Core 2 vs Pentium D

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: MrX8503
Pentium D's need nearly an entire 1GHZ to match the performance of an X2. I believe I was keeping it real thankyou.

By "keeping it real", did you mean to imply that AMD and Intel CPU's should be performance rated MHz for MHz?
Everyone and their brother knows that the Pentium D's and X2 CPU's cannot be ranked that way.

I compared the MHZ to show Pentium D's poor architecture/poor efficiency. You are implying that I believe a higher MHZ processor is a better processor, which is not what i'm saying at all. I'm using MHZ to compare the superior architecture based on efficiency.

By your comment everyone who says "C2D@2.4ghz>X2@2.6ghz" have invalid arguements.

There is a difference between comparing efficiency vs. comparing which number is higher, which is what you are implying.

 

[imported_Uber]

There, uh, is still the issue of which freaking C2D to get. Most of my feedback was P-D bashing rather than C2D support.
Should I spend $40 more to get the 6400 or go with the 6300?
Come on people.
And bashing my friend like that, jeez. He went from a POS ME machine belonging to his parents to a 2.8 GHz P-D. So, obviously, its a HUGE difference. Lay off.

 

[MrX8503]

Sorry for being off topic.

If you arent into OCing i would go with the 6400, if you are into OCing then i would construct the entire system around the 6300.

If the total cost of the rig with a 6300 is something you can afford and another $40 is not going to break your bank, then jump on the 6400.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Uber
There, uh, is still the issue of which freaking C2D to get. Most of my feedback was P-D bashing rather than C2D support.
Should I spend $40 more to get the 6400 or go with the 6300?
Come on people.
And bashing my friend like that, jeez. He went from a POS ME machine belonging to his parents to a 2.8 GHz P-D. So, obviously, its a HUGE difference. Lay off.

you wanted opinions actually facts is what you received. the difference between the 6300 and 6400 is not much in either $$$ or speed, get whichever one you want.

and you are the one that brought your friend into this whole thread at the beginning - he has relatively no experience with computers if all he can base his conclusions on are between 2 machines, one being 6-7yrs old the other being 1-2 so get over it.

 

[gramboh]

I compared the MHZ to show Pentium D's poor architecture/poor efficiency. You are implying that I believe a higher MHZ processor is a better processor, which is not what i'm saying at all. I'm using MHZ to compare the superior architecture based on efficiency.

By your comment everyone who says "C2D@2.4ghz>X2@2.6ghz" have invalid arguements.

There is a difference between comparing efficiency vs. comparing which number is higher, which is what you are implying.

What you really need to compare is real world performance per dollar. That is the point of benchmarks liked the one linked, compare each CPU in its cost range. Yes there is a point to arguing arcitecture and also more importantly power consumption/heat generation (obviously P-D fails hard at this). But still, to the end user, power is what matters, and it is true you can OC those $90 805D's pretty damn fast on air.

 

[SophWise]

I compared the MHZ to show Pentium D's poor architecture/poor efficiency. You are implying that I believe a higher MHZ processor is a better processor, which is not what i'm saying at all. I'm using MHZ to compare the superior architecture based on efficiency.

Pentium D's need nearly an entire 1GHZ to match the performance of an X2. I believe I was keeping it real thankyou.

OH for cryin' out loud! This was rediculous enough to encourage me to join the forum.

Once and for all, the sells out on both sides need to shut up. Knock off the platform loyalty you dolts. In the end, the real world benchmarks win out. What the heck is the reasoning in all this nonsense. What, you spend a year pissed off at the other side, but really just jealous that the other side has [faster archetecture, greater efficiency, more Ghz, getting better press, a CEO with a bigger winkie]. I don't care who has "mo betta" architecture, or who has the most Ghz. What, because you bought an AMD, and now you find you're second best, you get pissed off at pundits for the other side. People defend their chip like its their brother or something.

We all know the coin has two sides and given some time, it'll flip over again. Then the Intel people will start the same nonsense the AMD folk are whining about now. Core 2 is currently the one to beat. So go buy it, enjoy it, and when the next new thing comes out, drool, maybe even endure the temporary case of penis envy, but don't go on and on about how much better your usurped POS is. Platform loyalt only helps the companies maintain market share. It doesn't promote faster chips.

You talk to any exec at Intel or AMD and they will tell you protecting market share through emotionalistic customer loyalty campaigns is actually of higher importance to them and chip innovation and benchmarks. Benchmarks only become important to them when they're in 1st place, and only then because its tied to the emotional sense of superiority that the end-user confers upon himself. Hmm, somewhat like the Air Jordan shoe craze back in the mid-late 80s.

While I will certainly agree that the 805 is WELL³ below (notice the exponent) the current market's top chips, I would certainly not go to the extreme to say that the D 960 is a piece of rubbish. That is utter nonsense. Most people, and I mean like 99 percent of the population wouldn't notice the difference between that and a Core 2 in everyday usage. That is especially true when you consider that typical hard drive transfer rates are the main bottleneck in any system. One of my computers is a Pentium D 2.8 w/4GB and 8 - 150GB 10k Raptors connected to a 3Ware 9550SX-8LP card in RAID 0 configuration.

My machine is faster in real world usage than any of the fastest CORE 2 Duos I have used to date. This machine that would be considered antiquated by most of you CORE2 sellouts here, but it goes from "power button pressed" to "ready to work" in Windows in just under 12 seconds. Apps load faster. Large Photoshop files save quicker. And the system just plain "feels" snappier than most PC's I have come across to date. Combine all of that with a 7950GX2-1GB and you get a perfectly fast system. Friends and associates with the highest end Core 2's have used it and continually ask what I did to make it so fast.

Sure I could upgrade to CORE 2, heck even to a D 960, but I would rather spend more money on hard drives and not on CPU power at this time. You could put the money into the latest greatest CPU, but in my experience, users who invest in hard drive speed get a MUCH more fulfilling overall experience. Like using Daemon Tools or Alcohol to load images for games. I am back on servers for the next level, long before the rest of the schmoes who focus on CPU alone. My hard drives will make the transition to CORE 2 when I am ready (read: when prices come down). I'll look more at upgrading when I find a PC that "feels" faster than what I am using now. I'm not dropping another $500-$1000 to squeeze an extra 6-10fps out of BF2142.

Thats my 2 dollars, keep the $1.98 change.

Wes

 

[Blain]

Out of chaos, reason is born.

 

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: SophWise

I compared the MHZ to show Pentium D's poor architecture/poor efficiency. You are implying that I believe a higher MHZ processor is a better processor, which is not what i'm saying at all. I'm using MHZ to compare the superior architecture based on efficiency.

Pentium D's need nearly an entire 1GHZ to match the performance of an X2. I believe I was keeping it real thankyou.

OH for cryin' out loud! This was rediculous enough to encourage me to join the forum.

Once and for all, the sells out on both sides need to shut up. Knock off the platform loyalty you dolts. In the end, the real world benchmarks win out. What the heck is the reasoning in all this nonsense. What, you spend a year pissed off at the other side, but really just jealous that the other side has [faster archetecture, greater efficiency, more Ghz, getting better press, a CEO with a bigger winkie]. I don't care who has "mo betta" architecture, or who has the most Ghz. What, because you bought an AMD, and now you find you're second best, you get pissed off at pundits for the other side. People defend their chip like its their brother or something.

We all know the coin has two sides and given some time, it'll flip over again. Then the Intel people will start the same nonsense the AMD folk are whining about now. Core 2 is currently the one to beat. So go buy it, enjoy it, and when the next new thing comes out, drool, maybe even endure the temporary case of penis envy, but don't go on and on about how much better your usurped POS is. Platform loyalt only helps the companies maintain market share. It doesn't promote faster chips.

You talk to any exec at Intel or AMD and they will tell you protecting market share through emotionalistic customer loyalty campaigns is actually of higher importance to them and chip innovation and benchmarks. Benchmarks only become important to them when they're in 1st place, and only then because its tied to the emotional sense of superiority that the end-user confers upon himself. Hmm, somewhat like the Air Jordan shoe craze back in the mid-late 80s.

While I will certainly agree that the 805 is WELL³ below (notice the exponent) the current market's top chips, I would certainly not go to the extreme to say that the D 960 is a piece of rubbish. That is utter nonsense. Most people, and I mean like 99 percent of the population wouldn't notice the difference between that and a Core 2 in everyday usage. That is especially true when you consider that typical hard drive transfer rates are the main bottleneck in any system. One of my computers is a Pentium D 2.8 w/4GB and 8 - 150GB 10k Raptors connected to a 3Ware 9550SX-8LP card in RAID 0 configuration.

My machine is faster in real world usage than any of the fastest CORE 2 Duos I have used to date. This machine that would be considered antiquated by most of you CORE2 sellouts here, but it goes from "power button pressed" to "ready to work" in Windows in just under 12 seconds. Apps load faster. Large Photoshop files save quicker. And the system just plain "feels" snappier than most PC's I have come across to date. Combine all of that with a 7950GX2-1GB and you get a perfectly fast system. Friends and associates with the highest end Core 2's have used it and continually ask what I did to make it so fast.

Sure I could upgrade to CORE 2, heck even to a D 960, but I would rather spend more money on hard drives and not on CPU power at this time. You could put the money into the latest greatest CPU, but in my experience, users who invest in hard drive speed get a MUCH more fulfilling overall experience. Like using Daemon Tools or Alcohol to load images for games. I am back on servers for the next level, long before the rest of the schmoes who focus on CPU alone. My hard drives will make the transition to CORE 2 when I am ready (read: when prices come down). I'll look more at upgrading when I find a PC that "feels" faster than what I am using now. I'm not dropping another $500-$1000 to squeeze an extra 6-10fps out of BF2142.

Thats my 2 dollars, keep the $1.98 change.

Wes

Uh I read your entire post and it doesnt even make sense.

You accuse people of defending their systems when you are doing the same thing? Hypocrite anyone?

I own an AMD system, but I wasnt defending my system i was stating facts and the facts are... PentiumD<X2<C2D.

A noticeable difference between Pentium D vs x2/C2D is questionalbe to the type of tasks you may be doing. Granted this is only true to some extent.

All I said that was that the Pentium D is less efficient and the arcitecture isnt very good. So why would a new system builder not consider especially the C2D or X2, unless they are on a very tight budget, but I dont think thats the case with the OP.

One thing I do agree on is that Dualcore is way ahead of its time and 64bit for that matter, so there would be bottlenecks in the system.

 

[GFORCE100]

Tight budget is Celeron D and Sempron territory. Anyone who goes and buys such a CPU isn't hoping for a speed king, but they do represent good value and with the right graphics card, could still play newer titles nicely.

Netburst isn't that bad, it's just the heat leakage and in a lesser sense the power draw that made it retire earlier than otherwise planned. The higher the MHz, the more effective it becomes per MHz. Since the heat issue ruined Intel's planned for 5GHz and higher, it kicked itself in the foot by changing a 20 to 31 stage pipeline since 20 stages at 90/65nm would still produce 4GHz or higher nicely and be at least 10% faster per clock. If Intel also then implemented the L2 cache design of the Core 2 Duo then it would yield another 10-12% gain. In the end Intel had to face the heat issue and quietly abandon Tejas (40 stage pipeline, SSE4 etc.) and come out with something to keep investors happy for the next 5+ years.

The Pentium D 9xx are not bad chips, especially ones with the right multiplier/core stepping. In games the 3D card has about 70% say at what speed the game will actually play anyway. During normal use of Windows, the hard drive can change a fast processor into a slow machine, even if it's a Core 2 Duo. I have a Netburst Pentium 4-M 2.6GHz in my notebook for example, one might think a dated chip but with the 7K100 hard drive, the system is actually very enjoyable to use in Windows. Sure 3D is not great, the 3D card cannot be upgraded and only scores 5250 in 3DMark2001 but in Windows it's fun, no reason to upgrade unless I was say to do video encoding.

95% of people out there aren't geeks, all they want is their MS Word to open up in 3-4 seconds and their games to run at 60FPS or more. They don't get excited when Word opens up 250ms faster, or they get 11FPS more, it's still silky smooth. For the Mr Smith's out there, they care about price (1), who makes the CPU (2) and more recently power consumption (3). Give the system an Nvidia 7600GT or higher and your good to go. All hard drives these days are nice and fast, using Windows XP is fun on any system today, with a 2005/2006 model HDD.

 

[SophWise]

You accuse people of defending their systems when you are doing the same thing? Hypocrite anyone?

How exactly was I "defending" my system. I was holding it up as an example that you don't have to buy the latest CPU out there to have a super performing computer. I didn't accuse anyone of defending their "system", nor was I "defending" MY system. I used the word chip. And of course, I was totally defending the Pentium D class of processor and Intel as a whole wasn't I? Wasn't I? ...no I WASN'T.

You are clearly of the persuasion that says CPU optimization and efficiency per clock cycle is more important than real world benchmarks of a system as a whole. I don't even care if the CPU is from Via or Transmeta (ok, well, maybe a little negative bias there). If the computer as a whole lets me get more done in less time, then I am all for it. But I have yet to see a simple CPU upgrade of the likes of Pentium D to Core 2, that makes a night and day difference. And I only used the Pentium D as an example because that is one of the systems I have. For all of my servers, I currently use Supermicro Quad Opterons running Solaris.

We are certainly in agreement on the dual core side of things, except that I would go dual core, multi-cpu.

In the real world, the way to make the machine perform faster is by increasing the hard drive throughput. Most people get sick of the back and forth of those knuckle dragging "AMD vs. Intel" apes. I'm not saying you're one of those. I am saying that I'm sick of hearing the AMD AMD AMD, and Intel Intel Intel. Just put up some industry standardized benchmarks, and let the speed king rule while he can...on the CPU benchmark, not on the overall "Getting Work Done" benchmark.

Again, in the real world, the system bottleneck remains at the hard drives. Hardware RAID with 4+ hard disks makes a tremendous impact, on both the real and perceived increase in system performance. And again, my main point, a Pentium D to Core 2 upgrade at this stage will not benefit 95% of users as much as a good RAID setup will.

Mark my words, I am the first one I know of to say it... In the same lines as Dual Channel Memory, Blade Servers, and now Dual Core processors. You will see hard drives emerge with multiple independant heads per platter that boast huge performance gains. Something is going to change on that front as areal density reaches its limits.

Anyhow, to me its more important that I have fast storage, rather than fast CPU. I am not saying a faster CPU is without merit, but for 95% of people out there, a hard drive speed increase will be much more noticeable than a CPU upgrade...especially if they are already at the higher end of the P4 line.

Wes

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: SophWise
In the real world, the way to make the machine perform faster is by increasing the hard drive throughput. Most people get sick of the back and forth of those knuckle dragging "AMD vs. Intel" apes.

Again, in the real world, the system bottleneck remains at the hard drives. Hardware RAID with 4+ hard disks makes a tremendous impact, on both the real and perceived increase in system performance.

Anyhow, to me its more important that I have fast storage, rather than fast CPU. I am not saying a faster CPU is without merit, but for 95% of people out there, a hard drive speed increase will be much more noticeable than a CPU upgrade...especially if they are already at the higher end of the P4 line.

Wes

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SophWise

You accuse people of defending their systems when you are doing the same thing? Hypocrite anyone?

How exactly was I "defending" my system. I was holding it up as an example that you don't have to buy the latest CPU out there to have a super performing computer. I didn't accuse anyone of defending their "system", nor was I "defending" MY system. I used the word chip. And of course, I was totally defending the Pentium D class of processor and Intel as a whole wasn't I? Wasn't I? ...no I WASN'T.

You are clearly of the persuasion that says CPU optimization and efficiency per clock cycle is more important than real world benchmarks of a system as a whole. I don't even care if the CPU is from Via or Transmeta (ok, well, maybe a little negative bias there). If the computer as a whole lets me get more done in less time, then I am all for it. But I have yet to see a simple CPU upgrade of the likes of Pentium D to Core 2, that makes a night and day difference. And I only used the Pentium D as an example because that is one of the systems I have. For all of my servers, I currently use Supermicro Quad Opterons running Solaris.

We are certainly in agreement on the dual core side of things, except that I would go dual core, multi-cpu.

In the real world, the way to make the machine perform faster is by increasing the hard drive throughput. Most people get sick of the back and forth of those knuckle dragging "AMD vs. Intel" apes. I'm not saying you're one of those. I am saying that I'm sick of hearing the AMD AMD AMD, and Intel Intel Intel. Just put up some industry standardized benchmarks, and let the speed king rule while he can...on the CPU benchmark, not on the overall "Getting Work Done" benchmark.

Again, in the real world, the system bottleneck remains at the hard drives. Hardware RAID with 4+ hard disks makes a tremendous impact, on both the real and perceived increase in system performance. And again, my main point, a Pentium D to Core 2 upgrade at this stage will not benefit 95% of users as much as a good RAID setup will.

Mark my words, I am the first one I know of to say it... In the same lines as Dual Channel Memory, Blade Servers, and now Dual Core processors. You will see hard drives emerge with multiple independant heads per platter that boast huge performance gains. Something is going to change on that front as areal density reaches its limits.

Anyhow, to me its more important that I have fast storage, rather than fast CPU. I am not saying a faster CPU is without merit, but for 95% of people out there, a hard drive speed increase will be much more noticeable than a CPU upgrade...especially if they are already at the higher end of the P4 line.

Wes

while i do agree with you for the most part as you can see from my sig i like a fast hdd setup, you also need to remember that these people (the 95%) that are going into bb or sams club to pick up a computer are also going to be using the machine to be backing up their dvd collection where a lot of the bottleneck will be cpu, so there is a slight tradeoff because when doing any type of encoding/transcoding/rendering you are more than likely choked off at the cpu (for the average joe, not high end stuff). these people couldn't fathom even a raptor as a system/app drive because of its price/performance ratio because it is only 74 or 150GB and they could get a a 320GB one for the 1/2 the cost so they go off of cpu speed.

as far as brand loyalty, the only thing i am loyal to is my wallet and whatever setup gives me the best bang for the buck is what gets my $$$.

i do know that for the last 4+ years i have been running 10 and 15K scsi hdds continually, i will never go back to a 7.2k hdd for the system/app drive. for storage, sure an array of 7200.10s would be nice, but that is just me.

 

[SophWise]

Right there with you on that one! I was going to go SCSI originally but I was too much of a tightwad at the time and went for SATA instead. You suppose it would be worth it to take a loss by selling my raptors off on eBay and move over to 15k Cheetahs?

I haven't looked into the SCSI RAID cards available for a while. Any recommendations?

Wes

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SophWise
Right there with you on that one! I was going to go SCSI originally but I was too much of a tightwad at the time and went for SATA instead. You suppose it would be worth it to take a loss by selling my raptors off on eBay and move over to 15k Cheetahs?

I haven't looked into the SCSI RAID cards available for a while. Any recommendations?

Wes

scsi raid is in a weird predicament for the regular/enthusiast m/b because of the lack of pci-x(64bit/133MHz) slots. you either pay $300 for a workstation m/b with pci-x on it or use regular 32bit pci slots. there are a couple of pci-e 4/8x scsi raid cards that range in price from $150 for dell pulls up to ~$700-$800 easy. most everybody is gong sas, so that won't be "cheap" for some time, but it is nice how one card can handle sas and sata drives and they are usually available in pci-e, but again expensive. i recently contacted lsi about a pci-e 4x u320 card and they said you might see one early next quarter but they are focusing more on sas.

imho if you are going to go scsi for a desktop/workstation i would use a 15k as the boot/app drive and take advantage of the ultra low seek times. using a single drive means you can use a u160 card since a 32 bit pci slot has a max str of ~133MB/s and only the newest 15k.5 seagates with perpendicular recording go higher than that for str. getting a 1 or 2 gen old 36-74GB 15k u320 scsi hdd matched with a u160 (since the u320 drive is backwards compatible with the u160 card) card gives you fast 15k scsi on the cheap. that mated with a large array if needed of 7200.10s would be excellent if you need a lot of space.

doing a scsi raid in a 32bit slot will limit you drastically to just ~133MB/s so there really is no reason to go that route unless you want to do a raid 0 as most 15k hdd wil be at least ~75+MB/s str

 

[SophWise]

Yeah, now that I think about it, the bus limitation prob was why I went with the 3Ware and SATA RAID in the first place. Ok, I feel better now about spending so much on SATA storage. Though in each of my servers we still use 6 hot swap 72GB 15k U320s in a RAID 10 config, and we vmware up the space for different server compartments so we can kick the VMWare machine files around to different servers in case of failure or overload. We haven't moved over to any load balancing or farming yet, since quad opterons still seem to be managing the load fine.

Oh and I like the writeup in your sig about BF2 optimization. Found a few nuggets in there to use. Guess this is off topic and I should knock if off.

 

[Zebo]

Posted by ANAND

A trend that we've been seeing all throughout this review is that the performance of these CPUs effectively falls into three groups: Core 2 processors at the top, Athlon 64 X2s in the middle and Pentium D at the very bottom of the charts. In a sense that's the easiest way to classify these three groups of processors: if you want the fastest it's Core 2, mid-range goes to the Athlon 64 X2 and if you don't like good performance there's always the Pentium D.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19

And performance is not all PentiumD sux at, its power hungry, hot, high rpm fan needing garbage.