what's the intel pentium processor?

This is a discussion on what's the intel pentium processor? within the Tech Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; Ok, I know the original Pentium from the 90's, but now I think Intel is using "Pentium" again for it's ...

  1. #1
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391

    what's the intel pentium processor?

    Ok, I know the original Pentium from the 90's, but now I think Intel is using "Pentium" again for it's current stable of processors.

    There's Centrino, core 2 duo, i7, Atom, which I have no problems with, but now I am starting to see "Pentium Inside" logos. What does Pentium mean in this day and age? I am confused.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  2. #2
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,248
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    Ok, I know the original Pentium from the 90's, but now I think Intel is using "Pentium" again for it's current stable of processors.

    There's Centrino, core 2 duo, i7, Atom, which I have no problems with, but now I am starting to see "Pentium Inside" logos. What does Pentium mean in this day and age? I am confused.
    Intel® Pentium® Processor E2220 (1M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 800 MHz FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLA8W

    For the overall view, see here:

    http://www.nvcc.edu/home/rdusek/itn-...el-roadmap.gif
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  3. #3
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    Thanks for the info, brewbuck.

    It looks like the "Intel Pentium" has 2 cores, but it's not a core 2 duo.

    So it must be a dual-core, like Pentium D.

    I am asking because I was shopping for a new notebook, and the Pentium ones seem much cheaper than the core 2 duo, so I thought they were single core successors to the Pentium 4/M, or a renamed Core Solo.

    Strange that intel would just use "Pentium", since it's alrady used in Pentium I, II, III, IV, M, D, Extreme. That's confusing.

    EDIT: I think I am still confused, because the Intel Pentium family are desktop CPUs, but I am seeing notebooks with "Intel Pentium Inside" logos. Bah, time for me to lie down.
    Last edited by happyclown; 11-19-2009 at 10:45 PM.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    They are lower end Core 2 Duos, with less cache. Architecturelly the same as C2Ds. Nothing to do with original Pentiums.

    They just couldn't stand watching AMD reusing the "Athlon" name for a few decades, while they had to come up with new names for every new series. Might as well join them.

  5. #5
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    I think you're right about "intel pentium" being C2D.

    I just checked out the specs for a particular notebook at different retail sites.

    Some list the CPU as "Core 2 Duo T4300 (2.10GHz)", others as "Intel« Pentium« Processor T4300 (2.10 GHz)".

    How can anyone not be confused? If it's a C2D, call it a C2D(and use a C2D Logo) and drop the "Intel Pentium" name and logo.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    They sell C2D-branded chips at higher prices.

    Heck, they label the even lower end C2Ds Celerons.

  7. #7
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    They are lower end Core 2 Duos, with less cache. Architecturelly the same as C2Ds. Nothing to do with original Pentiums.

    They just couldn't stand watching AMD reusing the "Athlon" name for a few decades, while they had to come up with new names for every new series. Might as well join them.
    They should have just stuck with the x86 labelling. At least then it was easier to differentiate between processor generations.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #8
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    They should have just stuck with the x86 labelling. At least then it was easier to differentiate between processor generations.
    That would have been nice, but how would they distinguish Pentiums from Celerons? Maybe 586SX & 586DX? What would my Quad-core be -- 1086DX?
    I'm wondering why they call every cheap CPU a Celeron instead of Celeron II, Celeron III...?
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  9. #9
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    That would have been nice, but how would they distinguish Pentiums from Celerons? Maybe 586SX & 586DX? What would my Quad-core be -- 1086DX?
    I'm wondering why they call every cheap CPU a Celeron instead of Celeron II, Celeron III...?
    The original celeron was specifically processors that failed the QC due to a bad cache. They disbaled the bad part and sold it as a celeron. The processors work fine otherwise, they just dont have as much cache.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  10. #10
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    The original celeron was specifically processors that failed the QC due to a bad cache. They disbaled the bad part and sold it as a celeron. The processors work fine otherwise, they just dont have as much cache.
    This was also how Intel did with the Pentium M and Celeron M processors, the much much cheaper Celerons were identical to the Pentium models, only less cache and no speed stepping. Since Pentium M was somewhat of a high-performance CPU at it's launch, the Celeron Ms were a bargain, half the price of the Pentium 4s, same speed. Asus even went as far as making a plugin-module for some of their Pentium 4 motherboards so they would support Socket 479 mobile processors, specifically Pentium M and Celeron M, so desktop users could take advantage of Intels strange pricing strategies.
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  11. #11
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post

    Heck, they label the even lower end C2Ds Celerons.
    I think some mobile Celerons are single core:

    Intel« Celeron« Processor 900

    This particular CPU is in alot of current budget notebooks. It appears to be only marginally more powerful than an Atom processor(has double the cache of the Atom), and may eventually replace the Atom in all low end notebooks.

    EDIT: These Celerons are dual core: T3300, T3100, T1700, T1600. It appears any mobile Celeron with a T at the front is dual core.

    Intel« Celeron« Mobile Processor Family
    Last edited by happyclown; 11-21-2009 at 05:06 PM.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  12. #12
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    I think some mobile Celerons are single core:

    Intel« Celeron« Processor 900

    This particular CPU is in alot of current budget notebooks. It appears to be only marginally more powerful than an Atom processor(has double the cache of the Atom), and may eventually replace the Atom in all low end notebooks.
    Funny thing is, it's the third Intel CPU with the name "Celeron 900", why don't they come up with something new?
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  13. #13
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post
    Funny thing is, it's the third Intel CPU with the name "Celeron 900", why don't they come up with something new?
    Not only that, but Celeron 900 doesn't make it clear that it's speed is 2.2Ghz.

    I think Intel releases so many variants of processor architectures that they have lost the plot where naming is concerned.

    Maybe the should start naming processors based on year and month(or quarter, of release) and speed.

    So for the Celeron 900 above: Intel Celeron 2009/Q1/2.2.

    EDIT: And maybe something to indicate single(S), dual or quad core, and for mobiles(M)/desktop.

    Intel Celeron 2009Q1/2.2MS.
    Last edited by happyclown; 11-21-2009 at 05:22 PM.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    AMD did the same thing to confuse the heck out of their customers when they stopped making the model name match the speed.

    When it comes to buying CPUs now I have to go to about 4 or 5 websites before I figure out which chips are 'rip-off' QC rejects and which ones are not.

  15. #15
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    AMD did the same thing to confuse the heck out of their customers when they stopped making the model name match the speed.

    When it comes to buying CPUs now I have to go to about 4 or 5 websites before I figure out which chips are 'rip-off' QC rejects and which ones are not.
    I dont even bother much anymore, CPU's are quickly becoming outdated, GPU's are where the future is, as soon as they stop trying to reinvent the wheel and start using standard architectures I think NVidia could put Intel out of business in short order. If they ever released a 192 core x86 compatible GPU it would finish intel overnight.

    BTW the 192 comes from the 8800, which has 192 shaders, which effectively runs at 76 GHz equivalent, as said, too bad it doesn't run native x86 code. If it did, I don't think anyone would even bother with Intel or AMD anymore.

    The patents on the 486 expired recently, so even if they just put 192 486's running at 400 MHz, that would still crush Intel.
    Last edited by abachler; 11-22-2009 at 07:49 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Intel Core i7 Processor
    By DavidP in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-24-2009, 02:47 AM
  2. Intel syntax on MinGW ?
    By TmX in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-06-2007, 08:44 AM
  3. Is this processor 64-bit?
    By ChadJohnson in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2006, 08:18 AM
  4. Question about the new Pentium processor
    By volk in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-19-2003, 12:47 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21