Cyrilix Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Is there a 3.8ghz dual core pentium? never heard of it, not even in intel's page, if you have info plz post :p 585987932[/snapback] No, I was just saying that if there was a P4 3.8 GHz dual core (but there isn't), then it would probably be comparable to AMD's 4400+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Help Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 (edited) Voted for Pentium D 820. Am I the only one that thinks that this is a bargain? I refuse to pay more then $300 for any single component, therefore I would probably choose the Pentium D 830 and just overclock it to 3.4 GHz or higher.I still can't get over how AMD fans used to use the cost argument in the past and now that AMD is becoming more expensive they are using the performance argument. 585987622[/snapback] Do you have an LCD monitor? I am sure that a decent one will cost over $300. Edited May 30, 2005 by Help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orien Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I would get the AMD 64 X2 4400+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeboy Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 the 3.8 dual core would cost a lot more than the 4400+ that is my point, you see, a mid range Pentium costs the same as a very good AMD!, when they produce the 3.8ghz dual core, I am sure it will cost much core than AMD 4400+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwai lo Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 the 3.8 dual core would cost a lot more than the 4400+ that is my point, you see, a mid range Pentium costs the same as a very good AMD!, when they produce the 3.8ghz dual core, I am sure it will cost much core than AMD 4400+ 585987976[/snapback] I doubt Intel will be able to scale that high, too much power consumption and heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kr0z Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I would choose the Pentium D, got burned years ago with AMD processors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted May 30, 2005 Global Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2005 hmm.. with intel dropping there prices so much, i am sorta interested in Pentium D. but if im going big.. im defenitely not going gome.. i'd go with AMD 4600+! GO BIG OR GO HOME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeboy Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 guys, the 4600+ I think it dosn't cut it, it is only a 200mhz increase, but the cache is 512kb p/core, the 4400+ is 2.2 (easily get to 2.4) with 1mb cache p/core, so its double the cache, for 220$ more you get 200mhz more, but half the cache, I would not go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Out of those the 4400+... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekrosoft13 Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 it hurts to say this but Intel is finished in my book now that Intel adds DRM, this is the last nail into the coffin AMD X2 4800+ for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrilix Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I doubt Intel will be able to scale that high, too much power consumption and heat. 585987987[/snapback] I doubt they'll get there with the 8xx series of chips (if they add more), but maybe next generation will reach those speeds. Is it Conroe that they're working on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwai lo Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Yeah..supposed to be based off the Merom..so it's not as netburst as the current line of cpus, I think..that with 65nm. Next round of proccessors should be interesting. Yonah is coming too. :happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 AMD... always AMD :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 (edited) I'd love to see some comparitive reviews. And I wonder what the thermals are like on it? Is a huge loud fan needed? My biggest pet peeve with the desktop space is the noise associated with it unless you move to water cooling (or have something like cool'n'quiet). 585986724[/snapback] Yep, like when XP and P4 came out, nice comparitive reviews came up as to how much heat, power consumptions, then teh good ol' "trusworthy" benchmarks :p I voted null, As I haven't used neither of those two, hopefully by August prices have come down :rolleyes: and then maybe start with an X2 ( this upon reading reviews, benchmarks, etc.) although I am an AMD fanboy, if intel were to produce cheap, fast chips, that's the way I would go :p Edit: I see Intel Pentium d 840 has quite a few votes, I thought this would be a AMD no-brainer choice, but then again agreed...Intel sells things mainly to *dumb* (computer illiterate) people. I'm not saying that people who buy Intel are dumb, heck, you can configure a very nice Intel system, but Intel's marketing strategies are meant to take advantage of the unwary. Intel is probably selling it's low end 820 for tricking users on buying a cheap pc, but with the power of two! :sleep: <sarcasm> and since it's cheap and intel, it must be good </sarcasm> Edited May 30, 2005 by maudit Victor Rambo 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I would not pay ANY money for a CPU design that still relys on a FSB and a MCH. AMD's Direct Connect is the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 No, I was just saying that if there was a P4 3.8 GHz dual core (but there isn't), then it would probably be comparable to AMD's 4400+. 585987950[/snapback] That depends entirely on the application. The 840 beats the X2 4800+ in some apps. The same that applied to the single core apply to the dual core, AMD is better in gaming and Intel is better in encoding and rendering. The only difference now is that Intel is no longer better in multitasking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrilix Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 That depends entirely on the application. The 840 beats the X2 4800+ in some apps. The same that applied to the single core apply to the dual core, AMD is better in gaming and Intel is better in encoding and rendering. The only difference now is that Intel is no longer better in multitasking. 585988773[/snapback] I don't think so. AMD is now superior in both cases for a majority of applications. There is no more confusion here. Check the benchies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeboy Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 I agree with Cyrilix, AMD now beats Intel at everything! :punk: But still it seems that the fx-55 is better for gaming, since games dont use multitasking, so the 400mhz diff is all that is supperioir in the fx-55, you guys think the nes X2 can beat that 2.6ghz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwai lo Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Dual cores only have advantages in multithreaded applications and multitasking. Single threaded applications will still excel in single core processors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeboy Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 yes, but I am talking OC potential, cause if we would oc the 4400 to 2.6, it would be just the same as the fx-55 no? 1mb cache and 2.6ghz, meanwhyle, I think that it would be superior, cause it will have a second core to do the rest of the stuff, like play music whyle playing HL2 out of the subject, but just thought it was pretty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stezo2k Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 i'd go for the 4400 if i had the money though AMD's are pricey, they are still better performance than the PD's, unless Intel has higher performance for a lower cost i'll stay AMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkaterAustin Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 amd, so far benchmarks shown them to be faster this time around and your getting a good deal really for the speed. I think the 4400+ comes out being an extra 350ish for the second core and cost 581 bux for the processor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwai lo Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 yes, but I am talking OC potential, cause if we would oc the 4400 to 2.6, it would be just the same as the fx-55 no? 1mb cache and 2.6ghz, meanwhyle, I think that it would be superior, cause it will have a second core to do the rest of the stuff, like play music whyle playing HL2 585991582[/snapback] See this is where sloppy typing comes into play: But still it seems that the fx-55 is better for gaming, since games dont use multitasking, so the 400mhz diff is all that is supperioir in the fx-55, you guys think the new X2 can beat that at 2.6ghz? 585991534[/snapback] ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeboy Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 See this is where sloppy typing comes into play:QUOTE(mikeboy @ May 30 2005, 13:48) But still it seems that the fx-55 is better for gaming, since games dont use multitasking, so the 400mhz diff is all that is supperioir in the fx-55, you guys think the new X2 can beat that at 2.6ghz? yep, I had tiping, (im latin don't jugde! ;D ) but I meant beat those 2.6ghz edit: yet again, a typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeboy Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 I will quote from my web findings: Prices x2 4200+ 2.2ghz 1mb $537x2 4400+ 2.2ghz 2mb $581 x2 4600+ 2.4ghz 1mb $803 x2 4800+ 2.4ghz 2mb $1001 At first the prices seem a little steep, but consider that your actually getting 2 processors for the price. 2 athlon 64 2.2ghz(3500+) cpus would cost $544, inline with the dual 2.2ghz 4200+ x2's price of $537. Intel's dual cores are called "Pentium D" and will be available in the following speeds and prices: -Pentium D 820 2.8ghz $241 830 3.0ghz $316 840 3.2ghz $530 The pentium d is slower than the athlon x2 though, the highest pentium d, the 840 3.2, should be comparable to the lowest athlon x2, the 2.2ghz 4200+(which is actually like two 3500+ a64's), athough it still may beat it. here is a very good comparison between all CPUs (not all, but most of 'em) isung 3D Mark03 http://216.92.52.205/index.html?modelx=33&...el2=18&chart=17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts