Last-gen CPU - Athlon 64 X2 or Pentium D?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisdesantis
  • Start date Start date
D

dennisdesantis

New member
Subject says it all, really.

I've been out of the hardware loop for a while now, and would like to build a new system that takes advantage of the recent price cuts in AMD/Intel's last-generation dual-core chips. I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are potential replies, but I'm curious what the consensus is between an X2 and a Pentium D?

As far as I can tell, the D's run a little cheaper, but also a little hotter. Is it worth the price difference? How are the mobos for both chips these days?

Any opinions greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
 
CNET had a comparison of the dual cores, amd kicked intels ass and were close to half the price. Its probaly still on there site, I havent tried neither so take it how you want.
 
dennisdesantis said:
Subject says it all, really.

I've been out of the hardware loop for a while now, and would like to build a new system that takes advantage of the recent price cuts in AMD/Intel's last-generation dual-core chips. I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are potential replies, but I'm curious what the consensus is between an X2 and a Pentium D?

As far as I can tell, the D's run a little cheaper, but also a little hotter. Is it worth the price difference? How are the mobos for both chips these days?

Any opinions greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

The Pentium D is not a true Dual Core processor. If the new Intel Core Duo or Core 2 Duo processors are out of your price range, you are better off with the Athlon 64 X2.
 
my Pentium D 930 3ghz processor is running at 18c average, and about 25c full load on stock intel fan. I consider that very cool imo. My old amd athlon 64 3200+ 1mb cache original ones were at around 30c, 40c on full load with a aftermarket cooler on it (a very good one) There's good and bad points on each processor, but they equally perform well. The amd dual cores were made at the higher amd chips anyways... intel's one starts at 2.66mhz ones... you gotta compare a higher intel dual core with a lower amd dual core to compare each one of them if you understand...
 
Yeah the 2.66Ghz D805 chips have a multiplier of 20 so they can be clocked insanely - 4GHz with cooling.

Not saying you'd want to push a daw that hard but the 805s only cost $120
 
I think the 930's are the better chips to over clock with, I've heard reviews as it's the current best chip to over clock with. You can take it up past 4ghz with efficient water cooling. The 2.66mhz even at 4ghz won't out perform the 3ghz by much because of the FSB being only 533 vs 800. Upping the multiplier also doesn't guarantee maximum performance, upping the multiplier along with the FSB would be the best way to go. Taking the 2.66mhz 533mhz fsb to 4ghz w/ the 533mhz isn't going to post faster results then the 930 at 4ghz @ 1200mhz fsb. Not that over clocking to 4ghz will have the 1200mhz fsb, but I know it's some where at least 1ghz fsb + because mine's overclocked stock cooling to 3.4ghz @ 9** mhz
 
I'm not sure what's currently going on because I just bought a processor a couple months ago, but usually AMD's out perform Intels of comparable features (Dual core 2.2Ghz for instance). Your best bet is to look up bench marks.
 
Promythia said:
I'm not sure what's currently going on because I just bought a processor a couple months ago, but usually AMD's out perform Intels of comparable features (Dual core 2.2Ghz for instance). Your best bet is to look up bench marks.
Click to expand...

AMD was #1 up until the Core 2 Duos came out a few weeks ago.
 
you know what.. It came up to the point in processor speeds that you bearly notice a different either way now-a-days imo. The speeds of processors are so fast, that it really doesn't matter. The things that are hendering overall pc performances I think are now the memory speeds', hard drive controllers & FSB.
 
i kind of agree. I haven't bothered to upgrade my computer since I got a 2.0 ghz (a) intel processor. I've never had a problem with performance and running as many tracks as I possibly could need at 24-bit. Granted I don't use plug-ins (i use outboard) and only use my machine for tracking and playback. I recently did a project with nearly 40 tracks. No problem. Although I do run a RAID 0 configuration. I like the phrase "if it ain't broke don't fix it." I run windows xp with an intel chipset and my computer is completely stable. I think it's crashed twice in the last year. I still run vegas pro audio from the late 90's and have cubase SX when I need good midi capability. None of my clients care (or even understand!) that I have an older system with older software, they almost always leave very happy with their recordings. I'd rather take the $500 + needed to build a new but unecessary system from scratch and invest it in mics, pre's, etc. The few prospects that do care about my hardware/software set-up I'd rather not have them as clients anyways. My response usually is "did you listen to my audio samples?" I wonder why many people use their eyes (gear list) instead of their ears (audio samples) when judging audio quality? Good luck!
 
Just remembered too, the AMD X2 and FX lines are the last of the 939 (or is it 949) Socket. So your going to have to by a new motherboard in a few years if you want to upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top