong. The Athlon uses completely different instructions on the executable level, and is almost completely different when you look closer. They don't even execute the same instructions, and their decoders are much more brute force, in that they can all decode any instruction, whereas the Intel processors have simple decoders and a vector decoder for the ugly stuff.

Also, the ports are completely different. Again, AMD went a different route and added AGUs next to their ALUs for all their integer ports. Intel has seperate ports for address generation. Intel also has an additional pipeline since the Core 2. It's completely different.

AMD kind of just does things brute force. The fact that the performance is so different should also tell you the designs aren't very close to being the same. AMD processors are the same size, and perform much worse. Obviously, there are some serious differences.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Pentium III had EXACTLY the same architecture as the Pentium II, they just added SSE instructions to it. They performed identically on all benchmarks that did not use SSE.[/citation]

The first gen of PIII's (Katmai core) were the exact same as the PIIs (except with the added SSE implementation), however during the die shrink to the Coppermine core, several improvements were made, including full-speed on-die L2 cache, a reworking of the instruction pipelines, among others. These (in addition to the faster bus speed-133MHz vs. 100 MHz) were enough to increase the clock-per-clock performance in relation to the PIIs, and allowed them to remain competitive in the early days of the PIVs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom