Intel Pentium D vs. Intel Core2Duo vs AMD 4800+ Brisbane

[BMW2000z]

I was just looking at the Intel processors, and I noticed that a Pentium D 935 Presler 3.2GHz sells for $90. I compared the specs for that with a Intel Core2Duo E4400 Allendale 2.0GHz ($139), and while the D has slightly less L1 cache, it has way more L2 cache. Besides that and of course the operating frequency, the specs look exactly the same.

If both are dual core, then what's the difference between them that costs 40 bucks??

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: BMW2000z
I was just looking at the Intel processors, and I noticed that a Pentium D 935 Presler 3.2GHz sells for $90. I compared the specs for that with a Intel Core2Duo E4400 Allendale 2.0GHz ($139), and while the D has slightly less L1 cache, it has way more L2 cache. Besides that and of course the operating frequency, the specs look exactly the same.

The specs on Newegg might look the same; the actual specs of everything under the hood are significantly different. These are substantially different chips.

The only way to make a useful comparison is to compare benchmarks.

 

[f4phantom2500]

The C2D has a much MUCH more efficient architecture than than the Pentium D line; the Pentium D's are basically 2 Pentium 4's stuck together. A 2GHz Core 2 Duo will trade blows with a ~2.5GHz Athlon 64 X2. A 2.5GHz Athlon 64 X2 will most of the time beat out a 3.7GHz Pentium D 9-series. So, as you can deduce, a 2GHz Core 2 Duo would decimate a 3.2GHz Pentium D. Plus it'll probably overclock from 2GHz to like 3GHz or higher without much effort.

 

[BMW2000z]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
The C2D has a much MUCH more efficient architecture than than the Pentium D line; the Pentium D's are basically 2 Pentium 4's stuck together. A 2GHz Core 2 Duo will trade blows with a ~2.5GHz Athlon 64 X2. A 2.5GHz Athlon 64 X2 will most of the time beat out a 3.7GHz Pentium D 9-series. So, as you can deduce, a 2GHz Core 2 Duo would decimate a 3.2GHz Pentium D. Plus it'll probably overclock from 2GHz to like 3GHz or higher without much effort.

Yeh, i guess that makes sense and explains the big price difference. So then a 2.5GHz Athlon 64 X2 and the 2GHz Core2Duo are pretty much the same, performance wise? I'm not really a big gamer or a video editor or anything like that, so i'm just speaking in general.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: BMW2000z
Yeh, i guess that makes sense and explains the big price difference. So then a 2.5GHz Athlon 64 X2 and the 2GHz Core2Duo are pretty much the same, performance wise? I'm not really a big gamer or a video editor or anything like that, so i'm just speaking in general.

Generally they'll be about on par with each other, but you should also note that a 2GHz C2D will have a rather good chance of clocking up to 3GHz or even higher, which is about where the current AMD architecture hits its limit; most of the good overclocking AMD chips (or the ones that have a higher default clock to begin with) hit in the upper 2GHz range, and usually it's the best ones break 3GHz. I think you'd have a higher chance hitting 3GHz with a 2GHz C2D than with a 2.5GHz A64 X2. When you take the efficiency of the C2D into account, the overclocking aspect makes it a screamer.

However, if you don't plan on overclocking, a very good way to compare them is the price; AMD has cut their prices such that when an A64 X2 that sells for a certain price performs on par with a C2D at that price when both are at stock speeds. So a $100 A64 X2 will be about the same performance-wise as a $100 C2D when they aren't overclocked.

 

[MarcVenice]

and fact is, am2 mobo's are a lot cheaper then their c2d counterparts. If you're on budget, theres nothing wrong with AMD, especially when your not overclocking. And the current am2 mobo's will support the newer chips coming out from AMD, so you'll be futureproof too.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
and fact is, am2 mobo's are a lot cheaper then their c2d counterparts. If you're on budget, theres nothing wrong with AMD, especially when your not overclocking. And the current am2 mobo's will support the newer chips coming out from AMD, so you'll be futureproof too.

Another good point. Plus, even if you want to overclock, you could just get an X2 3600 (about half the price of the cheapest C2D) and a Tforce 550 motherboard for only a little more than the E4300 (~$30 or so more at the egg, not including the $10 MIR for the Tforce 550) and would probably get into the high 2GHz range possibly even 3GHz with that setup (of course, no overclock is 100% guaranteed). It wouldn't be as fast as an overclocked E4300, but you can't argue about the price and ability to drop a K10 chip in there later . I'm in the middle of an upgrade here, trying to decide which platform to go with, and I'm seriously thinking of doing just that; I was gonna hold out for the Pentium E's, but man that X2 3600 is very tempting...

 

[AkumaX]

damn mhz myth!!! stupid intel marketing...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
damn mhz myth!!! stupid intel marketing...

Don't knock marketing, it's a great weapon to use. It's up to the consumer to be educated.