• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

3800 X2 or Pentium D920

P

Parsnip1973

Junior Member
Hi People

Planning a new computer build and have narrowed the choice down to an X2 3800 or a Pentium D920.

Computer will not be used for gaming, so won't be bothering with overclocking. Main use of the computer will be for work particularly very large spreadsheets and potentially quite large databases (circa. 100 million records).

Is there any conspicuous advantage of one processor over the other given the expected use of the computer? I currently doubt that there is, and that either would function perfectly well.

Thank you for your time!

Richard
 
Make it X2 3800 vs 930, for more comparable performance. If the 920 is your only option, definitely X2 3800, with the 930 it's more or less equal performance wise.
 
Asking that question on the Anandtech forum is going to gather alot of "Pro AMD" answers on this topic as a majority of the forum users seem to prefer AMD over Intel.

Since you do not game, both processor choices will be sufficient for your needs. Those new Intel 9X0D series processors are manufactured based off of the 65nm process, and run cooler than Intel's last disaster, the Prescott, a.k.a. "The Furnace".. "Space Heater".. etc..
 
Picking the cheapest out of the two would be your best bet here. You will neither gain nor lose anything by choosing one over the other.

Of course, if we were looking at absolute bechmarking tests, others may say differently. For real world use, pick one and enjoy. 🙂
 
Well what will you be doing with it? The biggest strenght of AMD processors is gaming. Intels biggest strenth is encoding. Also the ram for the intel is DDR2 so you would be able to reuse that in the future unlike with the AMD since its just DDR. The choice is yours.
 
If you plan on overclocking, the X2 3800 is the way to go. To get the 920 or 930 up to a decent OC, you need a $200 mobo, but the 3800 will do it on a $80 mobo. Also, it runs cooler than even the 920.
 
If not overclocking, the x2 is the way to go, but if you like overclocking, I would look at what the Pentium D has to offer.
 
The 3800 runs cooler, will probably be a cheaper overall rig, and will equal or better the Intel in everything but the most intensive encoding apps.
 
It's a tough call.

I was in your position about a month ago and went with the 920 for the following reasons:

1) Using the Asus P5WD2 MB (~200$) just about everyone is getting 4Ghz+ out of this chip.
2) Intel = DDR2 platform.

Even though you need a pricey MB at this point to get a good overclock out of the 920, part of that cost is made back with the money you'll save by going with DDR2.

Overall I'd say if you're going to leave everything at stock settings go 3800+. If you like overclocking and pulling the most out of a chip, go D920.
 
Encoding is no longer favoring Intel if you compare dual core processors. AMD comes out on top in almost every benchmarks. At the moment X2 3800+ is a better buy because it outperforms 930 and costs cheaper. Keep in mind that Intel is set to slash prices in a month or so.

Regarding OC, 3800+ usually hits 2.6-2.7 max w/o too much voltage which is similar to Intel 4.0. Therefore 920 is actually a better buy. I am not sure what voltage it takes for Presler to hit 4.0 though. Although Presler is cooler than Smithfield, it still lags behind AMD's X2.
 
Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
Encoding is no longer favoring Intel if you compare dual core processors. AMD comes out on top in almost every benchmarks. At the moment X2 3800+ is a better buy because it outperforms 930 and costs cheaper. Keep in mind that Intel is set to slash prices in a month or so.

Regarding OC, 3800+ usually hits 2.6-2.7 max w/o too much voltage which is similar to Intel 4.0. Therefore 920 is actually a better buy. I am not sure what voltage it takes for Presler to hit 4.0 though. Although Presler is cooler than Smithfield, it still lags behind AMD's X2.
Click to expand...

Just check out these benchmarks. The 920 is just as good or better than the 3800 depending on what you are doing.
Toms Hardware

If you are going to overclock i recommend the 3800 because it can be done with an $80 board cheap, cheap value ram, and is really the best bang for the buck.

The 920 is no slouch and is a great overclocker too. But you are not overclocking so none of that matters.

Just dont listen to the Fanboys on either side. Its a toss up so go with what you get the best deal on and you will be happy with your purchase.
 
I think the choice boils down to your motherboard selection. The 920/3800+ are more or less on-par in desktop/encoding and such, it only lags behind in games, where its not an issue for you.

If you want a cheapo motherboard (less than $100), I'd go with the 3800+, because the cheapo LGA775 boards are not really impressive. If you want a top of the line board ($200+), then I'd go with the 920. DDR2 memory is chaeper than DDR, and coupled with the cheaper 920, you can save money or upgrade to a 930 for the same price as a 3800+ system.
 
Originally posted by: robertk2012
Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
Encoding is no longer favoring Intel if you compare dual core processors. AMD comes out on top in almost every benchmarks. At the moment X2 3800+ is a better buy because it outperforms 930 and costs cheaper. Keep in mind that Intel is set to slash prices in a month or so.

Regarding OC, 3800+ usually hits 2.6-2.7 max w/o too much voltage which is similar to Intel 4.0. Therefore 920 is actually a better buy. I am not sure what voltage it takes for Presler to hit 4.0 though. Although Presler is cooler than Smithfield, it still lags behind AMD's X2.
Click to expand...

Just check out these benchmarks. The 920 is just as good or better than the 3800 depending on what you are doing.
Toms Hardware

If you are going to overclock i recommend the 3800 because it can be done with an $80 board cheap, cheap value ram, and is really the best bang for the buck.

The 920 is no slouch and is a great overclocker too. But you are not overclocking so none of that matters.

Just dont listen to the Fanboys on either side. Its a toss up so go with what you get the best deal on and you will be happy with your purchase.
Click to expand...


You didn't just link to Tom's Hardware for a benchmark? 😉

No matter which way you go, you prolly won't see a real difference in performance. Go with what ever one is cheaper and spend the extra money on better ram or more HDD space.
 
Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Originally posted by: robertk2012
Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
Encoding is no longer favoring Intel if you compare dual core processors. AMD comes out on top in almost every benchmarks. At the moment X2 3800+ is a better buy because it outperforms 930 and costs cheaper. Keep in mind that Intel is set to slash prices in a month or so.

Regarding OC, 3800+ usually hits 2.6-2.7 max w/o too much voltage which is similar to Intel 4.0. Therefore 920 is actually a better buy. I am not sure what voltage it takes for Presler to hit 4.0 though. Although Presler is cooler than Smithfield, it still lags behind AMD's X2.
Click to expand...

Just check out these benchmarks. The 920 is just as good or better than the 3800 depending on what you are doing.
Toms Hardware

If you are going to overclock i recommend the 3800 because it can be done with an $80 board cheap, cheap value ram, and is really the best bang for the buck.

The 920 is no slouch and is a great overclocker too. But you are not overclocking so none of that matters.

Just dont listen to the Fanboys on either side. Its a toss up so go with what you get the best deal on and you will be happy with your purchase.
Click to expand...


You didn't just link to Tom's Hardware for a benchmark? 😉

No matter which way you go, you prolly won't see a real difference in performance. Go with what ever one is cheaper and spend the extra money on better ram or more HDD space.
Click to expand...

lol not all of their benchmarks are bad. Some people say they are biased but you know what....almost everyone that has said that was biased themselves. I always look at as many opinions as possible though.
 
Again, to get 4 ghz, OC, you need a $200 mobo, and that is just to keep up with the X2 3800@2.6 on a $80 mobo. And I an not a fanboy, I have an 820, and I tried a 920, but it wouldn't go very high on my motherboard.

So the X2 wins bang/buck and performance.
 
Originally posted by: robertk2012
He said he wasnt gaming. Other than that they are pretty close to each other. So Im not sure how its a no contest.
Click to expand...

What is pretty close for you?

iTunes, X2 3800+ 11% faster than Pentium D 920
VirtualDubMod/DivX 6 encoding, 9% faster
Quicktime/H.264 encoding, 16% faster
Photoshop, 10% faster
Premiere Pro, 10% faster
3dsmax, 10% faster

Overall, audio/video/rendering 10-15% faster (without games). You need a PD 940 for neck to neck with X2 3800+...
 
For general office use, you won't notice the difference. Get the cheapest dual core processor:

$206 820

The bonus here is you'll be able to reuse DDR2 ram in the future.

If you care about 64-bit operating system, then get X2 3800+. Also consider the price of motherboards since they generally cost less for AMD. If the price is close for the overall system, then go with AMD.
 
Originally posted by: PetNorth
Originally posted by: robertk2012
He said he wasnt gaming. Other than that they are pretty close to each other. So Im not sure how its a no contest.
Click to expand...

What is pretty close for you?

iTunes, X2 3800+ 11% faster than Pentium D 920
VirtualDubMod/DivX 6 encoding, 9% faster
Quicktime/H.264 encoding, 16% faster
Photoshop, 10% faster
Premiere Pro, 10% faster
3dsmax, 10% faster

Overall, audio/video/rendering 10-15% faster (without games). You need a PD 940 for neck to neck with X2 3800+...
Click to expand...

He wont be doing any of those things with it either.
 
Check out the office productivity benchmark in your link. Surprise surprise. Its almost a dead tie but the 920 wins by a bit.
 
If office related work is the most important, I'd just go with single core AMD64 or a mobile processor for lowest idling power consumption. If you can work as fast as Sysmark benches, then you might as well call yourself superman.
 
If you're not planning to overclock, go with the X2 3800. It runs cooler, faster and consumes less power at stock. In general, AMD's desktop processors are superior to Intel's desktop processors, and Intel's mobile processors are superior to AMD's mobile processors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top