Whats Better Pentium D 3.8Ghz or Core 2 duo E4300?

[HFS+]

I would asume pentium d is because its 2ghz faster?

 

[Qianglong]

No the Core 2 Duo will easily beat out the Pentium D in any benchmarks. Pentium D has much lower IPC compared to Core 2 Duo which means at any given clock, the Pentium is slower than the Core 2.

 

[Gikaseixas]

E4300 is better than the Pentium D in every way possible, nuff said

 

[sm625]

Yeah even the pentium extreme edition 955 with two 3.4GHz cores and 4 threads cannot beat a stock clocked E4300. Its really rather sad.... Just make sure this E4300 machine is actually running in dual channel memory mode. If stuck in single channel mode it might make it slightly worse than a 3.8 GHz Pentium D. But only slightly lol.

 

[exar333]

E4300, hands down.

 

[tweakboy]

We have a spare PC now in room for the kids,, its s Pentium D @ 3Ghz

Its SLOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!! as heck,, My old Athlon XP 2500+ felt better....

its dual core but,, nothing impressive, its abasically P4 tech, Core 2 is whole new generation whole new technology, the Dual core Core 2 is soo oo soooo much faster then a Pentium D. thx gl

 

[bradcollins]

Nothing beats a Pentium Extreme Edition at 3.73ghz in winter though

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nothing beats a Pentium Extreme Edition at 3.73ghz in winter though

Except maybe a Q6600 @ 3.6.

 

[Ferzerp]

Except maybe a Q6600 @ 3.6.

Or a few 100W light bulbs....

Or.... An OC'ed BD...

 

[toyota]

the E4300 is only at 1.8 and is pretty butchered cache wise. the 3.8 Pentium D would easily come close to the E4300 in some cases if both are stock. without searching, I do not ever recall a 3.8 Pentium D though.

 

[Don Karnage]

Netburst.... D:

 

[blckgrffn]

the E4300 is only at 1.8 and is pretty butchered cache wise. the 3.8 Pentium D would easily come close to the E4300 in some cases if both are stock. without searching, I do not ever recall a 3.8 Pentium D though.

It's basically an e6300 - a processor that thumped everything out there when it came out, just down 60 mhz and some FSB speed.

http://ark.intel.com/products/28024/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E4300-(2M-Cache-1_80-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)

Looks like they trade blows with the e6300 mostly coming out on top of the 965 EE PD:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2051/4

No power consumption comparisons, sadly but that e4300 should run very cheap and cool versus that space heater PD.

 

[LoneNinja]

Except maybe a Q6600 @ 3.6.

Lets not forget a 3.2Ghz Phenom X4 or 4.8Ghz FX 8150, I bet both of those are more power hungry than the Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz.


OP, The Pentium D is GARBAGE, even the slowest Core2 processors and Athlon X2 processors beat them while consuming much less power.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

I got a Pentium D. Its slow af.

 

[MrTeal]

This is all you really need to know...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2149/3
I assume you mean the 3.73GHz Pentium D, which is faster than the 945. Not that much faster, but faster.

It will use less power than the Pentium D though, and with an easy air overclock would blow the Pentium D out of the water. I have a E2140, E4500 and D940 and had a E4300, and while there really wasn't a huge difference between the E4300/E2140 and the Pentium D when running stock, both the Core chips would OC north of 3GHz with no effort and destroy the 940.

 

[IonusX]

I got a Pentium D. Its slow af.

a pentium D is basically a pentium 4 with a space hea.. i mean 2nd core glued on.

 

[Concillian]

Nothing beats a Pentium Extreme Edition at 3.73ghz in winter though

115 W TDP is lower than any 1366 or LGA2011 Intel CPU.

People give the P4 crap for being a space heater, but modern high end CPUs produce as much or more heat than the P4.

 

[Arkaign]

I'm gonna get lynched for saying this, but in terms of pure performance, the IPC of a 2MB L2 Core 2 Duo was on average 2.05x that of a Pentium D. IOW, take the 1.8ghz of the E4300, multiply that by 2.05, and you 3690. So a Pentium D around that clock speed on the same exact board, same ram, same hdd, etc, could be nearly indistinguishable in performance.

That said, most C2D setups came with better boards, ram, hdds, etc, and that will tend to skew the average system performance towards the C2D for sure. Eg; a PD 3.6 on a 915 board with 2GB of DDR2-533, a 160gb 2005-era hdd, and an ATI X800 would compare somewhat poorly to a C2D 1.8 with 2GB of DDR2-667, a 500gb 2007-era hard drive, and an ATI 3650.

And then there's the issue of heat/power. A PD at 3.6ghz is a damned furnace.

TL : DR - technically on equal terms there's not that much performance difference, but IRL the C2D is the better bet every time and twice on sunday.

 

[bradcollins]

Concillian, with a clamp meter on the 12v line it pulled about 14 amps in prime, even accounting for VRM inefficiencies, I doubt it really was a 115w TDP cpu.

Running at at 1.5v and 4.26ghz was scary!

Also remember that while a Q6600 at 3.6ghz or an i7 920 at 4.0ghz or whatever modern fast cpu will consume a lot of power, it will get the job done quickly.

Check out this page from the techreport: http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/16

The P-D's will use a rediculous amount of power and keep on sucking down that much power for much much longer than any other modern cpu because they take so much longer to complete the task! I don't mind that my 3930k uses a bit of power, it finishes things so quick that it is never at it's maximum power consumption for very long!

 

[T_Yamamoto]

a pentium D is basically a pentium 4 with a space hea.. i mean 2nd core glued on.

I just want to throw this old dell out my window

 

[MrTeal]

Concillian, with a clamp meter on the 12v line it pulled about 14 amps in prime, even accounting for VRM inefficiencies, I doubt it really was a 115w TDP cpu.

Running at at 1.5v and 4.26ghz was scary!

Also remember that while a Q6600 at 3.6ghz or an i7 920 at 4.0ghz or whatever modern fast cpu will consume a lot of power, it will get the job done quickly.

Check out this page from the techreport: http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/16

The P-D's will use a rediculous amount of power and keep on sucking down that much power for much much longer than any other modern cpu because they take so much longer to complete the task! I don't mind that my 3930k uses a bit of power, it finishes things so quick that it is never at it's maximum power consumption for very long!

That's basically inline with the following graph from Anandtech.

Those 220W readings are at the wall, and for the whole system. Actual system power is probably closer to 190W after PSU inefficiencies are deducted, so if you were pulling 170W just into the CPU at stock speeds and voltage you much have had an incredibly bad sample.

 

[bradcollins]

Maybe, it was an early EE that was made in 2005 but I received it in January 2006.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

No competition when you start overclocking. E4300s were great for that

 

[Shmee]

budget core 2 duos/pentium dual cores in general were great for OCing. Remember the E5200?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

I just want to throw this old dell out my window

Do it. You will have a good enough excuse to get a new computer.

I personally love Pentium 4's. Intel was crazy enough for putting 89 Watt parts into some high end laptops. Such as mine Toshiba A75.