Thread 105816339

is there something pentium 4 could do today very well, which modern CPUs lack?

name one thing?

P4 is build different so in theory it could do some P4 specific calculations faster than modern Intel core i7 14th gen does

(I am talking about single thread performance here)

the ran code must be fitted for P4 so that it doesnt include dependency on multimedia instructions intel has later put into core i7/i9 tech in years 2012, 2016 and 2022

>>105816339 (OP)
>name one thing?
It won't rust randomly.

>>105816339 (OP)
well there was that nitrogen overclock vid on youtube from like 2005 which has absolutely insane mod music in the background that i still go back and listen to once in a while

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jQZxH7NgM

P4 was the last processors before Intel went to Core 2 Duo and ME became standard.
Your very processor may not be the last to get put out without ME but it's from that era.
Stick it up your ***.

Presumably a modern cpu could effectively emulate any directions/instructions specific/optimised to p4 much faster than the hardware itself.

>>105816745
One cycle instructions may be different though

>>105816339 (OP)
it performed well at its intended clockspeeds, and thats the kicker , none of the products intel sold hit their intended clockspeeds, prescott being the worse example , supposed to run 4-5ghz ended up in the 2.8-3.8ghz range because they draw so much power, to make matters worse intels fsb based platforms were vastly inferior to the integrated memory controller on amd athlon 64s, its actually so bad i could hardly believe it, i recently went back and tested my ancient p35 +x5460 setup, the physics score in 3d mark goes from 3800 points to 4600 points just by running the mch at 400/480, instead of of stock 333/400 same cpu clock, and thats on a chip with 2x6mb l2 caches, its even worse for chips with less cache.

>>105816759
and then intel came back stronger than ever. did amd drop the ball or intel go beastmode? or both?

>>105816339 (OP)
render Bryce images.

>>105816782
intel used anti competitive practices to limit amd's success, to which they had to settle for like a billion dollars, the " genuine intel" compiler check is probably the most egregious one, disabled optimizations if a non intel cpu was detected. was a huge problem because intels compiler was widely used.

the phenom 1 was buggy and kinda slow, phenom ii was good, then amd shat itself with bulldozer , it is truly a mystery as to why amd did that to themselves, amd actually updated the k10 core one more time after phenom ii, the llano apus have an updated core and it has quite good ipc, it performs really well at low clocks, without any l3 cache, why amd didnt just take that core and make an 8core chip beggars belief.

>>105816339 (OP)
>P4 is build different so in theory it could do some P4 specific calculations faster than modern Intel core i7 14th gen does
we have reached unprecedented levels of poorfag cope

>>105820093
llano > bulldozer

>>105820093
>>105820368
interesting stuff thanks

>>105820368
one more big oof here