Pentium D 3.2Ghz VS 1.8ghz Core2Duo?

[hulkhelton]

i recently traded my laptop for a few pentium D computers and i was wondering how much of an upgrade a 1.8 core2duo would really be for these...

i know a core 2 duo is an upgrade over pentium d but does the difference in speed balance that out?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

considering you'll likely be able to sell the pentium d for $20+ and the older core 2 duo won't be more than maybe $40, upgrading is an attractive choice. the difference in day to day computing between a pentium d and core 2 duo is noticeable to me.

 

[Blain]

The Pentium D PCs may not be able to run the Core 2 Duo CPUs.
Check the latest BIOS revision for the MBs to see if they support Core 2 Duo processors.

 

[hulkhelton]

the motherboards support core2quads... the manual actually doesnt mention that they support pentium d's even though thats whats in them.
what i want to know is if a 3ghz pentium d is slower than a 1.8ghz core2duo...

 

[Gigantopithecus]

the motherboards support core2quads... the manual actually doesnt mention that they support pentium d's even though thats whats in them.
what i want to know is if a 3ghz pentium d is slower than a 1.8ghz core2duo...

it is on just about every benchmark.

 

[hulkhelton]

thanks, i knew a 3ghz core2 would be faster than a 3ghz pentium d but just wasnt sure if if the slower core 2's would be faster than a pentium d.

 

[Davidh373]

the motherboards support core2quads... the manual actually doesnt mention that they support pentium d's even though thats whats in them.
what i want to know is if a 3ghz pentium d is slower than a 1.8ghz core2duo...

keep in mind it may be "better", but it is still REALLY SLOOOOOOW. My 2.13Ghz goes between 4%-40% just running XP on it's own. Web browser brings it to 50%-60%, and very low settings on older games bring it to full load. I think rather than spend $40... I'd spend $100 and get a modern AMD platform @ 3.0Ghz+. Even though it's more money, it's much more cost effective IMO.

 

[hulkhelton]

keep in mind it may be "better", but it is still REALLY SLOOOOOOW. My 2.13Ghz goes between 4%-40% just running XP on it's own. Web browser brings it to 50%-60%, and very low settings on older games bring it to full load. I think rather than spend $40... I'd spend $100 and get a modern AMD platform @ 3.0Ghz+. Even though it's more money, it's much more cost effective IMO.

the pentium d's dont even cause a blip on the processor running windows 7...
i have a ton of open processes right now at least 20+ and im still only using 4%-9% cpu so im not sure how you are using 40% just on xp.
the only time i see my cpu maxed out is when running convertxtodvd...

these computers are 3.2 pentium d's with radeon 5600 & 2GB DDR2 800

changing 3 already built pc's completely to AMD is more than i want to do, i can get some 1.8 C2D for $30 each so thats $90 total to upgrade all 3 computers.

i dont want to spend $300 for sure.

 

[mfenn]

Also, the board probably only supports the original 65nm C2D's, so make sure that's what you get. (Obviously, the mobo's HCL has the final say.)

 

[Davidh373]

oh, good point... Maybe something is wrong with mine then. Who knows, it's an old HP, so it wouldn't surprise me.