grippingline :
ok, but whats exactly wrong about Pentium Ds? why don't people like them other then the above...and heat. because, i dont think its slow at all compared to a Pentium 4... for example in a game i got 20 FPS because of the P4, and in the PD i got boosted 50-40 FPS... but i dont know how fast the modern CPUs are as this is the Modernest core i have reached.
Netburst was intel's new design idea for the Pentium 4 CPU. The idea was that with longer pipelines, they would be able to scale to higher clock frequencies and make up for it's lack of per clock performance vs both the older Pentium III and the competing AMD processors at the time. Unfortunately, they ran into heat issues pushing into the 3GHz range. The pentium D is basically two of these chips on one chip side by side. They were not integrated into the same die.
Based on the netburst architecture, they were quickly overpowered by the Athlon 64 x2 processors which were faster at lower clockspeeds. The Athlon 64x2 was released only a couple weeks after the Pentium D. A comparison is below between the two architectures.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/93?vs=34
Intel released the core duo a year later and the core 2 duo the following year. Basically, the Pentium D was based on technology that was on its way out due to not having the potential that Intel hoped for. As rand_79 said:
"
Pentium D isnt anything close to the original pentium and were pretty much a fail branch of intel which moved back to a modified pentium 3 design afterwards"
I'm just going to replace "Pentium D" with netburst to make it clear that we are incorporating all netburst processors including the Pentium 4 and Pentium D.
Now to directly answer the question "what's exactly wrong about the pentium Ds?". Wrong is relative. By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. It is a processor with no major errata or bugs and keeps within thermal specifications with it's stock cooler at stock settings.
But compared to the competition and near future (ie, athlon 64 and core) it runs hotter, uses more power and underperforms.
"
i dont think its slow at all compared to a Pentium 4... for example in a game i got 20 FPS because of the P4, and in the PD i got boosted 50-40 FPS"
You are correct. I would expect the pentium D, with two cores, to be at an advantage vs the P4 with all games that can use more than one CPU core, which I believe is everything 2006 and onward. But when people say the pentium Ds are slow, they are not talking about vs the pentium 4 because the pentium 4 is also slow. They are both the same architecture and people are saying that the architecture is slow.
"
but i dont know how fast the modern CPUs are as this is the Modernest core i have reached."
And that is why you think the pentium D is fast
😛 . Everything is relative. When it first came out, it was fast. Just like the Pentium III was fast before the 2GHz pentium 4s came out. Technology moves fast. If I were to put a monetary value on the modern performance of the Pentium D, it would be about $50 at the most only looking at pure performance (and not heat/ technology/ instruction set/ system support considerations). It's certainly under the Athlon II 240 ($60) but definitely above the single core Sempron 140 ($40) due to the presence of two cores.