Intel Core Duo or Athlon 64 for office PC?

[imported_Com80787]

Hi all,

I am going to build a low cost PC for use as a personal office computer for a friend. I've heard about the low cost intel 805 dual core @ 2.66ghz and I'm having a tough time deciding between that and a low end socket AM2 Athlon 64 (say Athlon 64 3000). I'm thinking I'll stick about a gig of RAM in to make it at least somewhat vista ready as well.

The person I am making it for usually will have Word, Outlook, an MP3 player, a web browser, and other misc desktop programs running. However this is all she uses the system for. No advanced games or anything like that.

Would a dual core intel 805 (not overclocked... I don't want to overclock a system I build for someone) be more of a benefit to her than an Athlon 64 3000 performance wise considering she runs various programs at one time? I've never gotten to use a dual core CPU and I'm wondering if the low cost Intel one would be a good option in this case?

 

[swtethan]

celeron

 

[broly8877]

805.

The difference between the 805 and the 3000+ will be negligible in those tasks, so why not go dual core for a smoother multitasking experience?

 

[Bobthelost]

Dual core would be a waste of time, few if any of those programs will be SMP (or need it), it's not hardcore multitasking (running dvd shrink on one core while expanding files with another), add in the fact that the 805 is nothing more than two slow CPUs stuck together and it's not pretty for the dualie.

Just go for the AMD single core. Wait if you can for the expected 24th price drops.

 

[furballi]

AMD.

1. Lower initial cost.

2. Lower power consumption over the life of the CPU.

3. Lower thermal requirement (quiet PC).

4. Easy overclock to +3.5GHz speed with stock fan.

My personal rig is an ECS NF4 socket 754 with A64 3000 clocked at 2.68GHz (1M digits Super Pi in 33.6 seconds). Total cost for this combo is $99.


Noobs...DUAL CORE>MUST BE BETTER!

 

[JohnAn2112]

Originally posted by: furballi
AMD.

1. Lower initial cost.

2. Lower power consumption over the life of the CPU.

3. Lower thermal requirement (quiet PC).

4. Easy overclock to +3.5GHz speed with stock fan.

My personal rig is an ECS NF4 socket 754 with A64 3000 clocked at 2.68GHz (1M digits Super Pi in 33.6 seconds). Total cost for this combo is $99.


Noobs...DUAL CORE>MUST BE BETTER!

 

[CyborgNinja117]

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112

Originally posted by: furballi
AMD.

1. Lower initial cost.

2. Lower power consumption over the life of the CPU.

3. Lower thermal requirement (quiet PC).

4. Easy overclock to +3.5GHz speed with stock fan.

My personal rig is an ECS NF4 socket 754 with A64 3000 clocked at 2.68GHz (1M digits Super Pi in 33.6 seconds). Total cost for this combo is $99.


Noobs...DUAL CORE>MUST BE BETTER!

805D for office enviroments

 

[rlu929s]

SO prices are supposed to drop by the 24th of this month or next? Does that mean your dells and gateways will lower price as well?

 

[stevty2889]

None of that stuff is SMP aware, so I see no need for a dual core. My pentium-m keeps up with those tasks as well as my overclocked dual cores. If there is a chance you'll be running multiple cpu intensive tasks, or SMP aware programs in the future, it wouldn't hurt to get the 805, but for the stuff you listed, I'd just get the single core A64, so you don't have to worry as much about high temps and noisey fans.

 

[formulav8]

Get the 3800+ 2.4ghz CPU which is around $150. Hard to beat that cpu for the price for just the basic stuff your going to be doing. Plus it will run alot cooler and have alittle lower power bill to boot compared to the Intel alternative.



Jason

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: broly8877
805.

The difference between the 805 and the 3000+ will be negligible in those tasks, so why not go dual core for a smoother multitasking experience?

I completely agree. Anyone buying a CPU now should be looking for dual-core.

Dual Core:
Intel Pentium D 805 2.66 GHz for $110 at Newegg

The next decent bump-up (65nm, cooler running)
Intel Pentium D 930 3.0 Ghz for $172.99 at Newegg

The future says Dual-Core. I haven't used dual-core computers myself (S754) but I'm assuming (read speculating) that an year from now, running Windows Vista with a few apps open (IM, Outlook, Mozilla, Word, Excel etc.) will be smoother on dual-cores than a single-core. Office PCs are rarely upgraded unless they are absolutely affecting productivity - (maybe throw in another stick of RAM but CPUs are used until they are no longer relevant). Better to be prepared.

True, the Athlon64 might save a coupla bucks off the electric bill (but I believe we are talking one computer, not a floor with a 100 computers). The money you saved in electricity would probably buy you a coffee or two at Starbucks, nothing more.

(I read this in the news section, I think. "12 months from now, Dual-Core will be Single-Core. Quad-Core will be the new dual-core!")

 

[Acanthus]

805 hands down for office usage.

 

[Griswold]

Go with a A64 single core. Will yield better performance (as if it matters for this usage) than a stock 805.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Griswold
Go with a A64 single core. Will yield better performance (as if it matters for this usage) than a stock 805.

You are saying that a single A64 will beat the 805 in office usage?

Im doubting that statement, not to mention in this case the dual core is cheaper.

 

[nyker96]

For office? just need the cheapest thing you can get, web browsing and some word processing. I think my oldie Athlon XP will even do all this nicely with spare CPu left.

 

[Ika]

805 for office use. it really shouldn't matter, either way, so a dual-core wouldn't hurt.

Note, the Pentium D 805 is not Core Duo - Core Duo is one of Intel's monikers for a line of mobile processors.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i'd take the intel

 

[stardrek]

The way I see it a dual core makes more sense. My reasoning behind this is as follows:

Having multiple programs open like Word, Outlook, MP3 player, web browsing and other applications that an office user might use, like excel and quicken, can really bog down the speed a user would expect. People who don?t know a lot about computers, end users, like to click on something and have it work immediately. They often get frustrated if things don?t happen lightning fast and do the clicking-really-fast move which can makes things all the worse. XP Pro can handle dual cores well enough to provide a difference when you have lots of applications open, and when Vista comes out, and all the new software that will come out the years afterwards will likely benefit greatly from dual cores. You are not only providing a computer for that person now, you are providing a future platform for an office that will likely not change for many years. The price difference is small and the longevity is guaranteed. A solid user experience is what that person will expect for quite some time and you will provide that with a dual core.

 

[Amaroque]

Any Celeron, or a Sempron would be more then sufficient...

My sisters computing habits are a quite a bit heavier then what the OP said, and she's more then happy using an Athlon XP with a modern (1 yo) HDD.

 

[aka1nas]

The 800 series Pentium Ds run a bit hot, which may be an issue if you are going to put it in an office environment where it will never receive maintenance or have the case cleaned out every once in a while.

For the usage pattern you suggested, the performance of any modern single or dual-core cpu will probably be ample for this machine. A 3000+ A64 or even a cheaper 900 series Pentium D would be acceptable compromises.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
805 hands down for office usage.

Well considering I help maintain close to a 1,000 desktops, I can say completely for those tasks a A64 or even a Sempron will be more than sufficient. For one there will be hardly any software compatability problems and a lot less heat. Coupled with the fact you'll be able to use almost any case with a A64 or Sempron cpu and at stock clocks there will be no performance difference at all. Not to mention cheaper as well.

 

[Xonoahbin]

Wait until July 24th and pick up an Athlon 3000+ or 3200+ for (I think) $90 and $100 respectively.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: furballi
AMD.

1. Lower initial cost.

2. Lower power consumption over the life of the CPU.

3. Lower thermal requirement (quiet PC).

4. Easy overclock to +3.5GHz speed with stock fan.

My personal rig is an ECS NF4 socket 754 with A64 3000 clocked at 2.68GHz (1M digits Super Pi in 33.6 seconds). Total cost for this combo is $99.


Noobs...DUAL CORE>MUST BE BETTER!

Dual core IS BETTER, i would like to see u try to run a game and encode at the same time.

Any dually should be good in an office enviroment, almost overkill, unless there will be lots of apps open and lots of multitasking u can get away with a celeron or a sempron for a fraction of the cost.

 

[sandorski]

Single core is sufficient.