intel pentium D 2.8

**Blacksmith1** · 06-22-2011, 04:22 PM

wikipedia page shows that there wer 3 of these at least the 820 the 915 and the 920. is there any real difference to the end user between them?
I havent had an intel chip in over 10 years so I'm not up on them at all.

**Joshua_Mahr** · 06-22-2011, 10:46 PM

820 had less cache than the 920 and the 915 was a later reprocess of the 920

**Joshua_Mahr** · 06-22-2011, 10:50 PM

To put it in AMD terms its a bit faster than an AMD Athlon 64 FX-57

**swmeek** · 06-23-2011, 02:01 AM

I have one of those lying around somewhere.

**Blacksmith1** · 06-23-2011, 03:24 AM

is it normal for this chip to report at post as 1.4 x 100 and in windows sytem properties as both 2.8 and 1.4?

Originally Posted by swmeek

I have one of those lying around somewhere.

the fx chip?

**swmeek** · 06-23-2011, 03:01 PM

Oh no the pentium d .

**Dragon** · 06-23-2011, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Blacksmith1

is it normal for this chip to report at post as 1.4 x 100 and in windows sytem properties as both 2.8 and 1.4?

the fx chip?

Last I knew the 805 was on the short side bus, and the 820 up were on the 200 side bus. I do not remember my 805 posting at 100. check ad see if you have any power saving features turned on.

**Dragon** · 06-23-2011, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Joshua_Mahr

To put it in AMD terms its a bit faster than an AMD Athlon 64 FX-57

I seriously doubt that, that was when AMD was king. No Pentium D CPU could remotely keep up with AMD. P D's ran hot, and their performance was not all that great, even when intel reduced the chip to a 65NM process they sill could not keep up with an AMD of the same time period. It was not until Intel came out with the Core 2's when they retook the crown.