Core 2 vs Pentium D

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Uber
ok so Core 2 Duo it is. Thanks for the completely one sided feedback. I guess.

the response was one sided because of the reality of it. since the machines are basically pretty equal in price to build, at this point building anything other than a c2d machine is kind of stupid. 6-9mos ago this was not the case as then the x2s and opterons were the way to go. now the am2s are just basically a form change and at the moment they are basically very similiar in performance to x2s/a64s/opterons but use ddr2 which isn't needed atm for that platform.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Uber
ok so Core 2 Duo it is. Thanks for the completely one sided feedback. I guess.

What, we're supposed to argue the world is flat?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: Uber
ok so Core 2 Duo it is. Thanks for the completely one sided feedback. I guess.

What, we're supposed to argue the world is flat?

It isn't? :Q

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Uber
I have looked at and gotten suggestions on processors for my new computer.
I guess my question is: Which is best in the long run

Originally posted by: Uber
ok so Core 2 Duo it is. Thanks for the completely one sided feedback. I guess.

I don't understand...
A. You've "gotten suggestions" before on what CPU to buy.
B. You were given suggestions again in this thread.
C. Seems like you don't like the suggestions you were given here.

You asked a question, you were given an answer, and you're still in doubt? :shocked:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Uber
ok so Core 2 Duo it is. Thanks for the completely one sided feedback. I guess.

Core 2 duo pounds the Pentium D all to bejeebers and back....

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Uber
ok so Core 2 Duo it is. Thanks for the completely one sided feedback. I guess.

Core 2 Duo is more expensive, but it is also much, much faster than any Pentium D. That's a fact. There are no "sides." Pentium Ds are fast, but Core 2 Duos are faster. That's just the way it is.

If you want to save money, a Pentium D system might be okay, but only if there are no Athlon 64 X2 systems at the same price point. Pentium Ds are without doubt the slowest of all dual core processor families.

Finally, as someone already mentioned, clock speed is not a universal indicator of performance. That's why a Pentium D at 2.66 GHz is called a "Pentium D 805," and a Core 2 Duo at 1.86 GHz is called a "Core 2 Duo E6300." Clock speed can be meaningless when comparing two different processor architectures.

 

[Grimner]

I swear by AMD, but even I will admit that Core 2 Duo is currently (until sometime next year), the best CPU out there. And I used to snigger at the various Pentiums...
Intel seems to have turned a new page first with Pentium M and now with Core 2.

 

[MrX8503]

What is your friend smoking?

An X2 will destroy a Pentium D and a Conroe destroys an X2. You do the math. At this point in time Pentiums should not even be considered, there are way better processers out there.

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
No comparison

Core 2 = Ferrarri
Pentium D = Pinto

A little harsh don't you think? Pentium D was like say a BMW 320i or diesel, a Core 2 Duro is like a BMW 330i or diesel.

Intel abandoned Netburst ultimately because it couldn't scale to what it was intended for due to leakage thus heat.

Intel actually did papers mathematically proving it's possible to scale performance by lengthening pipelines providing the MHz scales with it as this reduces latencies within the CPU.

Any CPU these days is sufficient for a vast number of people i.e. the typical family PC.


Pentium D was = Good
Core 2 Duo = Excellent

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: MrX8503
What is your friend smoking?

An X2 will destroy a Pentium D...
At this point in time Pentiums should not even be considered, there are way better processers out there.

What rocks are YOU smoking? :shocked:
:laugh: LoL :laugh: Let's keep it real here!

 

[Minjin]

I guess I look at things differently because I'm currently planning a Pentium D 805 build. Why? Because its the cheapest dual core cpu out there:

$90 Shipped

In comparison, we have the cheapest X2:

$169 shipped

And the cheapest C2D:

$180 shipped

I generally plan one upgrade in advance when building. When I built my current AMD socket A system, I bought one of the best motherboards out (NF7S) and the cheapest processor that would fit in it, a Duron (for around $50). That meant that by the time I was ready to upgrade again, I could make a significant and cost effective improvement just by changing the cpu, which I did with a Barton 2500 ($90). Just with these two processors I had 4 stages of upgrade. Stock Duron, overclocked Duron, stock Barton, overclocked Barton. I plan on doing the same thing with this 805 and eventually upgrading to the C2D when it gets below $100. So buying a Pentium D isn't so silly. At least not in my eyes.

 

[df96817]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: MrX8503
What is your friend smoking?

An X2 will destroy a Pentium D...
At this point in time Pentiums should not even be considered, there are way better processers out there.

What rocks are YOU smoking? :shocked:
:laugh: LoL :laugh: Let's keep it real here!

So the C2D E6400 @ stock is really faster than the FX-62?

 

[OSX]

Please do not ever listen to that one friend again.

 

[OSUCowboy]

I've been looking at getting a Dell recently with a Core 2 Duo. My questions is this: is there a significant difference in performance between the "low-end" and "high-end" c2d? I know the clock frequences are higher, but does that translate into performance with the entra dollars?

Thanks

 

[Bobthelost]

For the most part no.

If you are surfing the web, running office, playing music/movies and similar things then even the lowest end C2D is going to be more than you need. Ie you will never max out your CPU (unless you have a virus ). If you start doing stuff like movie encoding then you would see the difference (a ten minute job might only take 6 minutes [numbers pulled from arse]) but unless you do that sort of thing regulary then i'd save the money and get the cheaper CPU.

It depends on useage, but probably not for you/most. More information is needed. (I am using a semperon 3000+ I blow more than this CPU cost on a night out on the piss and it does all i described above (with the exception of movie transcoding without a problem).

 

[OSUCowboy]

I want to get into gaming. Console gaming is just not doing if for me anymore. Whatever I get would be a huge improvement from my current rig: AMD 2800 with 512MB of RAM. Am I still ok with a C2D 1.86GHz? Or would higher cf be needed?

 

[Bobthelost]

No, a 6300 would be enough. The most important thing in gaming is the graphics card, the CPU and RAM do make a difference but it requires a very high end graphics card setup for the CPU to matter. RAM is more complicated; 512mb is too small, 1GB is enough, 2GB is better, faster is better for overclocking, low latency 533 is better for non overclocked systems.

 

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: MrX8503
What is your friend smoking?

An X2 will destroy a Pentium D...
At this point in time Pentiums should not even be considered, there are way better processers out there.

What rocks are YOU smoking? :shocked:
:laugh: LoL :laugh: Let's keep it real here!

So a Pentium D 960 at 3.6ghz is on par with a 2.4 ghz X2 4800+?

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

 

[Oxaqata]

Thats because Pentium D's were architecturally designed to use MHz to achieve performance, whereas the AMD counterparts use different methods. From the looks of that benchmark, the difference between the Pentium D's and X2's is almost negligble.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Minjin
I guess I look at things differently because I'm currently planning a Pentium D 805 build. Why? Because its the cheapest dual core cpu out there:

$90 Shipped

In comparison, we have the cheapest X2:

$169 shipped

And the cheapest C2D:

$180 shipped

I generally plan one upgrade in advance when building. When I built my current AMD socket A system, I bought one of the best motherboards out (NF7S) and the cheapest processor that would fit in it, a Duron (for around $50). That meant that by the time I was ready to upgrade again, I could make a significant and cost effective improvement just by changing the cpu, which I did with a Barton 2500 ($90). Just with these two processors I had 4 stages of upgrade. Stock Duron, overclocked Duron, stock Barton, overclocked Barton. I plan on doing the same thing with this 805 and eventually upgrading to the C2D when it gets below $100. So buying a Pentium D isn't so silly. At least not in my eyes.

in my opinion you would be better to go with a m/b that does what you need now and get a better cpu. no reason to get the "best" m/b since most have options noboby uses. the m/b is not going to save you time when encoding video, the cpu will. personally for you and this is just a thought i would go the cheapest kentsfield supporting m/b along with the cheapest c2d. the 805 may be cheap and thanks to the toms article everybody thinks they are going to get it to 4GHz which isn't going to happen for 99% of the users and even if it would the require cooling would offset any MHz game - and i say MHz game because that is all it is. the x2/a64 and c2d us an entirely different architecture where MHz is no longer king to the point it was in the last couple years, since the xp and P4s. plus the newer cpus run cooler.

there is always the fs/ft forum for a decently priced x2 if you want to to go that route or watch the hot deals forums - just a couple of weeks ago you could easily get x2s for $150 along with their opteron counterparts (1XX series, 939 dc/sc)

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Minjin
I guess I look at things differently because I'm currently planning a Pentium D 805 build. Why? Because its the cheapest dual core cpu out there:

$90 Shipped

In comparison, we have the cheapest X2:

$169 shipped

And the cheapest C2D:

$180 shipped

I generally plan one upgrade in advance when building. When I built my current AMD socket A system, I bought one of the best motherboards out (NF7S) and the cheapest processor that would fit in it, a Duron (for around $50). That meant that by the time I was ready to upgrade again, I could make a significant and cost effective improvement just by changing the cpu, which I did with a Barton 2500 ($90). Just with these two processors I had 4 stages of upgrade. Stock Duron, overclocked Duron, stock Barton, overclocked Barton. I plan on doing the same thing with this 805 and eventually upgrading to the C2D when it gets below $100. So buying a Pentium D isn't so silly. At least not in my eyes.

Yeah, I guess you could just get a mobo that would support Conroe and Kentsfield but buy a PD 805 for it alone with DDR2 800.....saving 100 dollars by not getting the Conroe for now. Just upgrade to Conroe or Kentsfield later one when they are cheaper.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: smthmlk
core 2 duo, hands down.

either the 6300 or the 6400, or any c2d really.

 

[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.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Oxaqata
Thats because Pentium D's were architecturally designed to use MHz to achieve performance, whereas the AMD counterparts use different methods. From the looks of that benchmark, the difference between the Pentium D's and X2's is almost negligble.

Really? You wouldn't be thinking of GPU bound benchmarks would you?

Considering that this line from the Anandtech writeup on Conroes...

But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
No, a 6300 would be enough. The most important thing in gaming is the graphics card, the CPU and RAM do make a difference but it requires a very high end graphics card setup for the CPU to matter. RAM is more complicated; 512mb is too small, 1GB is enough, 2GB is better, faster is better for overclocking, low latency 533 is better for non overclocked systems.

OSUCowboy, listen to Bob. The guy knows what he's talking about. Though, I'd add another caveat in there stating that the GPU is especially important at higher resolutions. i.e. my system is a A64 3000+ @ 2.5ghz with an XTX and 2GB ram. I game at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xHQAF. Say I'm getting 50fps in FEAR. I could slap in a faster CPU that would get me up to 3ghz (or even dual core), but the affect on my gaming performance at those settings would be nil... it would likely still be right at 50fps. BUT, if I were to drop in a 2nd XTX for Crossfire or a new 8800 (when available), I'd likely see those fps fly up to 70 or 80 or even higher.

That's the reason I'm sticking with my 3000+ right now. For my settings, when strictly talking about gaming, I wouldn't see any improvement with a faster or dual-core processor. That may change in the future if the early word on games like Alan Wake is true. If/When that happens, I'll be upgrading. Until then, pretty much every $ I spend on my current system will go to GPU upgrades. And gamers play at varying settings, so what works for me won't work for someone on a 19" LCD.