Intel Pentium D 940 with enhanced speedstep - better option than AMD X2 3800?

[kudukudu]

With the latest price drops from Intel a 940 is now cheaper than an AMD X2 3800 with comparable performance (e.g. at newegg 940 costs $260 and the 3800 costs $297). And as you can see the 940 has about the same performance as an AMD X2 3800: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=pd900&cookie_test=1.

The only problem with the original 900 series as you can see from the power consumption benchmarks in the above link is that idle consumption is pretty high. Intel has a new version of the 900 series that supports enhanced speedstep which should bring down the idle consumption rates to something more closely approximating AMD levels:
http://developer.intel.com/design/pcn/Processors/D0106083.pdf.

These processors can be identified by their boxed set code as well as the stepping (e.g. C1 rather than B1): http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/emea/eng/products/mobile/216413.htm

I figure that if I can get a dual core intel solution whose idle power consumption levels approach those of an AMD solution (e.g. majority of the time my computer is running), I don't care if the intel box uses 80 watts more power than the AMD when running at 100% CPU utilization. With all the problems the AMD chipsets seem to have with data corruption and so forth, I am inclined to go with a more stable intel processor + intel chipset (e.g. 940 + 975X based board).

Does anyone know when the Intel Pentium D series will be available in retail with the enhanced speedstep?

 

[996GT2]

I don't know when they will be available with the new Speedstep (I believe the 9XX series should have them by now if the 8XX series had them), but to answer the question in your title:

If you are going to run your CPU at stock speed, don't play games that much, and could use the $50 savings (and if you do a lot of video editing/encoding), then IMO you should get the 940. If you are more of a power user/enthusiast and want to do some overclocking then you should get the 3800+ for its lower power draw, cooler temps and better overclockability. At its top end a 2006 3800+ will hit around 2.8GHz (maybe more if you are lucky) at 1.4-1.5V, and at this speed you are basically getting more performance than the FX60.

Or if you are patient, you could wait a few months for Conroe to come out; its prices are competitive with the current Dual Core prices and the Conroe is one beast of a performer.

 

[Maximilian]

Wow. Thats a pretty nice deal if you dont care about power consumption and architecture.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Or if you are patient, you could wait a few months for Conroe to come out; its prices are competitive with the current Dual Core prices and the Conroe is one beast of a performer.

See, this part I really don't trust Intel on. Yeah, they hint at MSRP of Conroe parts and make them look truly attractive NOW. It costs Intel nothing, but may cost AMD a sale.

When the parts become available I wouldn't be surprised to see pricing commesurate with performance. So a 2 ghz Conroe at $400 vs $200 would not shock me in the least.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: kudukudu
With all the problems the AMD chipsets seem to have with data corruption and so forth, I am inclined to go with a more stable intel processor + intel chipset (e.g. 940 + 975X based board).

I hope you really don't still believe that myth..I have had absolutly no problems with my X2 and NF4 chipset. If you plan to overclock at all with the 9xx series, you are gonna need an expensive motherboard. So far the only good 9xx series overlocks I have seen are on the P5WD2 premium and P5WD2-E premium, which are $200+ motherboards. The best I got out of my 920's(I'm on the second since one of the cores died on my first) was 3.7ghz, but I had to overclock the PCIe bus to get there, which in the end made the entire system unstable. The best I've gotten out of the second is 3.43ghz. @3.7ghz it still didn't match the performance of my old X2 4200+ @2.6ghz, while the newer revisions are hitting 2.8ghz quite often. It is a good deal, but netburst is coming to an end for a good reason.

 

[dexvx]

FYI, if you get a C1 stepping 9xx series, it has much lower power consumption at load AND idle (965XE @ load = FX60 @ load, on stock). However, given the circumstances, those are pretty much impossible to find unless you go around cherry picking at the shops.

 

[Maximilian]

Any more WOW's from people? Im pretty damn impressed.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: stevty2889

Originally posted by: kudukudu
With all the problems the AMD chipsets seem to have with data corruption and so forth, I am inclined to go with a more stable intel processor + intel chipset (e.g. 940 + 975X based board).

I hope you really don't still believe that myth..I have had absolutly no problems with my X2 and NF4 chipset. If you plan to overclock at all with the 9xx series, you are gonna need an expensive motherboard. So far the only good 9xx series overlocks I have seen are on the P5WD2 premium and P5WD2-E premium, which are $200+ motherboards. The best I got out of my 920's(I'm on the second since one of the cores died on my first) was 3.7ghz, but I had to overclock the PCIe bus to get there, which in the end made the entire system unstable. The best I've gotten out of the second is 3.43ghz. @3.7ghz it still didn't match the performance of my old X2 4200+ @2.6ghz, while the newer revisions are hitting 2.8ghz quite often. It is a good deal, but netburst is coming to an end for a good reason.

First, I agree with Stevty. If you really think AMD has a stibility problem on any current platform, you are living in the last decade, and need to wake up and read. I also agree on the mobo thing. You need a $200 mobo to get a good OC, but with the X2, you can do it with a $85 (or maybe less) mobo. That makes a BIG difference, not to mention the extra heat and power required by the 9xx series.

X2 3800 is still the winner IMO.

 

[kudukudu]

I actually have done a fair amount of reading on the latest intel and AMD platforms, chipsets and boards. There are definitely a lot more articles and posts on problems with AMD (not the processors, but the boards and chipsets). No one would question that AMD has a superior processor architecture (e.g. producing better results with less power, slower memory, slower Mhz, 90 nm instead of 65 nm, etc.). However, in terms of system stability and overall solution I would argue that the chipset is more important. I think Intel produces a more stable chipset for intel processors than Nvidia, ATI and via do for AMD.

I realize that to some extent this reflects the nature of the community purhcasing these products (e.g. enthusiaists are going to post more problem no matter what platform they are using so the number of posts on a particular platform arguably says more about the popularity of that platform in the enthusiast market than anything else). Still, it doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

I am not convinced that anyone has managed to release a rock solid AMD chipset unless you are willing to go with something like an nforce 2200 chipset (e.g. TYAN K8E-SLI).

For example, take this review on chipsets for 2005. The article basically says they weren't impressed with any of the offerings and discounted the Intel chipsets based on the poor performance of the intel processors at the time:http://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/bestof2005/index.x?pg=2

right now I am oscillating between an ASUS A8R32-MVP board based on the latest ATI chipset with an X2 3800 and an ASUS P5WD2-E premium board based on the 97sx chipset with a 940.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: kudukudu
I actually have done a fair amount of reading on the latest intel and AMD platforms, chipsets and boards. There are definitely a lot more articles and posts on problems with AMD (not the processors, but the boards and chipsets). No one would question that AMD has a superior processor architecture (e.g. producing better results with less power, slower memory, slower Mhz, 90 nm instead of 65 nm, etc.). However, in terms of system stability and overall solution I would argue that the chipset is more important. I think Intel produces a more stable chipset for intel processors than Nvidia, ATI and via do for AMD.

I realize that to some extent this reflects the nature of the community purhcasing these products (e.g. enthusiaists are going to post more problem no matter what platform they are using so the number of posts on a particular platform arguably says more about the popularity of that platform in the enthusiast market than anything else). Still, it doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

I am not convinced that anyone has managed to release a rock solid AMD chipset unless you are willing to go with something like an nforce 2200 chipset (e.g. TYAN K8E-SLI).

For example, take this review on chipsets for 2005. The article basically says they weren't impressed with any of the offerings and discounted the Intel chipsets based on the poor performance of the intel processors at the time:http://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/bestof2005/index.x?pg=2

right now I am oscillating between an ASUS A8R32-MVP board based on the latest ATI chipset with an X2 3800 and an ASUS P5WD2-E premium board based on the 97sx chipset with a 940.

I find that rather amusing as well..since I have had less problems with my 805 on an Nvidia chipset, than with my 920's on Intel chipsets. Normaly I would have never run an intel cpu on anything but an Intel chipset..in this case I'm glad I did. If chipsets for AMD chips were so bad, then why is Opeteron such a big threat to Intel and causing a loss of market share? I probably wouldn't use an ATI chipset again any time soon, I had an ATI chipset motherboard before and it gave me several problems. Not to mention ATI was tending to rely on ULI to make their southbridges, which is a problem for them now that Nvidia owns ULI. But as for stabiltiy problems with nvidia chipsets, I have had none. My X2 is running 100% stable 24/7 on a DFI ultra-D, and my 805 running 100% stable @3.7ghz on an 8N-SLI(just running like a flamethrower, 57c water cooled. Both run dual folding@home 24/7, and neither has given me a single stability problem.

 

[justly]

I didn't see anywhere in the techreport article about stability of ATi, ULi or SiS chipsets.

ULi and SiS chipsets where "disqualified" because they are not popular enough to be used in enthusiast boards (not because the chipsets are unstable).

ATi chipsets where "disqualified" based on "I/O performance problems" of the ATi SB450 (southbridge).
What needs to be considered is how important those problems are. As an example, if I needed an external HD and was worried about performance I would choose a firewire connection over USB because of the much lower CPU utilization and faster read speeds (write speeds with USB might be slightly better, but the difference in write speeds mean little especially with the much lower CPU utilization of firewire). As for SATA there seems to be nothing wrong with the SB450 SATA, what techreport is complaining about is the Sil 3114 chip performance over the PCI bus. Lastly, my internet connection does not run at Gigabit speeds and even if I set up my home systems on a Gigabit backbone I dont think I would ever transfer enough data between computers to notice a diference. Meaning none of the problems techreport disqualified ATi for affect me.

Techreport does show the USB speeds of the SB450 being dismal by comparison, but how much this will affect a mouse, keyboard, media reader, printer or any other USB equipment (other than a HD) is the question. This USB performance delta may not even be significant enough to measure on anything other than a HD, maybe that is why most sites now test USB performance with a external HD.

Even if the SB450 is "disqualified" there are boards that use ULi southbridge with the ATi northbridge, problem solved.

I am not claiming that all ATi,ULi or SiS based boards are flawless, just pointing out that the techreport article did not shown that these chipsets have stability problems.
I'm also sure many people (with personal experiance) would tell you that Nvidia and VIA are also stable.

Now there may be some reason that none of the boards based on these chipsets fit your needs, but the only way that I can see that happening is if your needs include the use of an Intel processor.

 

[kudukudu]

Keep in mind that one of the reasons Opteron is such a threat to Intel is that they are, for the most part, not running on consumer/enthusiast grade chipsets like the nforce4 family. For example, nvidia's nforce 2200 chipset is a different piece of silicon with another 2 million transistors in it. Check out the opteron based server boards at www.tyan.com and you won't see any mention of nforce4 or any of the other chipsets currently offered on $100-$200 motherboards.

As for stability problems on nforce4, there are plenty of documented problems out there, the most serious of which was the "data corruption" issue:http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion/index.php?t8171.html or
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/9483 or http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=29&threadid=1771160

I understand that a lot of the problems documented over the past year on nforce4 could be avoided by turning off features that didn't work correctly like nvidia's hardware based firewall, but data corruption under any circumstances is not acceptable.

I am not an Intel fanboy (in fact my current computer is an older AMD product), but it just seems like there are a lot of issues with the recent AMD based chipsets and I don't see the same number of problem posts on the intel 955x or 975x chipsets.

Is this just because most computer enthusiasts (e.g. the type of people likely to post in a forum like this) are using AMD?

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: kudukudu
Keep in mind that one of the reasons Opteron is such a threat to Intel is that they are, for the most part, not running on consumer/enthusiast grade chipsets like the nforce4 family. For example, nvidia's nforce 2200 chipset is a different piece of silicon with another 2 million transistors in it. Check out the opteron based server boards at www.tyan.com and you won't see any mention of nforce4 or any of the other chipsets currently offered on $100-$200 motherboards.

As for stability problems on nforce4, there are plenty of documented problems out there, the most serious of which was the "data corruption" issue:http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion/index.php?t8171.html or
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/9483 or http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=29&threadid=1771160

I understand that a lot of the problems documented over the past year on nforce4 could be avoided by turning off features that didn't work correctly like nvidia's hardware based firewall, but data corruption under any circumstances is not acceptable.

I am not an Intel fanboy (in fact my current computer is an older AMD product), but it just seems like there are a lot of issues with the recent AMD based chipsets and I don't see the same number of problem posts on the intel 955x or 975x chipsets.

Is this just because most computer enthusiasts (e.g. the type of people likely to post in a forum like this) are using AMD?

Well don't know what to tell you, because I am using some of the hardware mentioned in several of those, and have had no problems. My WD 250GB 3g drives is working great on my 8N-SLI(one of the specific pair mentioned), and I work with large files on a regular basis since I do video encoding on that machine. I also have an external USB hard drive, that I use on a regular basis, and it's never given me any lock ups. I am running raid-0 with 2 SATA 3G drives on my DFI NF4 ultra-D, and again, it's 100% stable, never had any issues.

 

[Viditor]

I have to agree with both Mark and Stevty...in my experience, I have had many more problems in the last year with Intel boards and chipsets than with Nforce4. In fact, I do consulting for 3 different retailers here in Sydney, and they too have mentioned that Intel returns have outpaced AMD by more than 3 to 1. This may be due to the heat of Netburst, but none have had more than 3 returns in total on AMD systems over the last year (fairly impressive).

I remember THGs "Live Stability Test" last year, and even when they went back to an Intel platform, the Nvidia was more stable over time...

 

[Markfw]

Lets see, I have 12 systems in my house, different chipsets, only one is AMD 8xxx server, and all run F@H 24/7, and I am in 3rd place for Anandtech.... I have no problems. And they are all OC'ed, except the 8xxx for the dually board which can't be. You need to pull your head out, only idiots have problems with the new chipsets, AMD or Intel (for the most part, I realize there are exceptions)

 

[fatty4ksu]

Originally posted by: kudukudu
Intel Pentium D 940 with enhanced speedstep - better option than AMD X2 3800?

Most defintley IMO.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu

Originally posted by: kudukudu
Intel Pentium D 940 with enhanced speedstep - better option than AMD X2 3800?

Most defintley IMO.

You would say that.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu

Originally posted by: kudukudu
Intel Pentium D 940 with enhanced speedstep - better option than AMD X2 3800?

Most defintley IMO.

You would say that.

Don't pick on fatty...he's the best endorsement for the X2 going at the moment... (j/k)

 

[Arkane13131]

overclocking the x-2 to 2.4ghz is the easiest thing in the world. I only got an aftermarket cooler because my house is 80F+ (no AC heh)

so considering you can do that with cheap ram.. a ghetto mobo...and stock cooling... i think the x-2 is much better. as you can see none of the intel chips compair with the 2.4ghz x-2 chips.

 

[lopri]

I just skimped through the thread so I don't know the detail, but somewhere along the line I remember the OP(?) considering A8R-MVP (or A8R32?) as an alternative? Please don't. ATI is not ready for its prime time when it comes to chipsets yet (whether for Intel chips or AMD chips) Do yourself a favor and wait another year or so for ATI chipset based boards. If you have to go with Intel CPU, go with an Intel chipset. With AMD CPUs, NV chipset. ATI makes great video cards no doubt, but their chipset is full of bugs and the drivers are a mess.

 

[kudukudu]

Lopri,

I have read that the Rd480 (e.g. a8r-mvp) suffered from a lot of problems, but impression was that that the rd580 based boards (e.g. a8r32-mvp) were more stable. One of the reasons I am conisdering the ATI chipset is that the ULI southbridge doesn't seem to suffer from any of the data corruption issues that the nforce4 has been susceptible to. Another bonus is that the a8r32-mvp uses a less power and produces less heat than the a8n32-sli boards.

Is it your experience that the rd580 based boards are just as quirky as the rd480 based boards are?

 

[F1shF4t]

um data coruption on nforce4, heh have been using the board for ages now and never had a single corruption problem. At the moment i have coruption problems with the 865pe chipset board and SATA but thats a different story.

Almost all 3800+ x2 overclock to 2.4ghz and at that speed the 940 has no chance, so if u plan on overcloking, the x2 is a better option, although at stock i do think that the 940will be a bit faster (hotter, louder ie more in every aspect ).

 

[Budarow]

With the prices coming down a lot on July 23-24, anyone care to comment afresh on this question?