Pentium D or P4

Get the Pent 4, because the Intel D, is not dual core, its just two cores. No, I dont know the difference, but at the other forums that I was at, that was said. So, go for the Pent 4, but if you can get a 3.4, and you will be REALLY happy.
 
Encore4More said:
now does dual core baisically mean there are 2 2.8ghz processors smashed into one? like 2 2.8ghz working at the same time?

and would that b equivilent to 5.6ghz?
Click to expand...
wrong
ok... basically it sends a request to your processor to.. lets say... multiply 3*2... right? well it sends the request at 2.8ghz, then the processor does the multiplication, and it sends the answer back at 2.8ghz. its more complex than this, but with two cores you could multiply 3*2 one million times in a row in about half the time it would if you only had one core. of course this isn't a perfect estimate because of hyperthreading and other things such as ram speed and such... but you get the point.
id say get the 3.2ghz if you're gaming, and get the 2.8ghz dual core if you're video editing... or processor intensive apps.
 
Echo Ecko X said:
Get the Pent 4, because the Intel D, is not dual core, its just two cores. No, I dont know the difference, but at the other forums that I was at, that was said. So, go for the Pent 4, but if you can get a 3.4, and you will be REALLY happy.
Click to expand...
do you know the meaning of the word dual?
dual = two. that simple!
anyways, personally i would prefer getting a single core just because p4 has hyperthreading (if it didn't i would rather just go with dual core), but as you can see my processor runs faster than any of those anyways so i would much rather my X2:rolleyes:
 
No no.. I get that man. Its just on my old forums, it was said that its not a 'true' dual core. That yes it runs two cores, but not fully side by side. If you understand what im saying. So technicly im not wrong, he is :D
 
THis supports my thought..

First off, a Pentium D IS NOT a dual-core. It is a double core. The Pentium D doesn't directly talk to the other core, like a true Dual-Core X2 would, instead it uses the FSB to communicate to the other CPU, or core. Thus making it a "double core", because it's just two cores on a single processing package, and they don't directly communicate to each other. Tom's hardware sums it up quite nice. :)

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/10/intel_moves_from_dual_core_to_double_core/page2.html

[EDIT] Also, having a double core CPU is much better then a single core Pentium 4. Considering a Pentium 4 Prescott uses HT, which makes it think it has an extra logical processor, as oppossed to the Pentium D, which has two physical processor, thus making it a more efficient processor. :)
Click to expand...

Oh.. but it does say that the D is better. So.. Yeah.. Lol..
 
Amd has alot better benchmarks then intel amd can blow intel out of the water with its X2 and fx-60 CPU's Intels duel cores are not so great. Intel like stated above is more for Multi-Tasking suck as word,excel,adobe,ECT... but amd with there dual cores can acually replace intel over all. they can multi task and do gmaign which intel is jsut basicly set forth for multi tasking. and also with the Ghz you ahve to remeber intel div by 4 and amd div. by 2 with there clock speeds and that is why it looks lesser with there ghz but amd in hte long run is better. if you are looking for a good multi tasking and some gmaign i would look into getting a nice AMD x2 3800+ which would be hte best best unless your going all older games then i would aim for a intel pentium 4 6XX series with Hyper threading and a nice video card atleast a evga 6600 or evga 6800.
 
cause most of the newer games you well have bad benchmarks while playing them a game is a game but if you want quality you won't try to play Doom3/fear on a intel based system.
 
also with the older games i am meaning nothing that is demanding of your system like fear and doom 3 and stuff i have a brand new p4 630 oced to 3.4ghz and it is laggy on tryign to play doom3 now i wouldn't even think about running fear on it. Most of hte new games are more demanding now days then say the orginal cs and diablo 2 and so on along the lines.
 
I have the same cpu. Not overclocked though. And my computer laggs, because of my video card. its only an Ati x300. So it sucks, lol. Anyways.. what card to you have, because thats a powerfull processor you have. So i bet its your card.
 
fx5500 but even stickin a 6800gt in it you well still get low benchmarks don't get me wrong its not to noticeable without looking for it but it is noticable by me.
 
doom 3 runs on all the fx video cards so there shouldn't be a problem, i'm not downing intel but with reseach which i have done in hte past and reading form reviews intel ins't good with its shorter clocks. i think both companies do a good job at what they do but in the end amd is much better for gaming with benchmarks and 3dmark and stuff.
 
Thats true, intel is not gaming. Although my point is that, its not the processors fault that it laggs. because it doesnt with mine. Not that i have experiened.
 
no the processor don't lag but it helps with the lag. i have jsut recently became addicted to power systems and i want to sell this computer and build me a nice amd one. but with reseach which we all should do on computer parts amd wins but intel is still a great cpu but with the demanding games it tends to shy away.
 
Salvation said:
if you want quality you won't try to play Doom3/fear on a intel based system.
Click to expand...

Weird, I've played through both, 100+ fps ~ no lag... :P

Salvation said:
i have a brand new p4 630 oced to 3.4ghz and it is laggy on tryign to play doom3 now i wouldn't even think about running fear on it.
Click to expand...

Ever considered that the bottleneck might be your FX5500? Which btw is a desktop card...

Salvation said:
even stickin a 6800gt in it you well still get low benchmarks
Click to expand...

Do know that benchmarks don't reflect real world performance...

Salvation said:
doom 3 runs on all the fx video cards so there shouldn't be a problem
Click to expand...

Run the game yes,
at an accepable framerate, definitely not...

Salvation said:
i'm not downing intel but with reseach which i have done in hte past and reading form reviews intel ins't good with its shorter clocks. i think both companies do a good job at what they do but in the end amd is much better for gaming with benchmarks and 3dmark and stuff.
Click to expand...

Most of us don't buy computers to run 3dmark (though I bet some do).

Hehe I suggest you read up, starting with CPU 101 which you can find below. :)

http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13239
 
Last edited:
tweaker said:
Weird, I've played through both, 100+ fps ~ no lag... :P



Ever considered that the bottleneck might be your FX5500? Which btw is a desktop card...



Do know that benchmarks don't reflect real world performance...



Run the game yes,
at an accepable framerate, definitely not...



Most of us don't buy computers to run 3mark (though I bet some do).

Hehe I suggest you read up, starting with CPU 101 which you can find below. :)

http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13239
Click to expand...

unless u think i am stupid and i don't knwo the differnce between intergrated and a desktop card then NO i didn't know what the hell the fx5500 was. benchmarks don't i am saying if you would get it throw your skull.. that amd is much better for gaming i want u to get a intel with a 6800gt and run fear with it u tell me how good it runs compared to a 3200+ amd with a 6800gt and then lets see what u say about ur real world performance. u don't buy computers to jsut run 3mark on it but do you want to buy a computer for gmaing and not know if it is good for it or not? its like saying "DUDE I GOT A P3 AND I IT OWNS WITH THE LASTEST GAMES" before you build a computer u should reasech the parts that are better for the type of computer you make not jsut cause you can build a computer so u do it..
 
i suggest u do your research on amd vs intel or i should link u to it make it easier for you since bechmarks are not real world preformance but then without the computer preformance then i guess they woudln't have those benchmarks right? well here it is black and white plain in simple..

READ:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/14/live_stress_test_rundown/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/03/dual_core_stress_test/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/09/27/amd/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/01/03/intel_vs/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2000/09/25/amd_vs/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top