Whats better Amd Dual-core or Pentium D?


J_Hay
#1
im trying to figure out which is better for a LAN party pc ? any help would be lovely ^^
 
hermanntrude
#2
i've never tried either of these but i usually find that AMD is better for the money. Although I've heard that's not as true as it used to be
 
J_Hay
#3
apparently they have started to use less cost-effective materials when building them.. so you cant overclock them too much.. whereas with pentium i tend to burn them out..T.T
Last edited by J_Hay; Mar 24th, 2007 at 12:51 PM..Reason: Stupid keyboard
 
hermanntrude
#4
I'm on an AMD 64 2GHz, and have recently found I have room to overclock, but ive never seen the need.
 
J_Hay
#5
well the parties that ive seen have no room for lagging.. so i might need to run hd games and memory-hoggz like W.O.W. ^^
 
hermanntrude
#6
if it were me i'd take the AMD route just to support anyone who isnt intel
 
DurkaDurka
#7
Pentium D's are an old product, your best bet would be a Intel Core 2. Fast desktop cpu's on the market right now.
 
J_Hay
#8
yeah..i heard they tore a village down somewhere to make room for a chip manu... plant.. so:P
 
J_Hay
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Pentium D's are an old product, your best bet would be a Intel Core 2. Fast desktop cpu's on the market right now.

Oh.. maybe...
 
DurkaDurka
#10
What sort of video card do you plan on having with your system?

Intel Core 2's overlock quite nicely too, if you are into that sort of thing.
 
J_Hay
#11
im not quite sure of the video card.. im still kinda hard up for the cash.. so the first one will probably be a Radeon
 
DurkaDurka
#12
A good video card will be more important then a dual core CPU. If you plan on going to lots of LAN parties, I would suggest a minimum of a Nvidia 7600GT or an Ati X1600 Pro.
 
J_Hay
#13
but those would destroy my wallet...
 
CDNBear
#14
I'm running a pentium D, I can run photoshop, AutoCAD, surf the net, burn a cd and listen to music at the same time.

I'm pretty happy with it.
 
J_Hay
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'm running a pentium D, I can run photoshop, AutoCAD, surf the net, burn a cd and listen to music at the same time.

I'm pretty happy with it.

Really...?
I cant even start up AutoCAD.. haha
 
DurkaDurka
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by J_HayView Post

but those would destroy my wallet...

No more then a new CPU.
 
DurkaDurka
#17
What cpu do you have right now?
 
J_Hay
#18
true.. but my friends dad has two spare cpus from his new pc.. since he just got them and wanted to upgrade..
 
J_Hay
#19
i have a pentium s .....*school computer* its horrid T.T
 
DurkaDurka
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by J_HayView Post

i have a pentium s .....*school computer* its horrid T.T

that sucks dude. get saving!
 
J_Hay
#21
no kidding. my quake 1 looks like it ran through a cheese grater..T.T
 
eh1eh
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'm running a pentium D, I can run photoshop, AutoCAD, surf the net, burn a cd and listen to music at the same time.

I'm pretty happy with it.

You must have a good bit of ram as well. I know autocad needs alot, so does photoshop if you get into multi layers and lots of editing.
 
allen_p
#23
I am all in for Intel - though earlier Intel Chips would generate more heat and then sometime back when pentiums were launched - They had Floating point errors - Then AMD was first to market 64 Bit instruction set processor - Intel meekly copied that.

Reason - I am for intel - I feel more secure with future upgrades and compatibility - both in terms of software and Hardware.
 
DurkaDurka
#24
The Pentium 4 - net burst acrhitechure was pretty much spanked left right and centre by the Athlon 64 series.With the Core 2 though, Intel rebuilt from the ground up, making a superior cpu to AMD's current offerings.
 
#juan
#25
Here is a head to head comparison of Intel and AMD. What do you think?

http://tinyurl.com/ytcj52
 
allen_p
#26
http://tinyurl.com/ytcj52

Given Article was submitted/done on 07 December 2005.

Things have changed quite a lot since then. Even I was planning a Switch - But Intel mended its ways . Intel is planning for 32 core processor. Will post more details on that on monday
 
DurkaDurka
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Here is a head to head comparison of Intel and AMD. What do you think?

http://tinyurl.com/ytcj52

Like the review says, the AMD dual core's of 2005 destroyed the Pentium D dual cores. The athlon 64 dual cores are superior to the Pentium D dual cores in every respect.

If you look at a modern comparison though, you see the opposite.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2014655,00.asp

Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD X2 AM2--Top to Bottom

Final Thoughts: Your Needs

It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64 X2. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64 X2s.
In other applications, it's not so clear. For many users, adequate performance is "good enough," and the lowest-cost solution may be optimal in those cases. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ certainly offers great value, at under $160, and even the 4200+ can be found for under $200. However, the overall "sweet spot" seems to be the two midrange Intel CPUs—the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600. The E6600 offers a higher clock rate and larger L2 cache, while the E6400 can be found for well under $250. At the rarified high end, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is simply in a class by itself. If you're willing to blow over $800 for a processor, then going a couple hundred bucks more doesn't seem quite so extreme.
Check out our Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD
Of course, this is only a snapshot in time. We'll likely see newer CPUs from both companies, including Intel's Kentsfield quad core processor and AMD's 4x4 pseudo quad core effort. But that's the future. Today, you've got a wealth of good choices from both companies. But Intel seems to be leading the pack for now.
 
allen_p
#28
Well, Definitely a superior product is welcome - But what about affordability ?
There economics wins . And people wait for gizmos to get cheaper .

I will keep my fingers crossed on cores - Once when we are done with Multiple core processors - What goes next in processor Line ? Will love to know more.

As of now - I am satisfied with Intel dual core .

My 2 cents - Given a OS, If a computer (Desktop) comes up the instant I turn it on. Goes down - the moment I turn it off - - I will call it good enough
 
#juan
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Like the review says, the AMD dual core's of 2005 destroyed the Pentium D dual cores. The athlon 64 dual cores are superior to the Pentium D dual cores in every respect.

If you look at a modern comparison though, you see the opposite.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2014655,00.asp

Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD X2 AM2--Top to Bottom

Final Thoughts: Your Needs

It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64 X2. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64 X2s.
In other applications, it's not so clear. For many users, adequate performance is "good enough," and the lowest-cost solution may be optimal in those cases. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ certainly offers great value, at under $160, and even the 4200+ can be found for under $200. However, the overall "sweet spot" seems to be the two midrange Intel CPUs—the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600. The E6600 offers a higher clock rate and larger L2 cache, while the E6400 can be found for well under $250. At the rarified high end, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is simply in a class by itself. If you're willing to blow over $800 for a processor, then going a couple hundred bucks more doesn't seem quite so extreme.
Check out our Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD
Of course, this is only a snapshot in time. We'll likely see newer CPUs from both companies, including Intel's Kentsfield quad core processor and AMD's 4x4 pseudo quad core effort. But that's the future. Today, you've got a wealth of good choices from both companies. But Intel seems to be leading the pack for now.

I have a minor reading problem. Didn't realise that comparison was so old and as I've just bought an AMD 64 bit processor, and the salesman told me it was the best thing since sliced bread, I couldn't help myself. Seriously, what I have is more than good enough for my purposes.
 
DurkaDurka
#30
Juan, Athlon 64's are still an awesome CPU. Nothing slow about them. The article I posted is from a geek tech site, the tests they run don't resemble what a cpu would day to day.

You bought an FX brand of the 64 didn't you?
 

Similar Threads

3
1
Dual SIM for K600i
by barbara06 | Jun 7th, 2006
36
Down with dual citizenship!
by DasFX | Jan 4th, 2006
3
Athlon XP VS. Pentium 4's
by Cyberm4n | Aug 27th, 2002
no new posts