Are Pentium D Processors Worthless?

[alvinstraight38]

I recently completed building my first PC, and it runs great, but I've
been very disappointed in the performance levels. I tried to go
budget as much as possible, but I regret skimping on the processor.
Here are my specs:

Thermacooler 500W PS
2 gigs DDR2 Consair Ram
320 gig Sata HD
2.66 Intel Pentium D dual core processor
EVGA Nvidia 7600GT 256 MB Video


I am not seeing much performance improvement over my 5 year old single
core 2.8 intel processor. I suspect that I am not really running a
dual core at all with these PC games. Oblivion performs horribly. I
get a slideshow even if I crank everything down to the lowest settings
yet my system is well above their recommended requirements!

Oddly enough, I can play Fear and Prey at really high resolutions
though. So is it the processor that is creating a huge bottleneck
here?

 

[Mike T.]

I recently completed building my first PC, and it runs great, but I've
been very disappointed in the performance levels. I tried to go
budget as much as possible, but I regret skimping on the processor.
Here are my specs:

Thermacooler 500W PS
2 gigs DDR2 Consair Ram
320 gig Sata HD
2.66 Intel Pentium D dual core processor
EVGA Nvidia 7600GT 256 MB Video


I am not seeing much performance improvement over my 5 year old single
core 2.8 intel processor.

You shouldn't see any performance improvement at all, running windows. (it
only uses one core)

I suspect that I am not really running a
dual core at all with these PC games.

Ummm, you are correct. Windows is not a dual-core OS.

Oblivion performs horribly. I
get a slideshow even if I crank everything down to the lowest settings
yet my system is well above their recommended requirements!

Obviously not a hardware issue.

Oddly enough, I can play Fear and Prey at really high resolutions
though. So is it the processor that is creating a huge bottleneck
here?

No, you've just posted more evidence that the hardware is OK.

No, the processor is not the bottleneck. Your pentium D should run any game
just fine. You are looking at a driver issue of some kind. Either that, or
possibly oblivion is missing an important "patch". -Dave

 

[Icky Thwacket]

Ummm, you are correct. Windows is not a dual-core OS.

Rubbish. It is nothing to do with the OS. Both XP and Vista support
multicore processors, it is the applications that have to have
multiprocessor support.
I have several professional apps that use both cores of my E6600 to the max.
It is just that not many games have multiprocessor support - yet

 

[Conor]

You shouldn't see any performance improvement at all, running windows. (it
only uses one core)
WRONG.


Ummm, you are correct. Windows is not a dual-core OS.

So how come Task Manager shows the CPU percentage from two cores?

 

[Mike T.]

Rubbish. It is nothing to do with the OS. Both XP and Vista support

multicore processors

You can INSTALL them on hardware with multicore processors, and they will
run just fine. That much is true. You can't expect a performance increase
over a single-core system, however.

, it is the applications that have to have multiprocessor support.

Absolutely true.

I have several professional apps that use both cores of my E6600 to the
max.
It is just that not many games have multiprocessor support - yet

Most apps. that home users are running on windows do not take advantage of
extra cores or extra processors. People need to understand that, because
(unfortunately) many home users think that their systems are going to run
faster, just because there is another "core". In most cases, that is not
true. -Dave

 

[Mike T.]

WRONG.

Absolutely right. There are some specific apps. that happen to run on
windows that can use multiple cores. The average home user shouldn't care
though.

So how come Task Manager shows the CPU percentage from two cores?

Do you know what firmware is? -Dave

 

[Icky Thwacket]

You can INSTALL them on hardware with multicore processors, and they will
run just fine. That much is true. You can't expect a performance
increase over a single-core system, however.


Absolutely true.


Most apps. that home users are running on windows do not take advantage of
extra cores or extra processors. People need to understand that, because
(unfortunately) many home users think that their systems are going to run
faster, just because there is another "core". In most cases, that is not
true. -Dave

I disagree. Even though most 'home' apps can only utilize a single core on
its own, Windows will allocate a particular core for each running app to
execute a time slice on. Therefore you can have a heavy duty single core app
running in the background (for instance some video compression) whilst still
having effectively a zero loaded core still available for surfing/word
processing - even running a game - with no apparent loss of performance for
either application.

With multiple single core apps running your machines system performance will
typically be close to 'n' times faster, where 'n' = number of cores.

On top of this you find that the core2duo series of processors have a much
more efficient architecture than the old Pentium D's and can have a much
higher throughput per core per clock cycle, and also benefit from having a
true shared internal cache which the dual core Pentium D's don't.

 

[friendsofderek]

Absolutely right. There are some specific apps. that happen to run on
windows that can use multiple cores. The average home user shouldn't care
though.

depends if they use applications that max out a cpu, on dual cores the
second core lets the operation system still work as normal. Might not
make the application faster ( if its only making use of a single core)
but means the computers still usable.

Fod

 

[John Weiss]

I recently completed building my first PC, and it runs great, but I've
been very disappointed in the performance levels. I tried to go
budget as much as possible, but I regret skimping on the processor.
Here are my specs:

2 gigs DDR2 Consair Ram
2.66 Intel Pentium D dual core processor
EVGA Nvidia 7600GT 256 MB Video

I am not seeing much performance improvement over my 5 year old single
core 2.8 intel processor. I suspect that I am not really running a
dual core at all with these PC games. Oblivion performs horribly. I
get a slideshow even if I crank everything down to the lowest settings
yet my system is well above their recommended requirements!

Most games are single-threaded, so they will not take advantage of dual
processors. Some newer versions are coming out that are SMP aware, but they
are still in the minority. Since the clock speed of the new CPU is slower than
the old one, and it still uses the older technology of the previous Pentium
versions, you will see a decline in single-threaded performance.

To regain that performance, you'll have to go to a CoreDuo or Core2Duo CPU,
which use the newer, more efficient CPU technology.

Oddly enough, I can play Fear and Prey at really high resolutions
though. So is it the processor that is creating a huge bottleneck
here?

The graphics card has a lot to do with that...

 

[John Weiss]

You can INSTALL them on hardware with multicore processors, and they will run
just fine. That much is true. You can't expect a performance increase over
a single-core system, however.

Untrue.

If you install on a system with equivalent CPUs at the same clock speed, the
dual will yield an increase in performance in multitasking scenarios. These
days, that includes MOST computers, since most of us have virus scanners,
firewalls, and other stuff running in the background.

Absolutely true.

....but incomplete. Windows has had multiprocessor support for the OS since NT
3.5, though it was improved significantly in NT4 and again in Win2K. OS tasks
can be divided among the CPUs, though that will seldom alone make up for a
decrease in clock speed.

Most apps. that home users are running on windows do not take advantage of
extra cores or extra processors. People need to understand that, because
(unfortunately) many home users think that their systems are going to run
faster, just because there is another "core". In most cases, that is not
true. -Dave

Again, you misstate the situation. IF the clock speed of the CPU cores is not
reduced, there will be a modest increase in performance as background tasks are
delegated to the less busy CPU. However, dual-core CPUs have been introduced
at slower clock speeds than their single-core contemporaries, so many people
have seen a decrease in the performance of single-threaded apps in
non-multitasking environments.

These days MOST people can benefit from a second CPU/core -- especially those
running Symantec/Norton antivirus and firewall products and similar resource
hogs.

 

[Dean G.]

I disagree. Even though most 'home' apps can only utilize a single core on
its own, Windows will allocate a particular core for each running app to
execute a time slice on. Therefore you can have a heavy duty single core app
running in the background (for instance some video compression) whilst still
having effectively a zero loaded core still available for surfing/word
processing - even running a game - with no apparent loss of performance for
either application.

Exactly. I occasionally leave Folding@Home running when I play
Oblivion, and no problem with an E6600. I have most of the eye candy
turned up, but I admit I have a GeForce 8800 to help with that.

With multiple single core apps running your machines system performance will
typically be close to 'n' times faster, where 'n' = number of cores.

Actually, it is typically closer to 80% of the number you describe.
There is a bit of overhead to deal with multi-core scheduling, and
there is more conflict over memory, disk, and bus usage.

Dean G.

 

[WooHoo2You]

Most apps. that home users are running on windows do not take advantage of
extra cores or extra processors. People need to understand that, because
(unfortunately) many home users think that their systems are going to run
faster, just because there is another "core". In most cases, that is not
true. -Dave

True, most users do not use their dual-or-more core PCs properly. Still
focusing on a single task at a time, forgetting it can handle double the
workload without any real lose in performance.

 

[JAD]

Your going to get ALL kinds of posts here proclaiming the opposite....mostly from people
that spent big money on duo/dual cores.
Home user - average user - too vague....web surfers, emailers, and the novice image
manipulators, juke box users, will see no difference. If there is, its do to the 2 gigs
of ram they put in during the upgrade ;^)


The users that use the 3% (i made it up,probably to high) of the software that utilizes
multi-proc will be happy.

 

[Larry Roberts]

I recently completed building my first PC, and it runs great, but I've
been very disappointed in the performance levels. I tried to go
budget as much as possible, but I regret skimping on the processor.
Here are my specs:

Thermacooler 500W PS
2 gigs DDR2 Consair Ram
320 gig Sata HD
2.66 Intel Pentium D dual core processor
EVGA Nvidia 7600GT 256 MB Video


I am not seeing much performance improvement over my 5 year old single
core 2.8 intel processor. I suspect that I am not really running a
dual core at all with these PC games. Oblivion performs horribly. I
get a slideshow even if I crank everything down to the lowest settings
yet my system is well above their recommended requirements!

Oddly enough, I can play Fear and Prey at really high resolutions
though. So is it the processor that is creating a huge bottleneck
here?

Well. You will only see an improvement if the application is
written to support dual core. You went from a 2.8Ghz to a dual core
2.66Ghz. If the application only uses 1 core, then there won't be much
of an upgrade, if any. I would have at least went with a Pentium D
945, or 940 over what you had. Even in single core usage, you would be
better than what you had.
I'm not an Intel man, yet, but do Intel dual cores require a
patch, or driver be applied to Windows to have both cores function
properly?

 

[Conor]

You can INSTALL them on hardware with multicore processors, and they will
run just fine. That much is true. You can't expect a performance increase
over a single-core system, however.

Rubbish.

 

[DK]

You shouldn't see any performance improvement at all, running windows. (it
only uses one core)


Ummm, you are correct. Windows is not a dual-core OS.

Is that why I am running dual core since Win2000? One core is
almost constantly used for calculation-intensive program why
another is available for whatever else I am doing.

DK

 

[DK]

Absolutely right. There are some specific apps. that happen to run on
windows that can use multiple cores. The average home user shouldn't care
though.

WRONG AGAIN. True most apps as of now cannot take advantage of
both cores at the same time, but running two raytracing jobs from
separate instances of the program on dual core is almost twice faster
then running them on a single core - etiher simultaneously or
sequenially.

Get your facts straight.

DK

 

[John Doe]

<[email protected]>, "Mike


WRONG AGAIN. True most apps as of now cannot take advantage of
both cores at the same time, but running two raytracing jobs from
separate instances of the program on dual core is almost twice
faster then running them on a single core - etiher simultaneously or
sequenially.

Get your facts straight.

The same could be said about your writing.

By the way. How can you run two instances of a program sequentially?
Either you're running them simultaneously or there's no point in two
instances, Eh?

 

[John Doe]

Is that why I am running dual core since Win2000? One core is
almost constantly used for calculation-intensive program why
another is available for whatever else I am doing.

What do you use to measure that?

 

[John Doe]

Windows is not a dual-core OS.

Says who?

Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.net!newssvr11.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!news.glorb.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!authen.yellow.readfreenews.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mike T." <noway nohow.not>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <1175869076.879247.115630 n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Are Pentium D Processors Worthless?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:33:54 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000730-4, 04/05/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <46165a53$0$97271$892e7fe2 authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Organization: Read Free News
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Apr 2007 09:33:55 CDT
X-Trace: DXC=l9onhC:7Xom2iIW8mIk05m]AGWjF5PjPi465Ue WB_5oCa690J2T33dDnJ^0T]aP fIODK0iGbeeee j8M[[F:]j;Nfn=KkU`Kl
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:488130