which is a better processor pentium 4 or pentium D?

Answer 1

The pentium d by far, but the core duo and core 2 duo kill either one. even the cheap 1.86 ghz one is powerful. I have the 1.66ghz core duo and it kills my 3.2ghz p4 and AMD athlon 3000+

Answer 2

As long as D comes from Double Pentium 4 then they use the same technology only that one has 2 P4 working an the other is just one

Answer 3

Pentium D, it helps twin processor cores on a unmarried CPU die, which signifies that is quick and sturdy for multi-tasking. A twin middle processor is extra perfect at operating distinctive applications. Like applications that take one hundred% of your cpu and your equipment turns into unresponsive on a unmarried middle equipment, twin middle continues to be responsive because of the different middle.

Answer 4

pentium 4

Answer 5

p4 < pentium d < Athlon Xp < core 2. Goto www.tomshardware.com for benchmarks.

Answer 6

The Pentium 4


was a seventh-generation x86 architecture microprocessor produced by Intel and was the company's first all-new CPU design since the Pentium Pro of 1995. Unlike the Pentium II, Pentium III, and various Celerons, the architecture owed little to the Intel P6 design. The "NetBurst" microarchitecture featured a very deep instruction pipeline, with the intention of scaling to very high frequencies. It also introduced the SSE2 SIMD instruction set for faster integer and 64-bit floating-point computation. Later Pentium 4 models integrated technological advances such as Hyper-threading, a feature to make one physical CPU appear as two logical and virtual CPUs.

The original Pentium 4, codenamed "Willamette", launched with models at 1.4 and 1.5 GHz and was released in November 2000 on the Socket 423 platform, and later Socket 478 from 1.5 GHz to 2.0 GHz. Notable with the introduction of the Pentium 4 was the comparatively fast 400 MT/s FSB. It was actually based on a 100 MHz clock wave, but the bus was quad-pumped, meaning that the maximum transfer rate was four times that of a normal bus, so it was considered to run at 400 MT/s.

As is traditional with Intel's flagship chips, the Pentium 4 also came in a low-end Celeron version (often referred to as Celeron 4) and a high-end Xeon version intended for SMP configurations. Nearly 6 years after the introduction of the original Pentium 4 CPUs, a dual core version, called the Pentium D, was released.

The Pentium 4 line of processors was retired on July 27, 2006, replaced by the Intel Core 2 line, using the "Conroe" core.

In benchmark evaluations, the advantages of the NetBurst architecture were not clear. With carefully optimized application code, the first P4 did outperform Intel's fastest Pentium III, as expected. But in legacy applications with many branching or x87 floating-point instructions, the P4 would merely match or even fall behind its predecessor. Furthermore, the NetBurst architecture dissipated more heat than any previous Intel or AMD processor.

As a result, the Pentium 4's introduction was met with mixed reviews: Developers disliked the Pentium 4, as it posed a new set of code optimization rules. For example, in mathematical applications AMD's much lower-clocked Athlon easily outperformed the Pentium 4, which would only catch up if software were re-compiled with SSE2 support. Computer-savvy buyers avoided Pentium 4 PCs due to their price-premium and questionable benefit. In terms of product marketing, the Pentium 4's singular emphasis on clock frequency (above all else) made it a marketer's dream.

The two classical metrics of CPU performance are IPC (instructions per cycle) and clock-frequency. While IPC is difficult to quantify (due to dependence on the benchmark application's instruction mix), clock-frequency is a simple measurement yielding a single absolute number. Unsophisticated buyers would simply associate the highest clock-rating with the best product, and the Pentium 4 was the undisputed Megahertz champion. As AMD was unable to compete by these rules, it countered Intel's marketing advantage with the 'Megahertz myth campaign.' AMD product marketing used a "PR-rating" system, which assigned a merit value based on relative-performance to a baseline machine.

See also: Megahertz myth
At the launch of the P4, Intel stated NetBurst was expected to scale to 10 GHz (over several fabrication process generations.) However, the NetBurst architecture ultimately hit a frequency ceiling far below expectation—the fastest retail Pentium 4 never exceeded 4 GHz. Intel had not anticipated a rapid upward scaling of transistor power leakage that began to occur as the chip reached the 90 nm process node and smaller. This new power leakage phenomenon, along with the standard thermal output, created cooling and clock scaling problems as clock speeds increased. Reacting to these unexpected obstacles, Intel attempted several core redesigns ("Prescott" most notably) and explored new manufacturing technologies. Nothing solved their problems though and in 2005-6 Intel shifted development away from NetBurst to focus on the cooler running Pentium M architecture. In March 2006, Intel announced the Intel Core microarchitecture, which puts greater emphasis on energy efficiency and performance per clock. The final NetBurst-derived products were released in 2006, with all subsequent product families switching exclusively to the Intel Core microarchitecture.

The Pentium D is a series of microprocessors that was introduced by Intel at the Spring 2005 Intel Developer Forum. A 9xx-series Pentium D package contains two Pentium 4 Cedar Mill dies, unlike other multi-core processors (including the Pentium D 8xx-series) that place both cores on a single die.

The Pentium D)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0cool

was the first announced multi-core CPU (along with its more expensive twin, the Pentium Extreme Edition) from any manufacturer intended for desktop computers. Intel underscored the significance of this introduction by predicting that by the end of 2006 over 70% of its shipping desktop CPUs would be multi-core. Analysts have speculated that the clock rate race between Intel and AMD is largely over, with no more exponential gains in clock rate likely[citation needed]. Instead, as long as Moore's Law holds true, it is expected that the increasing number of transistors that chip-makers can incorporate into their CPUs will be used to increase CPU throughput through other methods, such as adding cores.