APM98
New Member
Im not sure why this dual-core is so inexpensive? Is it because the low bus speeds?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001
Whats with this dual core
- Thread starter APM98
- Start date
fade2green514
Active Member
because its underclocked a ton "2.66GHz"
yes, thats slower than the slowest single core processor out there. basically its the worst gaming processor you can get. only get it if you are doing processor intensive apps... probly o/cs some but its still 90nm so not too much :-\
basically an athlon 64 at 1.8ghz is better than that, by a long shot.
orrr... a P4 3.0ghz
yes, thats slower than the slowest single core processor out there. basically its the worst gaming processor you can get. only get it if you are doing processor intensive apps... probly o/cs some but its still 90nm so not too much :-\
basically an athlon 64 at 1.8ghz is better than that, by a long shot.
orrr... a P4 3.0ghz
apj101
VIP Member
because it under clock from what? that's its stock speed
What! - 2.66ghz is slower than the slowest single core processor, hmmm I have a PIC16F84 microcontroller running on an extranal 4mhz crystal sitting right next to me, it's running my pin-driven power switch. Lest i point out that 4mhz < 2.66ghz
Dont be rediculous, in the mass market there are probably somewhere near 1000 different cpus available, of which probably 100 can beat the 805 in a gaming rig, i recon that puts it in the top 10%.
I see the point your trying to make, and agree that there are better gaming chips available (although a slightly different price
erformance points). But lets not talk crap 
gaming does count as processor intensive, just less so than say audio/video encoding.
you say that as though 90nm is antiquated, most chips still run on 90nm cores (agreed the new core duo and preslers/cedars are 65nm), and lest i point out no 65nm cores are made by AMD. Also the die package size wont impact too much on your ocing ability: which by the way is substantially more that "not too much"
I assume you mean the 3000+, few refer to clock speed with amd.
Why are we assuming he is gaming, lets choose something more intel freindly say multi pass divx encoding: the D805 will run circles around the amd64 3000+.
In gaming, the 3000+ may have an edge, probably widened by the lower bandwidth of the D805 through 133fsb (i dont have any benchies on it to hand), but with a little game engine optimisation that picture could change
Given the price of this dual core they are very good for budget systems, and if i had the choice i know what i would pick, 805 all the way
*sigh*
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
from its other pentium D counterpartsapj101 said:
that they manufacture!apj101 said:What! - 2.66ghz is slower than the slowest single core processor, hmmm I have a PIC16F84 microcontroller running on an extranal 4mhz crystal sitting right next to me, it's running my pin-driven power switch. Lest i point out that 4mhz < 2.66ghz
pentium 4 cores (yes, two) at 2.66ghz = less fps than athlon 64 CHIP at 1.8ghzapj101 said:Dont be rediculous, in the mass market there are probably somewhere near 1000 different cpus available, of which probably 100 can beat the 805 in a gaming rig, i recon that puts it in the top 10%.
I see the point your trying to make, and agree that there are better gaming chips available (although a slightly different price
yes, but most games don't use both athlon64 cores on my computer, and frequency matters more in most cases (for games)apj101 said:
most newer intel chips ARE on 65nm so id suggest a newer one, that's what i meant! (more o/cability = more value out of your processor!)apj101 said:
yes, but divx encoding only takes so long, gaming is a constant process... you can "set it and forget it" while divx encodingapj101 said:
the 3000+ would massacre a pentium D at 2.66ghz in gaming--guaranteedapj101 said:
lol i guess if you're a cheapskate... oh well, personally id get the lowest clocked 65nm they have and o/c it a ton...apj101 said:
cant wait till conroe comes out
apj101
VIP Member
well the range has to start somewhere
what about the p4 505, or the p4 506.
or if we move onto the celeron range anything under the 330 all clock under 2.66ghz
And all are currently being manufactured
care to post some respectable source benchies, so we can see the difference
and lets not forget, no-one said he was gaming
are we now comparing the 805 to the 3800x2? if so be sure to adjust results for the 50% price difference
If this was the case then your changing your argument postion, if mhz is the only factor in gaming performance as per this statement then intel would be gaming kings, which i;m sure we both agree is not the case
true, but you;ll have to sit and forget a lot longer with a non x2 amd in you box, lol
plus for some folk this time is critical!
real world benchies?
typo on my part, meant to say 90nm. I have edited my post
arn;t we all cheapskates, we all want the best bang for buck.
Also note that overclocking reports for the 805 are very good, with some folk approaching 3.9 ghz on air.
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
dude i REALLY dont have time for this lol... all's im saying is that the chip was priced rightfully because its not that high of performance.
fade2green514
Active Member
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=203&model2=248&chart=68
as you see, the Pentium D one step UP from the one we are talking about... at 2.8ghz performs about 32.1 FPS LESS than th athlon 64 3000+ clocked at 1.8ghz. OWNED
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=203&model2=248&chart=71
performed worse by 25 or so fps in UT2004
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=203&model2=248&chart=51
about 15fps in wolfenstein
its funny because the sempron 2600+ seems to be in the same area for gaming... how much does it cost? alot less. even the sempron 3000+ would be a better choice for gaming.
ANY Athlon 64 would school that chip in gaming
though it takes the Athlon 64 like... 2-3 minutes longer for encoding and such... oh well "set it and forget it"
of course, i have A64 X2 so i don't need to worry about performance in either area yay lol
as you see, the Pentium D one step UP from the one we are talking about... at 2.8ghz performs about 32.1 FPS LESS than th athlon 64 3000+ clocked at 1.8ghz. OWNED
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=203&model2=248&chart=71
performed worse by 25 or so fps in UT2004
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=203&model2=248&chart=51
about 15fps in wolfenstein
its funny because the sempron 2600+ seems to be in the same area for gaming... how much does it cost? alot less. even the sempron 3000+ would be a better choice for gaming.
ANY Athlon 64 would school that chip in gaming
though it takes the Athlon 64 like... 2-3 minutes longer for encoding and such... oh well "set it and forget it"
of course, i have A64 X2 so i don't need to worry about performance in either area
yay lol
Last edited:
Dr Studly
banned
wow...wow... wow!
to people just assume that everyone is gaming??? did the guy say he was gaming? no. he was just asing why it was so cheap.
and btw, my dad just got a Pentium D 820 and it is a very good processor. I am sure the 805 would be comparable if you OCed it a bit. And the 805 is far from the worst gaming processor there is! Im sure the Athlon 3000+ would be better on most games now but not on games that can utilize both cores (future games and quake 4...) so for gaming i would get a dual-core if i want to play future games... even if it is an intel.
The Pentium D's get so much badstuff said about them. They are very fine processors besides how hot they get (they all idle around 50C). My dad has a Pentium D 820 2.8GHz/2gb ram/ATA100 7200RPM 120GBharddrive and his computer boots up in 15 seconds they are very strong processors. He can multi-task and do everything he needs fine. Sure BF2 won't work and games like that, but if he had a better grfx card, Quake 4, COD2, future "dual-core-utilizing-games" would be great on it, because of the dual-core. Pentium D's make great budget Dual-Core systems.
to people just assume that everyone is gaming??? did the guy say he was gaming? no. he was just asing why it was so cheap.
and btw, my dad just got a Pentium D 820 and it is a very good processor. I am sure the 805 would be comparable if you OCed it a bit. And the 805 is far from the worst gaming processor there is! Im sure the Athlon 3000+ would be better on most games now but not on games that can utilize both cores (future games and quake 4...) so for gaming i would get a dual-core if i want to play future games... even if it is an intel.
The Pentium D's get so much badstuff said about them. They are very fine processors besides how hot they get (they all idle around 50C). My dad has a Pentium D 820 2.8GHz/2gb ram/ATA100 7200RPM 120GBharddrive and his computer boots up in 15 seconds they are very strong processors. He can multi-task and do everything he needs fine. Sure BF2 won't work and games like that, but if he had a better grfx card, Quake 4, COD2, future "dual-core-utilizing-games" would be great on it, because of the dual-core. Pentium D's make great budget Dual-Core systems.
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
lol notice the 30fps gain with the 3000+ and theyre in the same price area... its the worst gaming proc for that price lol... no doubt about it
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537
note, the PD 2.66ghz has 30fps less, and costs $135 and the 3000+ costs $127. that 805 is probably the worst gaming processor for a budget computer.
nobody said he was gaming, he was asking why it was so cheap, i told him.
OWNED
AGAIN
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537
note, the PD 2.66ghz has 30fps less, and costs $135 and the 3000+ costs $127. that 805 is probably the worst gaming processor for a budget computer.
nobody said he was gaming, he was asking why it was so cheap, i told him.
OWNED
AGAIN
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
look back in the thread... where its got the THG benchmarks.Encore4More said:
Dr Studly
banned
ok.... so what is ur point?
i already said the 3000+ is better on games that only support one core... but lets see a benchmark with the Pentium D 820 against the 3000+ in quake 4 or COD2 (with the thread that supports dual-core threading)
i was arguing that the pentium D is better in Quake 4, COD2 and most future games that support dual-core threading
i already said the 3000+ is better on games that only support one core... but lets see a benchmark with the Pentium D 820 against the 3000+ in quake 4 or COD2 (with the thread that supports dual-core threading)
i was arguing that the pentium D is better in Quake 4, COD2 and most future games that support dual-core threading
fade2green514
Active Member
i guess it depends on what you do with you're computer, correct? the athlon 64 3000+ is faster in doing single core, but has less cpu resources. they're priced rightfully though.
either way my processor is better than any of these "low grades" were talking about...
lol i prefer spending more though
i guess theyre both good but i'd still prefer the 3000+ just because i dont do much video editing and stuff.... of course i do alot of quake 4 so i need dual core yay lol
either way my processor is better than any of these "low grades" were talking about...
lol i prefer spending more though
i guess theyre both good but i'd still prefer the 3000+ just because i dont do much video editing and stuff.... of course i do alot of quake 4 so i need dual core
yay lol
suprasteve
New Member
I think you all have flexed the nerd muscles quite enough for today....
Dr Studly
banned
so 3000+ if u wanna play most games now, and dual-core if u want to play most futuregames and quake for and COD2fade2green514 said:i guess it depends on what you do with you're computer, correct? the athlon 64 3000+ is faster in doing single core, but has less cpu resources. they're priced rightfully though.
either way my processor is better than any of these "low grades" were talking about...
lol i prefer spending more though
i guess theyre both good but i'd still prefer the 3000+ just because i dont do much video editing and stuff.... of course i do alot of quake 4 so i need dual core