I'll tell you what I'd post over there (I won't post it because I have no interest in making yet another account):
First off, the OP asked how the PDs did compared to current X2s, so I'd guess he's interested in the specific details. I could tell him that a pentium 3 can run Word just fine and that he doesn't need to buy anything else but that's not what he's asking.
Secondly, I'm not absolutely certain about this but I'm pretty sure Intel calls the 900 series dual-core. Sure it's a multi-die package (two dies, each holding a processing core with its cache) but since it has two processing cores let us call it dual-core for simplicity's sake.
Third, I seriously doubt anyone would not notice the difference between a 2.6GHz A64 (aka the FX-55) and a Pentium 4 2.8GHz (the top end Intel CPU from March 2002, though the architecture changed... for worse) but to each his own, I suppose.
Now I'll get to the real meat and potatoes of my post:
Intel has the following 900 series CPUs,
Pentium D 920 2.8GHz@ ~$265
Pentium D 930 3.0GHz@ ~$340
Pentium D 940 3.2GHz
Pentium D 950 3.4GHz@ ~$750
Pentium XE 955 3.46GHz @ $1k+
AMD has the following X2s,
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz, 1MB L2 Total@ ~$320
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz, 1MB L2 Total @ ~$400
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz, 2MB L2 Total
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4GHz, 1MB L2 Total
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz, 2MB L2 Total @ ~$780
Athlon 64 FX-60 2.6GHz, 2MB L2 Total @ $1k+
If you look at the above you'll notice that the cheapest X2 is slightly less expensive than the Pentium D 930, which it outperforms by quite a bit. On the other hand, the 920 is about $60 cheaper than it but this gets outperformed even worse. The 4800+ pretty much matches the price of the 950 but once again outperforms it by quite a bit, too. The FX-60 also outperforms the XE. Motherboards that support the 900 series should be a bit more expensive than socket 939 motherboards that support the X2 (most of them) and its nice to get the ability to run an AGP motherboard if you so desire. There's also the fact that the power draw of AMD's X2s is close to half that of their comparable Intel analog (seriously) and the temperatures are much lower (though it seems most motherboards out there are reporting temperatures of the 900 series around 15-25C, which is impossible if you think about it). Intel's 65nm chips do end up overclocking quite well, though the power draw increases massively as well so plan your cooling well if you plan on overclocking significantly).
Here's what I'd recommend. If you dont plan on overclocking then go AMD, no questions asked. They'll just perform better without having insane amounts of heat and power draw. If you do plan on overclocking and are willing (and able) to deal with the increased power draw then by all means go Pentium D (I'd say close to 200W at 4.26GHz for the CPU alone, close to 350W or so for the whole system, which is a huge draw to throw onto the 12v PSU rail/rails), since I think most Ds can probably hit around 4GHz without much problem, which would match an X2 at 2.7-2.8GHz or so.
Personally I'd go with either an A64 X2 or one of those lovely Core Duo CPUs that should be hitting the market soon. Though Yonah is slightly slower than AMD, clock for clock, its power draw is much lower (I'd say close to half the power draw at stock) and overclocking will probably be quite fruitful on these as well. X2s do overclock pretty decently but I'd say 2.6GHz is what you should expect if you dont want to be disappointed.
Facebook
Twitter