Talk:Pentium OverDrive

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

It should be "OverDrive", not "Overdrive": should this article be moved to Intel Pentium OverDrive or Pentium OverDrive? For the Intel 80486 article has got "Intel" in it, whereas the Pentium article does not. Crusadeonilliteracy 20:39, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OverDrive to upgrade Pentium "P5"

There was one, powered at 5V and fitting instead of Pentium 60/66, called "Pentium OverDrive 120/133". Why isn't it covered?

Yes, the Pentium OverDrive I believe upgrades Pentiums, I have one in my old P90, while an Overdrive is for the 486. --4.40.1.160 05:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pentium 2 overdrive

I'm pretty sure there was a pentium 2 overdrive that replaced a pentium pro and supported up to dual CPU operation IIRC it had half the L2 cache of the pentium 2 but ran it at full speed like the pentium pro did and in some benchmarks actually came out faster than the pentium 2. I can't find any mention of it here in wikipedia though. Plugwash 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Intel did produce a Pentium II overdrive CPU for Pentium Pro based systems. Essentially, it's a Pentium II Xeon running at 333mhz with 512kb of full speed L2 cache. It was certified only for single and dual processor configurations. I personally have 2 of these CPU's in a Compaq Deskpro 5200 with 256mb of 168 pin EDO RAM and a 4.3gb Wide SCSI hard drive. All this particular machine does it sit idle at the Windows XP desktop running XP's ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) software. Infinitrium 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was the 2 CPU limit worked around for ASCI Red? Any chance it could be done for quad Socket 8 systems? Bizzybody (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

586 chips?

Is the pentium overdrive the Intel equivilant of those "586 Upgrade Chips" that appeared... notably from other chip brands such as Cyrix and Everygreen? If so, should it be mentioned somewhere in the article? If not... is there another article that exists somewhere? --WildKard (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pentium OverDrive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61BUOVzvk?url=http://download.intel.com/design/PentiumII/specupdt/24333749.pdf to http://download.intel.com/design/PentiumII/specupdt/24333749.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]