How does Pentium D compare to Athlon X2 for non-gaming applications?

[vetteguy]

Haven't bought a CPU in going on 2 years and I honestly haven't been keeping up with stuff. Right now I have a 3.4GHz Northwood P4. I am doing most of my gaming on my XBOX 360 but I still do a lot of DVD/mp3/video work on my PC. Are the Pentium D's better at that sort of thing than the X2's in the same way P4's were better than Athlon 64's? Or is that no longer the case? Just curious.

 

[Markfw]

Look at the benchmarks. The X2's are faster, but more important to most, is they run cooler, and are easier and cheaper to OC.

 

[snoturtle]

Here try this has lots of info
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1026502

Yes the X2's are faster but not twice as fast and the cost almost twice the price

 

[openwheelformula1]

those are overclocked benchmarks where the X2 is only at 2.5ghz. Here are comparisons of PentiumD 9xx series and AMD X2s in stock form:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1

Unless the budget is capped at $150, the clear choice is X2. Your Northwood at 3.4ghz is still pretty good as well assuming it features hyperthreading. The 805 would really be a step backwards unless you want to do some intensive overclocking. However once the Smithfield is overclocked, heat/efficiency issues will hold you back.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I'd either go for an X2 or keep the 3.4 Ghz Northie.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Look at the benchmarks. The X2's are faster, but more important to most, is they run cooler, and are easier and cheaper to OC.

3.4ghz P4C is a lot nicer than a prescott; unless you have some specific need for more power don't bother.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Look at the benchmarks. The X2's are faster, but more important to most, is they run cooler, and are easier and cheaper to OC.

3.4ghz P4C is a lot nicer than a prescott; unless you have some specific need for more power don't bother.

Northwoods are very nice cpus, in fact i think they would be much better for general purpose than single core a64's (i got no idea why i upgraded from 3.2northy to a a64 3200+ i guess overclocking was one)

Unless u gonna go dually athlon i would not bother changing.

 

[Amaroque]

I'm not a big Intel fan ATM, but honestly, I'd stay with your 3.4. Northwood is a good CPU. If you're itching to upgrade, X2 kills the PD in most everything though...

Just trying to be objective.

 

[vetteguy]

Thanks for the info-the thing is, I really don't want to upgrade, but I have a feeling my motherboard is going and I hate to invest another hundred bucks in an "obsolete" socket 478 motherboard...not to mention I wouldn't mind having PCI-Express. But other than that, yeah, I am really happy with this CPU.

 

[snoturtle]

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
those are overclocked benchmarks where the X2 is only at 2.5ghz. Here are comparisons of PentiumD 9xx series and AMD X2s in stock form:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1

Unless the budget is capped at $150, the clear choice is X2. Your Northwood at 3.4ghz is still pretty good as well assuming it features hyperthreading. The 805 would really be a step backwards unless you want to do some intensive overclocking. However once the Smithfield is overclocked, heat/efficiency issues will hold you back.

Stock speeds and numbers are also there

For twice the price I would expect at least close to a 50% increase
but that doesn't happen
at stock speeds the 805 is 20-25% slower
OC'd its 15% or less

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: snoturtle

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
those are overclocked benchmarks where the X2 is only at 2.5ghz. Here are comparisons of PentiumD 9xx series and AMD X2s in stock form:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1

Unless the budget is capped at $150, the clear choice is X2. Your Northwood at 3.4ghz is still pretty good as well assuming it features hyperthreading. The 805 would really be a step backwards unless you want to do some intensive overclocking. However once the Smithfield is overclocked, heat/efficiency issues will hold you back.

Stock speeds and numbers are also there

For twice the price I would expect at least close to a 50% increase
but that doesn't happen
at stock speeds the 805 is 20-25% slower
OC'd its 15% or less

you forget the extra cooling required ($$), the extra power required, the heat, possibly a new video card, etc... More than just the cpu, the whole platform must be considered.

 

[croak]

I have a so so X2 3800 and a decent Pent D 805. The X2 is oc'd to 2.4ghz, the Pent D to 3.4ghz, both on stock cooling. I don't game much, so all I really care about for speed is xvid encoding. The X2 is about ~10-15% faster.

 

[sindows]

Originally posted by: croak
I have a so so X2 3800 and a decent Pent D 805. The X2 is oc'd to 2.4ghz, the Pent D to 3.4ghz, both on stock cooling. I don't game much, so all I really care about for speed is xvid encoding. The X2 is about ~10-15% faster.

And costs 100% more

The sheer price of the 805 is very tempting for me. You just can't get that sorta value for your money by buying any other cpu.

 

[croak]

I'm kind of a budget guy, so part of my X2 limitations might be my ECS NF4 board.

X2 3800 + ECS 939 NF4 board (Fry's special) = $305 incl tax

Pent D 805 ($135) + Asus P5SD2-X ($69) = $215 shipped

So not quite twice as much.. but I still like them both.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: snoturtle

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
those are overclocked benchmarks where the X2 is only at 2.5ghz. Here are comparisons of PentiumD 9xx series and AMD X2s in stock form:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1

Unless the budget is capped at $150, the clear choice is X2. Your Northwood at 3.4ghz is still pretty good as well assuming it features hyperthreading. The 805 would really be a step backwards unless you want to do some intensive overclocking. However once the Smithfield is overclocked, heat/efficiency issues will hold you back.

Stock speeds and numbers are also there

For twice the price I would expect at least close to a 50% increase
but that doesn't happen
at stock speeds the 805 is 20-25% slower
OC'd its 15% or less

I'm curious...can you point to ANY CPU that is 50% faster for only twice the price? I think your expectations are pegged unreasonably high, mate...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: sindows

Originally posted by: croak
I have a so so X2 3800 and a decent Pent D 805. The X2 is oc'd to 2.4ghz, the Pent D to 3.4ghz, both on stock cooling. I don't game much, so all I really care about for speed is xvid encoding. The X2 is about ~10-15% faster.

And costs 100% more

The sheer price of the 805 is very tempting for me. You just can't get that sorta value for your money by buying any other cpu.

Try a Sempron...compare the benches of the Sempron to the 805, and I think you'll find they are fairly close.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Cost of ownership on Semprons and X2s is lower than on the 805 as well. The 805 really isn't a bargain unless you plan on owning the chip for a very short period of time and using it only occasionally.

 

[hans007]

how is the 805 not a bargain? it has 2 cores. the semprons do not, so for multitasking the 805 will undoubtably be better.

 

[dguy6789]

For the budget end, the Pentium D 820 and 805 completely crush the X2 3800+ in terms of price vs. performance. The price difference between the 820 and the X2 3800+ is quite large, however the performance difference is very small usually.


Also, it is not wise to listen to AMD fanboys(nor Intel fanboys for that matter). The X2s do not completely destroy Pentium Ds in any case. They are competitive with each other in just about every case. There is no app you can run with an X2 4800+ and Pentium 840EE that you can tell the difference between them in. Granted, there are times when the X2s do pull further ahead, what people fail to mention however, is that there are also times when the Pentium Ds pull ahead. In Photoshop, a Pentium D 820 is faster than an X2 4800+ by quite a margin.

For pure gaming purposes, you have no reason to buy a dual core in the first place. For general use and lots of multi tasking, as well as the occasional game, the Pentium Ds and X2s are competitive with each other with the nod going to the X2s. However, if you are on a budget, and use your pc for lots of things ranging from encoding to gaming to heavy multitasking, Intel now has the crown. The Pentium D 805 very commonly overclocks to beyond 3.5Ghz on moderate air cooling. If you want to get even more into it, one could say without argument that the entire Pentium D series overclocks better than the X2s.

I am tired of people with their blind faith to individual companies. When one company offers a better product for the price, one should go for it. Only a fool would stay beside one company regardless of how much better the others product may be.

The enthusiasts in this forum, as well as many others, are largely responsible for the high prices from AMD processors. When the Athlon XP 1800+ launched, it was AMD's top of the line processor. It was faster than the Pentium 4 2Ghz(Intel's Flagship) in just about every test. The Athlon XP 1800+ had a price of under $300. Nowadays, to get AMD's top, you need to spend over $1000 for it. Why you ask? The answer is that all of the fanboys will suck it up and pay for it rather than finding an alternative, and AMD has taken advantage of this fact.

Competition drives prices down, blind fanboyism pushes prices higher.

\Rant.

 

[snoturtle]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: snoturtle

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
those are overclocked benchmarks where the X2 is only at 2.5ghz. Here are comparisons of PentiumD 9xx series and AMD X2s in stock form:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1

Unless the budget is capped at $150, the clear choice is X2. Your Northwood at 3.4ghz is still pretty good as well assuming it features hyperthreading. The 805 would really be a step backwards unless you want to do some intensive overclocking. However once the Smithfield is overclocked, heat/efficiency issues will hold you back.

Stock speeds and numbers are also there

For twice the price I would expect at least close to a 50% increase
but that doesn't happen
at stock speeds the 805 is 20-25% slower
OC'd its 15% or less

I'm curious...can you point to ANY CPU that is 50% faster for only twice the price? I think your expectations are pegged unreasonably high, mate...

No I can't and I don't expect to find one either

Has more to do with alot of people posting how the X2 is the price/performance leader
and it shouldn't be

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: snoturtle

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: snoturtle

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
those are overclocked benchmarks where the X2 is only at 2.5ghz. Here are comparisons of PentiumD 9xx series and AMD X2s in stock form:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1

Unless the budget is capped at $150, the clear choice is X2. Your Northwood at 3.4ghz is still pretty good as well assuming it features hyperthreading. The 805 would really be a step backwards unless you want to do some intensive overclocking. However once the Smithfield is overclocked, heat/efficiency issues will hold you back.

Stock speeds and numbers are also there

For twice the price I would expect at least close to a 50% increase
but that doesn't happen
at stock speeds the 805 is 20-25% slower
OC'd its 15% or less

I'm curious...can you point to ANY CPU that is 50% faster for only twice the price? I think your expectations are pegged unreasonably high, mate...

No I can't and I don't expect to find one either

Has more to do with alot of people posting how the X2 is the price/performance leader
and it shouldn't be

When people say that, I think they are referring to game performance, which is most definately true, no matter how you cut it.

 

[NaOH]

Majority of people who buy AMD, buy it for the games. Majority of people who constantly upgrade, upgrade for the games. Majority of the people who buy top end, buy it for the games. It's not fanboyism, it's simply consumers want the best CPU for games. Why would you constantly upgrade to video edit faster? The software isn't pushing your system any diff. as it did year ago. Games evolve at a much faster pace.

I've owned over 4 Intel processors even though I knew AMD was faster for games. I also rip and encode a lot of video. So far AMD has been a good purchase. The fact that AMDs lowend DC CPU stock is faster than some of Intels highend in video games is what convinced me to make my decision. You may want to keep your budget and buy the Intel, and that is fine with me. But I didn't want to upgrade and skimp out on any performance so I shelled out some extra cash. Benchmarked in Sandrasoft, my CPU runs just as fast as the AMD 4400 X2. So I believe I got bang for my buck. All matter of pref. really..

 

[snoturtle]

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
Majority of people who buy AMD, buy it for the games. Majority of people who constantly upgrade, upgrade for the games. Majority of the people who buy top end, buy it for the games. It's not fanboyism, it's simply consumers want the best CPU for games. Why would you constantly upgrade to video edit faster? The software isn't pushing your system any diff. as it did year ago. Games evolve at a much faster pace.

I've owned over 4 Intel processors even though I knew AMD was faster for games. I also rip and encode a lot of video. So far AMD has been a good purchase. The fact that AMDs lowend DC CPU stock is faster than some of Intels highend in video games is what convinced me to make my decision. You may want to keep your budget and buy the Intel, and that is fine with me. But I didn't want to upgrade and skimp out on any performance so I shelled out some extra cash. Benchmarked in Sandrasoft, my CPU runs just as fast as the AMD 4400 X2. So I believe I got bang for my buck. All matter of pref. really..

I don't disagree with you at all
The AMD's are faster for games and alot of it comes down to personal preference

But you pay a premium for that

Lets take the 805 and the X2 3800
You pay almost twice as much for 20% or less better performance

Or even an 820 which can be had used around 160 or so
In Sandra tests there is less than 10% difference

I'm not saying either is bad as I have owned both AMD and intel machines

I agree the AMD's are faster there is no doubt about that at all
My whole point is that the Intel chips aren't as far off in performance as many would like to think

 

[NaOH]

If you think about it...it's kind of like the premium we had to pay to buy intel CPUs in the past...only difference is that you are paying for a faster CPU, not a slower one.

 

[snoturtle]

lol true true