Dual Core?

[dwdty9]

I like to do media encoding tasks on my computer. Mainly putting video on my ipod. But I don't know if I should go dual core or not. I'd like not to spend the $300 it costs to go dual core on the AMD side, but I don't really trust Intel with anything.

So is it worth the extra dough to go to the dual core?

 

[Shimmishim]

how often do you put video on your ipod?

if it's something you do regularly, then dualcore is DEFINITELY worth it.

i used to have dualcore but i didn't do enough multitasking for me to warrant keeping it so i sold it.

if it's something you do once in a while, you're better off with just a single core chip.

 

[Centoros]

Dual core is the way to go regardless. Whether your gaming or doing multitasking, the machine will run much smoother.

 

[Furen]

Is the encoder you use multithreaded? Not all of them are...

 

[dguy6789]

I am sorry some of the fools in the world have had you believe that Intel is not worth trusting. In gaming, AMDs are faster for the price, and since 95% of computer enthusiasts that post on forums are gamers, they will recommend AMD processors and bash Intel processors, regardless of whether or not they know what the person used the computer for.

People will post and say Intel sucks and they caused world hunger and whatnot, but the truth is, they offer good processors. People used to recommend AMD solely because they offered better value for the money. You can tell that most are now fanboys because they bash the lower end Pentium Ds. When you can buy DUAL CORE processors for $150 and $230, and the competition's cheapest is around $290, there is no excuse for bashing Intel. People demanded a cheap processor that performs. Intel delivered. People still pick on Intel because it is the big company.

I have no preference for either company. I will not put blind faith into one company and bash another because I don't have their product. I simply buy what is faster for the money, or what has the best overclocking results. Competition is good, it lowers prices and produces more advanced products. Make both companies fight for your money, don't just hand it over to one company.

<-- Has used AMD since the K6 days.

I would suggest to anyone buying a computer in the present time to look at dual core. I suggest the Pentium D 805, Pentium D 820, or the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for those on a lower end budget.

That is in order from cheapest to most expensive, and also in order of performance. If you like overclocking, the Pentium D 805 is having some fantastic results for those with decent air cooling.

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I am sorry some of the fools in the world have had you believe that Intel is not worth trusting. In gaming, AMDs are faster for the price, and since 95% of computer enthusiasts that post on forums are gamers, they will recommend AMD processors and bash Intel processors, regardless of whether or not they know what the person used the computer for.

People will post and say Intel sucks and they caused world hunger and whatnot, but the truth is, they offer good processors. People used to recommend AMD solely because they offered better value for the money. You can tell that most are now fanboys because they bash the lower end Pentium Ds. When you can buy DUAL CORE processors for $150 and $230, and the competition's cheapest is around $290, there is no excuse for bashing Intel. People demanded a cheap processor that performs. Intel delivered. People still pick on Intel because it is the big company.

I have no preference for either company. I will not put blind faith into one company and bash another because I don't have their product. I simply buy what is faster for the money, or what has the best overclocking results. Competition is good, it lowers prices and produces more advanced products. Make both companies fight for your money, don't just hand it over to one company.

<-- Has used AMD since the K6 days.

I would suggest to anyone buying a computer in the present time to look at dual core. I suggest the Pentium D 805, Pentium D 820, or the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for those on a lower end budget.

That is in order from cheapest to most expensive, and also in order of performance. If you like overclocking, the Pentium D 805 is having some fantastic results for those with decent air cooling.

The Problem is No matter how low the prices seem for just the CPU side, Motherboard cost is more anything from $50-100 more, if he has a AGP video card in his current system going intel would mean replacing it. Same thing goes for DDR2 if he was planning on using memory from his current system he would have to replace that. All that to purchase a CPU that is slower then AMDs cheapest DC by far and not just in games but almost all encoding tasks.

Remember when purchasing a 3800+ your purchaisng a CPU that gave an 840 a hard time (also its about the only one that didn't beat the 840 much). So dependant on your situation the 3800+ would be a better buy bang for buck wise and might even turn out cheaper.

 

[Markbnj]

Intel sucks.

And they caused world hunger.
















And whatnot.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I am sorry some of the fools in the world have had you believe that Intel is not worth trusting. In gaming, AMDs are faster for the price, and since 95% of computer enthusiasts that post on forums are gamers, they will recommend AMD processors and bash Intel processors, regardless of whether or not they know what the person used the computer for.

People will post and say Intel sucks and they caused world hunger and whatnot, but the truth is, they offer good processors. People used to recommend AMD solely because they offered better value for the money. You can tell that most are now fanboys because they bash the lower end Pentium Ds. When you can buy DUAL CORE processors for $150 and $230, and the competition's cheapest is around $290, there is no excuse for bashing Intel. People demanded a cheap processor that performs. Intel delivered. People still pick on Intel because it is the big company.

I have no preference for either company. I will not put blind faith into one company and bash another because I don't have their product. I simply buy what is faster for the money, or what has the best overclocking results. Competition is good, it lowers prices and produces more advanced products. Make both companies fight for your money, don't just hand it over to one company.

<-- Has used AMD since the K6 days.

I would suggest to anyone buying a computer in the present time to look at dual core. I suggest the Pentium D 805, Pentium D 820, or the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for those on a lower end budget.

That is in order from cheapest to most expensive, and also in order of performance. If you like overclocking, the Pentium D 805 is having some fantastic results for those with decent air cooling.

It you use an 805 and don;t overclock, they are slow. If you overclock, you need $200 motherboard to get to the performance levels of a 3800+ on the retail stock HSF, and you would also need an exspensive air cooling solution. In the end, more exspensive, and uses more power, runs hotters, and still less performance. So why is that a viable option ?

Edit:
X2 3800+ OC system:
CPU $290
Mobo $85

Total $375

Uses your DDR and AGP card. Performance equiv to 802 or 820D = ~4.2 ghz

805 system
CPU $150
Mobo $200
Good HSF $50

Thats $400 not including video and ram replacement.

Ram $100
Video card ? $100-$200 ?????

So how is that a viable solution ?? Not even counting the heat and extra power exspense. (I do pay a utility bill, some don't)

And lastly, I don't bash the dependability or stability of the chip at all, just as stable as AMD and reliable. That doesn;t mean they are worth buying at the moment. And I'm not a fanboi. Tell me the flaw in my logic !!!!!!!

 

[smopoim86]

I have a Pentium D 820 and am not as happy with it as expected. My P4 @3.2 almost performs as well.
As to the gamers will bash intel, I have built Intel and AMD machines and prefer the AMD. Before i built my first AMD I would swear by intel, now i do not think i will ever build an intel again. I have been so much happier with the AMDs.
As to dual core, DEFINITELY. Even using single core apps, the second core can run the background apps while the first runs the game or main app your using.

 

[robertk2012]

Dual core. Whatever you choose get dual core. 3800, 165 or if your on a real budget go with the 805.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
It you use an 805 and don;t overclock, they are slow. If you overclock, you need $200 motherboard to get to the performance levels of a 3800+ on the retail stock HSF, and you would also need an exspensive air cooling solution. In the end, more exspensive, and uses more power, runs hotters, and still less performance. So why is that a viable option ?

Edit:
X2 3800+ OC system:
CPU $290
Mobo $85

Total $375

Uses your DDR and AGP card. Performance equiv to 802 or 820D = ~4.2 ghz

805 system
CPU $150
Mobo $200
Good HSF $50

Thats $400 not including video and ram replacement.

Ram $100
Video card ? $100-$200 ?????

So how is that a viable solution ?? Not even counting the heat and extra power exspense. (I do pay a utility bill, some don't)

And lastly, I don't bash the dependability or stability of the chip at all, just as stable as AMD and reliable. That doesn;t mean they are worth buying at the moment. And I'm not a fanboi. Tell me the flaw in my logic !!!!!!!

There are some AGP motherboards that support the 805 as well as Presler..that use DDR, and don't cost $200. They don't OC well with the 9xx series, because they don't want to go much higher than ~222mhz FSB in most cases. The 805 will still need a better cooler, but shouldn't have the FSB limitation for overclocking. When I get it tommorow, we'll see how it goes.

 

[aLeoN]

Going to Dual-core in general is an awesome bargain. Multi/dual thread apps/games in the future can be utilized better (so what if it's slower than at that current time's CPU's, you saved $xxx), multiple single thread apps are smoother, and it's almost saying you got 2 CPU's in 1!

I did some computer related spring cleaning last night. Partitioned about 40GBs, moved around about 7GBs, deleted about 3GBs, and defragged the other half a terabyte while playing my newly moved music before and after moving it to one of the new partitions all at the same time with no stuttering of my songs. As an added bonus I serviced the world while I was cleaning as I had an instance of F@H on the whole time. I also was transferring stuff over the network as I was cleaning out my laptop as well. Not to say my X2 3800+ is better than my 1.5ghz Celeron-M (it is ) but things were done faster and more smoothly than a single core chip.

If it were to come down to AMD vs Intel, you gotta let us know the budget and if you already have the mobo's to support them.

 

[Proletariat]

What do you have right now? I have a Barton core at 2.2 GHz and its pretty much good enough for anything. Dual core is really unneccessary unless you do tons of multitasking.

 

[LED]

Yes go DC and if you are already set for Intel, then build on top as you'll be wanting DDR2 soon anyway when AMD moves on to their next chipset...i use both SC and DC and their is a big performance difference between SC and D C when multitasking and MultiMediaing...so expect Multi anythinging as the software and drivers play catchup!

 

[Markbnj]

What do you have right now? I have a Barton core at 2.2 GHz and its pretty much good enough for anything. Dual core is really unneccessary unless you do tons of multitasking.

You don't have to. Windows does tons of multitasking for you.

 

[kyotousa]

^^^^hahahaha
is that true? i am just wondering because i am thinking about switch to opty 165
and get ready for vista......
i want some unbiased answer about switching my 2.6 3000+ venice to opty 165 (maybe doing 2.4ghz)

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I am sorry some of the fools in the world have had you believe that Intel is not worth trusting. In gaming, AMDs are faster for the price, and since 95% of computer enthusiasts that post on forums are gamers, they will recommend AMD processors and bash Intel processors, regardless of whether or not they know what the person used the computer for.

People will post and say Intel sucks and they caused world hunger and whatnot, but the truth is, they offer good processors. People used to recommend AMD solely because they offered better value for the money. You can tell that most are now fanboys because they bash the lower end Pentium Ds. When you can buy DUAL CORE processors for $150 and $230, and the competition's cheapest is around $290, there is no excuse for bashing Intel. People demanded a cheap processor that performs. Intel delivered. People still pick on Intel because it is the big company.

I have no preference for either company. I will not put blind faith into one company and bash another because I don't have their product. I simply buy what is faster for the money, or what has the best overclocking results. Competition is good, it lowers prices and produces more advanced products. Make both companies fight for your money, don't just hand it over to one company.

<-- Has used AMD since the K6 days.

I would suggest to anyone buying a computer in the present time to look at dual core. I suggest the Pentium D 805, Pentium D 820, or the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for those on a lower end budget.

That is in order from cheapest to most expensive, and also in order of performance. If you like overclocking, the Pentium D 805 is having some fantastic results for those with decent air cooling.

Well, in the past Intel charged you up the wahoo to get one of their CPUs which were slower than the AMD and costed less. Now, the tables have turned a bit and you are paying a bit more for AMD, but you get performance that is leading the competition. I've owned all Intel proc. up to this year and switched because Intel's dual core CPUs were just pathetic to even shell out money for. Why shell out money for an upgrade to something that you know is ultimately and sadly inferior (a lot higher power consumption, a lot higher temperatures, 20% slower). Just so I can save 140 bucks?

A lot of times I doubt it's fan boyism and if Intels Conroe can beat AMDs offerings, I think peoples opinions will change. Years of paying more for less led to this AMD "cult" like attitude as you describe. Maybe Intel is willing to change it's ways for the better and stick it to AMD. I love competition....saves me money


If I were you, I'd do the switch to Opty. Hell of an overclocker and I believe vista will cater to dual core and will also suport 64bit.

 

[dguy6789]

There is no truly tangible performance difference between the X2 3800+ and the D 820. People who say that Athlon 64 X2s completely dominate or trounce Pentium Ds all over the place are living in a fantasy world(I do not call 5-10% completely owning and dominating). Granted, there are some situations where the Athlon 64 X2s pull ahead more than normal, which is just fine. People fail to mention the fact that there are also situations where Pentium Ds pull ahead. This shows their bias. It is without success that one speaks of moderation in a forum of one sided thinkers.

For games, yes, the Athlon 64s are faster. No one argues with this. However, there are other things to computing besides games, and some of those applications happen to excel with Intel based processors.

People complain about temperatures so much. They are not that big of a deal. The Pentium Ds were designed to run at that temperature, so don't get in a fit about how it runs so much hotter than the Athlon 64s. Two completely different architectures will have two completely different ranges of acceptable temperatures. I do not see why that is so hard for so many to understand.

On the power consumption side, I can agree with. The Pentium Ds do cost more to run over time than Athlon 64s. However, I cannot help think that people who complain at this are just grasping at straws. A 19" moniter and an average modern computer on 24/7 does not cost more than $20 a month in electricity. I cannot imagine why the world cries out foul when an Intel processor changes that to $22. They argue, over 100 months time, that will be a $200 difference! Quite a rediculous argument if I do say so myself.

Conroe is superior to the Athlon 64 in every position with ease. This causes some concern. It is not positive for competition when there are only two sides and one side is so much better in every way. AMD has a rough time ahead.

 

[DrMrLordX]

People get into a fit over the temperatures and power consumption of the Pentium D because it reduces the overall bang you get for the bucks you ultimately spend. That extra heat costs you extra money over what you'd be paying for electricity if you owned a . . . well a Yonah or a Conroe. Let's just take AMD out of this equation.

Sure, Yonah and Conroe aren't yet viable desktop alternatives at this time. But the power consumption of an 805, ESPECIALLY if you overclock it, just terrible in comparison. I'd wait the 3-6 months or whatever it will be to pick up one of Intel's more elegant designs. You will save money over the long run doing this.

Based on what Intel has now(Yonah) and will have later(Conroe), cheapie Smithfields are not worth the hassle. They aren't the bargain people make them out to be.

note: if anyone knows of any desktop boards available for Yonah, please let me know. I'd love to see an actual price/performance comparison of the lowest-end Core Duo vs the 805. Core Duo might even beat the 3800+ in bang/buck, who knows?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Dguy, I think a lot of people (myself included) are shying away from the Pentium D because it gets extremely hot (especially when overclocked). The only thing Intel has is price, and I'd rather have an Opteron @ 2.8 Ghz than run an overclocked Pentium D personally...

 

[NaOH]

Yeah, not really what I'M looking for in an upgrade. Sure Pent. D may be faster in some areas (more multimedia use), but not enough to persuade me it is better bang for the buck. Considering I have mine runnning at 2400mhz with the stock cooler. 5 mins is all it took.