pentium D or pentium 4 HT? and video card help.

L

lokodezine

New Member
Pentium® D Processor 830 with Dual Core Technology (3GHz, 800FSB) or Pentium® 4 Processor 640 with HT Technology (3.20GHz, 800 FSB)

Which is better? and how is the 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) nVidia GeForce 6800 for a video card?
 
play a few games, but mainly use for media (watchind dvds, tv, listneing and saving music), and desiging with photoshop/fireworks/flash, and the normal use of Microsoft works for school and the basic use of internet surfing.
 
lokodezine said:
Pentium® D Processor 830 with Dual Core Technology (3GHz, 800FSB) or Pentium® 4 Processor 640 with HT Technology (3.20GHz, 800 FSB)

Which is better? and how is the 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) nVidia GeForce 6800 for a video card?
Click to expand...

definately the pentium D. i lost the article but intel admitted that they rushed the pentium D's to counter the amd x2 lineup of dual core processors. they admitted the pentium D was basically two pentium 4 processors connected on a single die.
 
So in the same line of thought then, which is better, the pentium D or the amd x2. I've decided on a dual processor after doing some more research on toms hardware. Definitely the best for my needs which mainly revolve around multitasking, but I'm unsure which dual proc to go with now. Any suggestions?
 
aj327 said:
So in the same line of thought then, which is better, the pentium D or the amd x2. I've decided on a dual processor after doing some more research on toms hardware. Definitely the best for my needs which mainly revolve around multitasking, but I'm unsure which dual proc to go with now. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

AMD X2 is better than the Pentium D.
 
I can't help but get the idea that people just shamelessly plug AMD over intel just for the sake of it. I just got the following off an article posted on Toms Hardware today:

If you are looking to assemble a versatile system, you will notice an interesting development: While AMD has been providing the best price/performance ratio out there, the quality level of the two processor giants' products has converged. Should a dual core system find its way in your dream machine, Intel's Pentium D even outperforms AMD's X2 in terms of price/performance - although the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ was recently added to fight in the middle end.
 
aj327 said:
I can't help but get the idea that people just shamelessly plug AMD over intel just for the sake of it. I just got the following off an article posted on Toms Hardware today:

If you are looking to assemble a versatile system, you will notice an interesting development: While AMD has been providing the best price/performance ratio out there, the quality level of the two processor giants' products has converged. Should a dual core system find its way in your dream machine, Intel's Pentium D even outperforms AMD's X2 in terms of price/performance - although the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ was recently added to fight in the middle end.
Click to expand...

ok...but i know people who have both (Pentium D 840) and AMD x2 (4400+ i believe) and the AMD is preferred over the Intel.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article.php?aid=226&pid=1 - in THIS review they compare a pentium D 840 EE and an 820 with an AMD x2 4200+ and a 3800+. The majority of the wins are with AMD. and the ones with AMD losing, the differences are small to moderate. AMD prevails in multi-threading benchies mostly (the POINT of a dual core CPU)

"First of all, from a budget standpoint, the 3800+ bests a very game Pentium D 820 in almost every benchmark. Looking at this from one point of view, the Pentium D 820 is a little over $118 cheaper at $236 as compared to the 3800+ X2's $354 price tag. But, and this is a big BUT, the Pentium D 820 requires a new motherboard, either an Intel based 945 or 955 chipset board, while on the other hand, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will work with nearly every 939 motherboard on the market with a simple BIOS upgrade... that quickly erases that $118 price difference."
 
Nice reply. I suppose I owe you an apology for the shameless plug comment, since you're actually backing up your sidedness with evidence.

That article was interesting, and I think I'm going to go with the AMD because of it actually. If it means spending an extra hundred bucks to get something that's better, then that's no big deal. If the pentium D 820 also used the hyperthreading technology I would go with the pentium, but at this point AMD looks like the winner. Now I just have to find a good motherboard to go with it.

By the way, does anyone know how much faster the SATA hard drives are relative to the standard it's replacing? I was considering just keeping my old hard drives (200 + 120), but if SATA is markedly and noticably faster then I'd definitely consider upgrading.
 
its alright, i didn't take it personally. you'll find mixed reviews all over the web, cuz' i think i've seen a few showing the Pentium D over the AMD. but after a friend reviewed his D, and i can trust him, the results were somewhat dissapointing on intel's side.

i'm still using ATA133 on one of my HDD's (trying to get the other on SATA150.) i personally think it would be worth the upgrade if you're interested in a high performance rig. if you're not too worried about getting speed in every aspect of your rig, it's not a necessity.

http://geeks.com/pix/techtips-010605.htm

SCSI is also an option i think. performance wise most SATA drives are still faster in the benchmark arena (higher disk throughput). but SCSI drives still hold the advantage of using very little CPU power, which in turn leaves more CPU power for the rest of your system which can also improve overall system performance.
 
Last edited:
Hm. Interesting article. It's weird though, they talked about the significant performance advantage with SATA over ATA, yet only cited a 5% increase in speed. Not sure I'd even be able to detect that. Sure, in the future they said they'll be able to increase the speed from the current 150mb/s to 600mb/s by 2008 which would be something to be sure, but when you're just improving from a 133mg/s to 150, doesn't seem worth the couple hundred bucks it would take to replace my old drives.
 
aj327 said:
Hm. Interesting article. It's weird though, they talked about the significant performance advantage with SATA over ATA, yet only cited a 5% increase in speed. Not sure I'd even be able to detect that. Sure, in the future they said they'll be able to increase the speed from the current 150mb/s to 600mb/s by 2008 which would be something to be sure, but when you're just improving from a 133mg/s to 150, doesn't seem worth the couple hundred bucks it would take to replace my old drives.
Click to expand...

oh i guess i forgot u were replacing, in that case i wouldn't do it (or i would not still be using mt ATA HDD's lol)

between ATA133 and my SATA150 adapter the benchmarks i run give me almost the same results. but i feel better running SATA150 cuz' it's just braggin right lol. the first time i used SATA i thoiught there was a huge increase in speed, but i was reading the chart wrong :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top