which of these two CPU's is faster ?

[jaytone1]

I have two Dells that I installed Windows 7 on. Unfortunately one wont give me the WInodws Experience Index, so I cant get how fast one of them is.

Anyway, here is the two CPU's, which one is better.

1. System 1 Intel Pentium 4 D running at 2.80 ghz ( its supports Windows 7 64 bit), this is on the Dell that originally had XP installed and this system is older than System 2 . This is a Dell E510

2. System 2 AMD 64 3200 running at 2.0 ghz (it only supports Windows 7 32 bit) but it is on a system that originally had Vista and is a newer system a Dell E521

Second question is, if the response is that the AMD 64 is a faster and better CPU, then why doesnt it support WInodws 7 64bit, should I care ?

So, if you had to keep one (assuming all the other components are the same) which CPU is better ?

Thank you very much for your help

 

[angry hampster]

There's no reason that the AMD processor can't run a 64 bit OS, consideringit is a 64-bit processor.

I don't know why you care about the WEI. Both procs will be dog slow.

 

[happy medium]

Pent D is faster then any single core Amd cpu

 

[jaytone1]

There's no reason that the AMD processor can't run a 64 bit OS, consideringit is a 64-bit processor.

I don't know why you care about the WEI. Both procs will be dog slow.

Well, when I did a Windows 7 upgrade adviser, the results said all my hardware was compatible for Windows 7 but only the 32 bit version.

 

[formulav8]

In single thread, normal stuff the A64 is faster. In multi-task or multithreaded cases the PD will be faster.

I would probably take the PD over the single core A64. Of course the PD loves to eat power and give off heat.

There is definitely no reason the Athlon64 wouldn't run perfectly fine with 64 bit software.

 

[BD231]

Well, when I did a Windows 7 upgrade adviser, the results said all my hardware was compatible for Windows 7 but only the 32 bit version.

A fresh install would give you the 64-bit option.

 

[Phynaz]

In single thread, normal stuff the A64 is faster. In multi-task or multithreaded cases the PD will be faster.

I would probably take the PD over the single core A64. Of course the PD loves to eat power and give off heat.

There is definitely no reason the Athlon64 wouldn't run perfectly fine with 64 bit software.

This.

 

[LoneNinja]

Well, when I did a Windows 7 upgrade adviser, the results said all my hardware was compatible for Windows 7 but only the 32 bit version.

When you upgrade a system, your required to upgrade 32bit-32bit or 64bit-64bit. The Athlon 64 series is fully 64bit capable, hence the reason 64 was added to the naming scheme. A fresh install of windows shoudl allow you to do a 64bit install. Doesn't really matter though unless you've got 4Gb+ ram.

As already mentioned, the Pd will be faster overall because it's a dual core, but the Athlon can still beat it in single threaded performance.

 

[evolucion8]

Pentium D. Even though it lacks of Hyper Threading which makes the CPU slower than similar clocked Pentium 4's with Hyper Threading in single threaded scenarios, the Athlon 64 will be too slow anyways to take advantage of the optimizations that a 64-Bit OS can give.

 

[formulav8]

the Athlon 64 will be too slow anyways to take advantage of the optimizations that a 64-Bit OS can give.

Huh? Do you have experience with this? Because I Do and that is not the case at all. I've had a 3400+ s754 1MB L2 Cache single core running Vista 64 perfectly fine and a Turion64 MT37 2ghz 1MB L2 cache cpu running Windows7.

I am not sure where you got your data from. I've seen no where that the additional overhead of 64 bit extensions causing a cpu to be slow when it was plenty fast in a 32 bit os. In fact, there are instances that performance Increases going from a 32 bit to a 64 bit variant using the same cpu.

This is my experience.


Jason

 

[0roo0roo]

At this point any single core processor is a cripple. For general computing the pentium D was ok. Not optimal in either case though, even a 2ghz core2 would slaughter that penitum d.

and as said unless u got more than 4gb of ram, it doesn't matter if you use 32/64bit. itsnot inherently faster.

 

[tweakboy]

Yes, my dad has a Pentium D @3ghz thx

 

[Ben90]

Yes, my dad has a Pentium D @3ghz thx

Your dad sounds like an interesting person. Please tell us more.

 

[Soundmanred]

Yes, my dad has a Pentium D @3ghz thx

And?

 

[tweakboy]

Im guessing 9k score ,, thx

 

[Soundmanred]

Im guessing 9k score ,, thx

OVER 9000!?!?!?
No Wai!
KTHXBAILOLFWIW!!

 

[evolucion8]

Huh? Do you have experience with this? Because I Do and that is not the case at all. I've had a 3400+ s754 1MB L2 Cache single core running Vista 64 perfectly fine and a Turion64 MT37 2ghz 1MB L2 cache cpu running Windows7.

I am not sure where you got your data from. I've seen no where that the additional overhead of 64 bit extensions causing a cpu to be slow when it was plenty fast in a 32 bit os. In fact, there are instances that performance Increases going from a 32 bit to a 64 bit variant using the same cpu.

This is my experience.


Jason

I worked on a customer computer that had an Athlon 64 3200+, and didn't find a performance difference between Windows XP 32-Bits and Windows XP 64-Bits version. Athlon 64 benefits of performance gains running in Long Mode, but the gains aren't that spectacular and its a single core CPU. Windows 7 main advantage are gains in multi threading performance and memory usage, so at least a dual core CPU is recommended.