is a pentium d and pentium extreme edition the same based chip?

[acgraham]

what im getting at is that if they are would it be possible to hack it so that you could enable hyperthreading on the pentium D? would such a thing be possible?

[Pitch]

Nope.

[madcatmk3]

ummm no trust me if intel could they would enable it and sell it for more... THey are stillreaserching how to do it.

[Daishi]

just get an athlon 64 X2 Pentium D = X_X

[SteveI]

The whole concept of HT is a bit misleading. It was probably an accident. The P4 pipe was made very, very long in order to ramp up speed. As a direct result, it is almost impossible to fill the pipe with enough data to keep the CPU fully loaded... I know this is technically wrong, but I like to think of HT as a back door to get the CPU more data to keep it busy. (very loose explanation)

If they could add HT to any other processor, the gain would be minimal.

[freestyle1]

intel sucks thats why now im sporting the amd avatar. to get to your question theres probably no point in doing so, pentium d chips do not perform that differently to notice, its just clock speed bumps. I prefer the use of better technology to make a cpu faster rather than just a speed bump. but a speed bump is nice (cough: when overclocking! : cough)

[Phat Pat]

Lets start the chant!

AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD

[Got EpOx]

AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
And the chain continues....

[S_Wilson]

Originally Posted by SteveI

The whole concept of HT is a bit misleading. It was probably an accident. The P4 pipe was made very, very long in order to ramp up speed. As a direct result, it is almost impossible to fill the pipe with enough data to keep the CPU fully loaded... I know this is technically wrong, but I like to think of HT as a back door to get the CPU more data to keep it busy. (very loose explanation)

If they could add HT to any other processor, the gain would be minimal.

Maybe a good analogy would be two highways (data) merging into one highway (Pipeline).

With one highway there is no congestion and low utilization but with two feeding it can be used to full capacity.

[S_Wilson]

Originally Posted by madcatmk3

ummm no trust me if intel could they would enable it and sell it for more... THey are stillreaserching how to do it.

I am pretty certain they can enable HT on any Netburst based processor. I think HT and clockspeed are the only things that are different between the Pentium D's and EE's which allow the EE's to sell for more.

[Gizmo]

I suspect the reason the Pentium-Ds don't have HT is because of power consumption. Those dual-core chips run pretty hot already. I understand that the next generation dual core NetBurst chips will have it enabled though.

[S_Wilson]

Originally Posted by gizmo

I suspect the reason the Pentium-Ds don't have HT is because of power consumption. Those dual-core chips run pretty hot already. I understand that the next generation dual core NetBurst chips will have it enabled though.

The Pentium D's are pretty warm but not out of control until you OC them a fair amount. HT does not add much heat to the processors. I looked and the only difference between an 840D and an 840EE is Hyperthread. They are the same clockspeed (3.2), FSB and cache so that just leaves HT to justify the $500 difference between the two which leads me to believe that it is a marketing decision.

I believe the next dual cores, Pressler, will be the same as this generation. The standard Pentium D will not have HT enabled where the Pentium EE will, probably for the same reasons as now. The next generation should be a good improvement as they will be on the 65nm process so they should OC better while generating less heat. Also, thankfully, Pressler and Cedar Mill should be the last generation of the Netburst architecture being replaced by processors with reasonably lengthed pipes in about a year. Then HT will be a non issue and unnecessary.

[keithwalton]

Originally Posted by freestyle1

intel sucks thats why now im sporting the amd avatar. to get to your question theres probably no point in doing so, pentium d chips do not perform that differently to notice, its just clock speed bumps. I prefer the use of better technology to make a cpu faster rather than just a speed bump. but a speed bump is nice (cough: when overclocking! : cough)

Sorry but you couldnt really be more wrong if you tried.
The pentium D, is there dual core effort, its slower clock speed than the normal chips, the difference is there is two execution cores on one die.
Intel havent done a 'speed bump' in quite a while, i mean they have added, SSE3, Eist, EMT64, more and more cache, second core, etc.

As it has been recently said the only difference between the normal 800 series on the 800EE is the fact EE as hyperthreading turned back on. The 840EE is a damn fast chip, however its a dual core chip with dual virtual (hyperthreadid) cpu's which can get windows in a real tiz. If the application knows what its doing it can see a large boost over the standard P D, if not it'll run slower.

Oh and AMD fans, watch out in 2006, intel are back lets hope fab 36 can save you! your gonna need it! 65nm process is sampling well and will be with us by the end of THIS month, power consumption is down, speed is up, overclocking ability is up alot. 4GHz dual core is not out of the question before the P4 is killed off completly

[Seperah]

**Sigh**

4GHZ at what cost? --In mine eye thats equivalent to a space heater and increased electricity bills that I dont need . I have a feeling 65nm isnt going to be done right by Intel regardless of what they say, its all hype...take ATI for example, with the move to 90nm. Increased power consumption and heat production, which is the complete opposite of what it was intended for. Yes great overclocking capabilities...but honestly, no grounds for "true" advancement.

I mean, wow Intel says "We're baaack" in 06... then the M2 is going to be out including god knows what else.. and competition from AMD will become as fierce as it was with the 754-->940-->939 development. Musical sockets is what I call it

I dearly hope Intel realizes, they need to get more instructions per clock cycle, decrease power consumption and lower heat output...thats what AMD's been playing on for almost a year now, and its still going strong.

[S_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Seperah

**Sigh**

4GHZ at what cost? --In mine eye thats equivalent to a space heater and increased electricity bills that I dont need . I have a feeling 65nm isnt going to be done right by Intel regardless of what they say, its all hype...take ATI for example, with the move to 90nm. Increased power consumption and heat production, which is the complete opposite of what it was intended for. Yes great overclocking capabilities...but honestly, no grounds for "true" advancement.

I mean, wow Intel says "We're baaack" in 06... then the M2 is going to be out including god knows what else.. and competition from AMD will become as fierce as it was with the 754-->940-->939 development. Musical sockets is what I call it

I dearly hope Intel realizes, they need to get more instructions per clock cycle, decrease power consumption and lower heat output...thats what AMD's been playing on for almost a year now, and its still going strong.

The current crop of Prescotts are much better than previous versions. Through process refinement they have reduced the heat and power consumption. 65nm will see much improvement over what they have today based on what I have read, there are samples floating around.

As far as I know, socket M2 will only add DDR2 support for Athlon, higher clocked memory with higher latencies so I can't see that as being much help for the Athlon.

The big news for Intel is not what is coming next month but more what is coming later next year.

[SuperDucky]

Intel!
Intel!
Intel!

[Pitch]

Originally Posted by Seperah

**Sigh**

4GHZ at what cost? --In mine eye thats equivalent to a space heater and increased electricity bills that I dont need . I have a feeling 65nm isnt going to be done right by Intel regardless of what they say, its all hype...take ATI for example, with the move to 90nm. Increased power consumption and heat production, which is the complete opposite of what it was intended for. Yes great overclocking capabilities...but honestly, no grounds for "true" advancement.

I mean, wow Intel says "We're baaack" in 06... then the M2 is going to be out including god knows what else.. and competition from AMD will become as fierce as it was with the 754-->940-->939 development. Musical sockets is what I call it

I dearly hope Intel realizes, they need to get more instructions per clock cycle, decrease power consumption and lower heat output...thats what AMD's been playing on for almost a year now, and its still going strong.

You mean realise that clock for clock, they have one the most powerful processors availible? I'm talking about Dotham by the way.. well they did. So they released a Dual core version, on 65nm tech.

[Seperah]

Too be truthful, the only thing Intel I would touch currently is Dothan

Clock for clock, will beat an A64 in many upon many of 32bit apps, and the huge 2mb cache

Now if they could just add 64bit extensions, its own motherboard line
that way you dont have to use 915 or 865 boards.

[madcatmk3]

I can't wait till the new dotans come out I'm probly going to put one in a laptop, or even a computer I build for someone.

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by S_Wilson

T...HT does not add much heat to the processors. ...

Actually, under load, it adds quite a bit of heat. My main rig folds 24/7. With one core running it is currently at 57c. If I run a second instance of FAH, it will go up to about 63-64c. I'm not sure if that meets the def of a lot or not.

BTW, to everyone else, let's chill on what sux and what does not. I hold AMD shares, yet my main rig is a P4... my wife's is a barton, 2 kids have A64's, and 1 a Tbred. Each core has it's benefits and weaknesses. It isn't the CPU that sux, but the person who bought the wrong one for his needs that sux.