Differences in Pentium D / Core 2 Duo

[bdlang]

Hey all, I've been out of the loop for a couple of years on technology, I haven't built or upgraded a system since '03 or so. My wife's cheap-o Athlon XP 2600+ system just died (mainboard) and it got me thinking about building a new system rather than trying to repair / upgrade our old stuff.

I was fairly settled on the Pentium D 935 3.2 proc when I noticed the 940 is the same speed, but with 'dual channel' support and it's labeled as an 'EM64T', which even after a bit of research doesn't mean alot to me. What 'real world' difference is there in these two models? Then I was looking at the Core 2 Duo and am wondering if I should go that route. In these three processors, which would be the best hedge against future shock, the best 'bang for the buck'?

I would like to upgrade to a system with SATA II, 1GB DDR2, a faster system bus and the ability to have a decent PCI-E 16 graphics card (we currently use a P4 2.8 / 512 with integrated graphics). Overall, our use is mainly internet, some gaming, some video editing and Office apps. Probably the most processor intensive thing I do is with video editing / encoding. Don't want to OC or get crazy with the most advanced hardware.

TIA

[ edit ] Whoops, meant 2003, not 1993. heh [ / edit ]

 

[zsdersw]

Without a doubt, Core 2 Duo is the way to go. A E6300 or 6400 would be all you'd need, as far as CPU. Definitely a lot of bang for the buck with either of those two, even more when their prices get cut later in April.

 

[justly]

If you limit yourself to those 3 processors the Core 2 Duo is certainly the best.

The Pentium D procesors, while still quite capable, tend to be a rather bad choice when considering "bang for the buck" especially when compared to the Core 2 Duo or AMD X2 lines.

Since you have no intention to overclock an equally priced (or even cheaper) AMD X2 should also be considered if you are really concerned with "bang for the buck".

If the video encoding is a big concern then the Core 2 Duo is the better choice, but considering eveything else you mentioned an X2 might end up being the best "bang for the buck" solution.

No matter what you chose they all sound like a nice upgrade (some just better than others).

 

[betasub]

OP: what's the selling point of the Pentium D for you? Are they super-cheap? Of the three, current and future performance is clearly with the Core2Duo.

 

[bdlang]

Originally posted by: betasub
OP: what's the selling point of the Pentium D for you? Are they super-cheap? Of the three, current and future performance is clearly with the Core2Duo.

That's a good point, the D 940 I looked at was $151. and the C2D 6400 was $220. As far as I'm concerned, if the D isn't under $100 I may as well go with the better processor.

 

[Cheex]

In fact, the D 915 is under $100.

I had one and it served me well. OC'd it to 3.36GHz (limited by my Foxconn motherboard). Great value would recommend to anyone.

 

[BladeVenom]

C2D is the more powerful CPU, and the best overclocker. Athlon 64 X2 processors are well priced, make a good budget choice, and are still good overclockers . Pentium D processors obsolete, and I wouldn't recommend getting one.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

C2D is state of the art and monster overclockers, and most boards that will support them will also support the next gen quad core CPU's which have just been released and will become much cheaper in the fall. AMD X2's are very capable dual core processors and currently the best value for a non overclocked systems, they are also good overclockers(15-40% over stock) but not crazy like the C2D's (50-100% over stock). Pentium D's can't compete with either plus they use more electricity.

 

[RonAKA]

I had the same issue times 2. I went with an E4300 duo OC'd to 3.1 for higher performance. For the lower cost upgrade of an older PC I went with the D915 OC'd to 3.1. You can get CPU and motherboards for about $100 each. Don't know how Cheex got it higher than 3.1 - possibly better RAM or motherboard.

 

[stevty2889]

Unless you need a super low budget dual core, there is no reason at all to go with a pentium-d, they are slower than the competition at everything, while running hot, and using more power. Core 2 duo is the best around right now, and AMD is still good bang for the buck as well.

 

[RonAKA]

You can do some of your own comparisons here:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: RonAKA
I had the same issue times 2. I went with an E4300 duo OC'd to 3.1 for higher performance. For the lower cost upgrade of an older PC I went with the D915 OC'd to 3.1. You can get CPU and motherboards for about $100 each. Don't know how Cheex got it higher than 3.1 - possibly better RAM or motherboard.

I was using some DDR2-533 memory (don't know the name of it - Infineon chips though) and I was using the Foxconn P9657AA-8KS2H board. This was my limiting factor because the bios doesn't allow you to lock the PCI/PCIe bus speeds. So I was stuck at 240x14 = 3.36GHz. It booted twice at 3.73GHz though.

 

[RonAKA]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I was using some DDR2-533 memory (don't know the name of it - Infineon chips though) and I was using the Foxconn P9657AA-8KS2H board. This was my limiting factor because the bios doesn't allow you to lock the PCI/PCIe bus speeds. So I was stuck at 240x14 = 3.36GHz. It booted twice at 3.73GHz though.

Interesting. I have DDR2-667 memory currently running at 733, but I can't get over 220 FSB even when I slow the memory down to less than 600. Have PCI locked at 100.

 

[secretanchitman]

c2d > any p4. c2d with ddr2-667 memory will be nice for you.

 

[bdlang]

Originally posted by: RonAKA
You can do some of your own comparisons here:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

That's a real eye-opener. I'm now looking at the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 65W proc, it's about $100. less than the E6400 and most tests I ran have them almost side by side. For all intents and purposes, if I can save $100, that's money I can put towards another stick of RAM or a second HDD and it's plenty fast for what we need.


Thanks to all that replied.

 

[RonAKA]

Make sure you use tests which reflect the type of use you will put your computer to. Results vary considerably depending on the test used. Some apps use dual processors and some do not.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Yes, for $100 less the X2 4600+ would appear to be a better buy than the E6400. Note that this value equation will change greatly after the Intel price cuts in April.

 

[RonAKA]

Originally posted by: bdlang
That's a real eye-opener. I'm now looking at the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 65W proc, it's about $100. less than the E6400 and most tests I ran have them almost side by side. For all intents and purposes, if I can save $100, that's money I can put towards another stick of RAM or a second HDD and it's plenty fast for what we need.

Here you can get an E4300 for $25 more than the X2 4600. For no cost (stock heat sink and fan) you can easily OC the E4300 to 3 GHz on 667 ram, and higher on DDR2-800. This pushs performance beyond the E6400 if you go for the 800 ram.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e4300_review/page4.asp