Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Originally posted by: alyarb
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Originally posted by: alyarb
a $40 or $50 conroe-L at 2.5 GHz would murder that smithfield. plus a radeon 4850 for about $99 and you'll have the perfect system for 1440x900.
Eh, I beg to differ. A dual core Celeron 430/440 is not going to murder the chip. These Celerons only have 512KB of L2 cache
total, and in most games this really, really hurts performance. There may be a few games were the chip is faster than a Pentium D, but overall I'd say the 820 is faster. I could very well be wrong, but at the very least I feel strongly they would compete well with each other, and also a Conroe-L will
not murder a Pentium D.
If at all possible the lowest processor he should get is the Pentium Dual Cores, like an E2160 or E5200. If possible he should get a Core 2 Duo - any of them.
As for the video card, anything ranging from a 9500GT to an HD4850 is going to give him a nice boost in CS:S.
the e5200 is precisely what i had in mind. Allendale/Conroe-L are synonymous. my mention of the $50 pricepoint implied a 45nm dual core.
How the hell does your mention of a $50 pricepoint imply
that? It doesn't. You either messed up the name or are confused (and thus causing confusion). On newegg the dual core Celerons (Conroe-L) are $50 and below. The 45nm Pentium Dual Cores are $60 and above. The 65nm Pentium Dual Cores (Allendale) are also much better than the Conroe-L. I also wouldn't call Allendale and Conroe-L synonymous because Conroe-L is extremely crippled with half the L2 cache. Also the E5xxx and E6xxx lineup are not Conroe-Ls or Allendales; they are (most closely) Wolfdales, and they have quadruple the L2 cache of Conroe-L's.
And I repeat my sentiment. A Conroe-L is not going to murder, abuse, or demolish a Pentium D, even at 2.5 GHz. I'd be willing to guess it would be slower for gaming, although much better in power consumption.
A 1.6Ghz, 512k L2 cache dual core Conroe based Celeron is faster than a Pentium D 2.8Ghz in ALL tasks. At 2.5Ghz, it would murder it. I know this because I've had both chips. You're severely underestimating just how much faster the Conroe is. A 1.86Ghz Conroe with 2MB of L2 cache is faster than a 3.6Ghz Smithfield just to put things into perspective. Going down to 512k does hurt, but not so much that a Smithfield can catch up.
The 512k hurts in a lot of games. Severly. Anandtech's own benchmarks prove this, and we are talking about gaming performance as I clearly stated.
Just look how the Celeron 440 compares to the E2180 in games:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50
It's basically half the performance. I may be underestimating the Conroe Lite's performance compared to the Pentium D, but I sure as hell am not underestimating it compared with other members of the Core family.
The Celeron 440 is slower than any Athlon X2... ever. And even though the Pentium D was dogged back in the day, in a lot of circumstances it could at least compete with the Athlon X2, although did so at the cost of more power and higher clock speeds.
If you could point me to benchmarks of Pentium D chips in newer games, then that would be great to clear the air.
edit:
The best I can quickly find are these benchmarks, which compare the 820 to the 3800+ and 4200+ in more older games:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=16
The Pentium D is about 30% slower than the lower end Athlon X2s.
Using AT's bench to compare the Athlon X2 4040e to the Celeron 440 in more newer games:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50
The Celeron is about 50% slower than the lower end Athlon X2.
These results can't bring about a clear conclusion, but I do think they point to the very fact I was trying to debunk: A Conroe-L is not going to
destroy, demolish, or murder a Pentium D in gaming performance. At best it will only be a marginal upgrade, IMO. Now a Pentium Dual core like the E5200, on the other hand, is a different story.
edit 2:
I'll also add that I was probably overestimating his particular processor's performance. I was thinking more in line with the Pentium D 940, and now I realize his 820 is clocked lower and has half the cache, decreasing the estimated performance I was doing (in my head). But as I said, a Celeron isn't going to murder the chip (and there is no 2.5GHz version), so it's not worth the trouble upgrading to it. Go for at least an Pentium E2xxx series, or better yet a Core 2 Duo E4xxx/E6xxx, or best yet an E5xxx chip if at all possible.
Facebook
Twitter