3 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10x as fast at some things. The original P4 should never have seen the light of day.

ytch 10y ago
Even Atom can beat Pentium 4 in most cases. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-d510-pentium-4-nettop,2649-5.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-d510-pentium-4-nett...
dopeboy 10y ago
Just curious - can you elaborate on your second statement?
- Matthias247 10y ago
  I think he meant that the P4 (netburst) architecture wasn't very good. It was optimized for high clock rates und utilized a long pipeline for that. I had some fellow students back in those days that overclocked their P4s to 4Ghz and beyond, which was quite insane compared to other architectures (P3 and AMD). However as a tradeoff the architecture was not very efficient. With the Core2 line Intel then moved into a completely different direction with higher efficiency and lower clock cycles. Core2 was considered to be a massive success compared to P4.
  - RachelF 10y ago
    Ironically the Core2 descends from the P3M, not the P4.
  - pikzen 10y ago
    The Pentium 4 architecture was a godsend for the overclocking scene. IIRC The P4 record is at 8.2GHz, with a Celeron 352 being in third place worldwide with 8.5GHz
- ryao 10y ago
  I replaced a P4 with a C2550D4I for a friend last year. Where the P4 struggled with modern YouTube videos at 480p, the Avoton (an Atom) did 1080p without much trouble. It is odd that The P4 did so well in Intel's marketing video, but did not in 2015. My guess is that the decoder for the more modern video codecs require more than the P4 is able to do. It is also possible that the OS made a difference. His P4 ran Windows XP while the Avoton runs Gentoo Linux. Gentoo Linux should have had a decoder that could use SSE2 while Windows XP might not have. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the puny Aspeed graphics card with kernel mode setting. There is minimal tearing and the frame rates are smooth. The P4 had used a GeForce 3.

ytch 10y ago

Even Atom can beat Pentium 4 in most cases. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-d510-pentium-4-nettop,2649-5.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-d510-pentium-4-nett...

dopeboy 10y ago

Just curious - can you elaborate on your second statement?

Matthias247 10y ago
I think he meant that the P4 (netburst) architecture wasn't very good. It was optimized for high clock rates und utilized a long pipeline for that. I had some fellow students back in those days that overclocked their P4s to 4Ghz and beyond, which was quite insane compared to other architectures (P3 and AMD). However as a tradeoff the architecture was not very efficient. With the Core2 line Intel then moved into a completely different direction with higher efficiency and lower clock cycles. Core2 was considered to be a massive success compared to P4.
- RachelF 10y ago
  Ironically the Core2 descends from the P3M, not the P4.
- pikzen 10y ago
  The Pentium 4 architecture was a godsend for the overclocking scene. IIRC The P4 record is at 8.2GHz, with a Celeron 352 being in third place worldwide with 8.5GHz
ryao 10y ago
I replaced a P4 with a C2550D4I for a friend last year. Where the P4 struggled with modern YouTube videos at 480p, the Avoton (an Atom) did 1080p without much trouble. It is odd that The P4 did so well in Intel's marketing video, but did not in 2015. My guess is that the decoder for the more modern video codecs require more than the P4 is able to do. It is also possible that the OS made a difference. His P4 ran Windows XP while the Avoton runs Gentoo Linux. Gentoo Linux should have had a decoder that could use SSE2 while Windows XP might not have. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the puny Aspeed graphics card with kernel mode setting. There is minimal tearing and the frame rates are smooth. The P4 had used a GeForce 3.