28 replies to this topic

[Nogert]

Well I was having a look round yesterday for a new procesor and I see, amd dual core 3.0 blah blah then I see a pentium dual core 3.0

But heres the thing, the amd was £500+ and the pentium was £100+

Now my freind has a Pentium and says it's pretty good, and runs well.

So is there anything actually wrong with pentium, also please don't just act all amd fanboy and be like pentium is gay lol, I need some good points

[Da_maniaC]

What you saw was right.

It was most likely an older series of Pentium dual core processor (The 8xx series).

Since Intel will be selling a new type of processor (Core 2 no longer named Pentium) this or next month, they cut prices a little while ago on all old processors.

This is pretty convenient since the 805 processor is a hell of an overclocker.

Though the new series of Intel coming out (also named conroe) will be a lot faster and the normal model will go for around the same price as the 'normal' pentium 4 did. According to Intel that should be around 250 dollars upon release.

Now here's the thing.

The current AMD dual cores are just a little bit faster then the old Intel dual cores.
But as you noticed the intel dual cores can come out 5 times as cheap.
On the other hand comparing a 3 GHz Intel model to a 3 GHz AMD model is like comparing oranges to peaches though.
AMD uses a different architecture which means they can do more calculations at a lower clockspeed.
The 3 GHz AMD will be way faster.
So the exact equilevant to the 3 GHz Intel will probably be an AMD dual core around 2 GHz.

If you are looking into buying a complete new rig i can only advice you to hold on just a little longer and buy a new Intel processor though.
Early benchmarks have shown they are cold as hell (Only 2-3 degrees celsius above ambient) and they have also shown the core 2 processors are really good overclockers.
In overall Core 2 is also intels new architecture (Centrino was the core 1 technology and they improved it / added new stuff to it).
But this also means they will have a lower clockspeed (standard model is 2,13 Ghz i think) and still they beat the AMD processors.
If i recall correctly the 2,3 GHz model was able to beat a AMD FX-64 processor that was at 2,4 GHz in pretty much every test.

[ShiZ]

But this also means they will have a lower clockspeed (standard model is 2,13 Ghz i think) and still they beat the AMD processors.
If i recall correctly the 2,3 GHz model was able to beat a AMD FX-64 processor that was at 2,4 GHz in pretty much every test.

The E6600 smokes the fx-62, both in performance and price as shown here. Not an fx-64, but still pretty nice benchmark.

[Da_maniaC]

The E6600 smokes the fx-62, both in performance and price as shown here. Not an fx-64, but still pretty nice benchmark.

Ah i see.

Well, the one i was talking about was released by Intel themselves about 3 months ago.
Would understand it if the benchmark was biased by them, but if i am correct ppl on the Xtremesystems forums did the tests similar to see if that was the case.

[Nogert]

Atm I have an amd 3000+ which is only 1.6 ghz, so getting a pentium for 2.6 ghz which is dual core, seems right, btw it's £80 I think i'm going to get this, AMD maybe be faster but 5.2ghz is enough for me.

[Weegee_101]

Atm I have an amd 3000+ which is only 1.6 ghz, so getting a pentium for 2.6 ghz which is dual core, seems right, btw it's £80 I think i'm going to get this, AMD maybe be faster but 5.2ghz is enough for me.

The chances of you overclocking it to 5.2 ghz are slim. If you're getting the 805 you're much more likely to get close to 3.2 ghz out of it, but you're gonna need some serious heat management.

[ShiZ]

I think he added the cores together, which we all know isn't correct

[Garamiah]

I think he added the cores together, which we all know isn't correct

lol but but, dual-core means twice as fast

[Nogert]

Read the top of the screen, also I don't want overclocking, also what exaclty does dual core mean then if it isn't actually 2 cores.

And can I just ask this


http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/107617/rb/20326191455

Better than an AMD 3000+ 1.6ghz

[Weiman]

lol but but, dual-core means twice as fast

No it doesn't.

Though I'm curious what a clockspeed on a Dual-core PRoc. EXACTLY means.

[Weegee_101]

Read the top of the screen, also I don't want overclocking, also what exaclty does dual core mean then if it isn't actually 2 cores.

And can I just ask this
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/107617/rb/20326191455

Better than an AMD 3000+ 1.6ghz

Clockspeed doesn't matter as much since netburst is being phased out because of its terrible design. The honest truth is that while clockspeed is indeed important, there are other factors that are important as well that rate how fast your processor runs. Measuring processors by clockspeed is a terrible way to measure their performance, as are most benchmarks, but the idea is that the general public won't understand what a Flop is, so there is a lot of reason why marketing departments with Intel and AMD go by clockspeed.

Dual core means its practically two processors in one, which allow for more data to be processed at once. The clockspeed is the same for both cores, but multitasking performs a lot better than it would on a single core processor. It doesn't double the clockspeed or anything, and really it doesn't double performance either, but it does increase performance in some areas. The 805, Intel's entry-level dual core, really doesn't perform much better than a similarly priced single core, in 3d games at least. However, its performance increase comes when you multitask. Imagine being able to run two games at once; its impractical, but with dual core it can be done. A more realistic option would be having your browser, email client, word, visual studio, and winamp running at the same time, with virtually no slowdown.

If you're looking at building a gaming PC, the 805 may not be for you. If you're going to be doing something more than just gaming, and are on a budget, go with the 805. Either way, the 805 is a great processor.

No it doesn't.

Though I'm curious what a clockspeed on a Dual-core PRoc. EXACTLY means.

AFAIK, there is one clock on a dual core processor, just as with a single core processor. I could be wrong however, but it seems practical to have one clock for both dies, rather than putting two clocks, making them perfectly match through yet another controller, and control individual dies. I haven't seen the schematics for the Pentium D or AMD X2 so I couldn't tell you for sure.

So, to answer your question the best I can... clockspeed means just what it means on every processor, the rate at which data travels through the chip.

[Nogert]

All I want to know is whats best, if you don't know d/w also I don't want to pay 500 or 300 for a processor, i'm not asking for recommendation i'm just asking which is best, is it worth buying this.

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/107617/rb/20326191455

Or would it be better to just keep an AMD 3000+ 1.6ghz

Sorry if i seem annoyed its just whenever I ask a question somebody comes back with a massive detailed post that I don't udnerstand or either reccomending me a diffrent card ffs

[SpikeTheWarlord]

IMO 3000+ is better. you also can't just change your processor, you need to buy a new motherboard. although not dual core, it's 64 bit and it's good enough for most people.

[Nogert]

Don't worry bout the motherboard it's covered, but why would you say it's better I can't understand I mean the AMD is 1.6ghz and the Pentium is 2.6, and it's dualcore I don't understand

[borgleader]

Don't worry bout the motherboard it's covered, but why would you say it's better I can't understand I mean the AMD is 1.6ghz and the Pentium is 2.6, and it's dualcore I don't understand

Well from what I got : the only advantage dual-core has is for multi-tasking thats it. And besides even though Pentium has more Ghz...Amd can still beat it, not because it's more efficient, but y'know the whole structure of the processor ends up make the 1,6Ghz AMD better than the 2,6Ghz Pentium....or something like that. Maybe someone can help me clear that out.

[Nogert]

Omfg this processor stuff fis confusing me, I'll have to look some more, but the AMD's are 2 million pounds each its BS

[AZN_L473ncy]

There isn't anything "wrong" with intel per-se.

They just have different architecures

AMD can do more calculations in less cycles
AMD generally generates lower heat
AMD is generally for gamers
AMD is good for clocking

Intel is good for business/University students on a budget
Intel is cheaper
I don't really know too much about intel. so that's all i can think of.


The reason why the price is lower is because intel had giant price cuts to compete with AMD for market share, and with project Conroe coming it cuts the price even further, also theres Core2 which forces it down even further.

I'd go with the intel myself, unless you have the money to buy the AMD.


AMD has a different rating for the processors that's why you see something like AMD Athlon 64 4400+ (when the core is 2.2), and an Intel M that's just the GHz rating.

[T w i Z t i D]

all i know is


AMD has low ghz cuz it has more pipes or sumthing

and Intel has Higher ghz and less pipes


i dont rly know, so dont listen to me

[evol262]

This is pretty convenient since the 805 processor is a hell of an overclocker.

Again, the 9xx series got a die shrink. They will overclock better.

The current AMD dual cores are just a little bit faster then the old Intel dual cores.
But as you noticed the intel dual cores can come out 5 times as cheap.
On the other hand comparing a 3 GHz Intel model to a 3 GHz AMD model is like comparing oranges to peaches though.
AMD uses a different architecture which means they can do more calculations at a lower clockspeed.
The 3 GHz AMD will be way faster.
So the exact equilevant to the 3 GHz Intel will probably be an AMD dual core around 2 GHz.

If you can find a 3Ghz Athlon, sure! AMD's PRs are meant to compare. Say, a 3000+ means "It runs at about the same speed as a 3Ghz P3." Not "It's 3Ghz!" A 3000+ and a 3Ghz Prescott are very comparable.

IMO 3000+ is better. you also can't just change your processor, you need to buy a new motherboard. although not dual core, it's 64 bit and it's good enough for most people.

You don't use 64 bit. I guarantee you. Even if you could, you wouldn't, as it makes a lot of things slower, and close to doubles memory requirements. The Pentium D 930 is much better than the 3000+, and it's probably the Intel CPU he meant.

[evol262]

Well from what I got : the only advantage dual-core has is for multi-tasking thats it. And besides even though Pentium has more Ghz...Amd can still beat it, not because it's more efficient, but y'know the whole structure of the processor ends up make the 1,6Ghz AMD better than the 2,6Ghz Pentium....or something like that. Maybe someone can help me clear that out.

Ah, no. Dual-core has a significant performance advantage in properly multithreaded apps, too. Lots of games are multithreaded these days. Go look at dual core Quake4 benchmarks, for instance.