PentiumD vs Athlon 64 X2

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2006-01-11 08:45pm

I want to build myself a new computer. I cannot afford an extreme edition or FX class processor. Now I'm bouncing between the Athlon X2 and the PentiumD. Now you can get a 2.8GHz PentiumD for $215, and a 2.0GHz X2 for $300. I would assume get the Intel. But is my logic flawed? Is there any real difference the two other than the clock speed?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-01-11 08:48pm

The AMD chip beats the Intel in almost every test, and usually by a large margin. Get the AMD.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-01-11 08:50pm

USSEnterprise wrote:I want to build myself a new computer. I cannot afford an extreme edition or FX class processor. Now I'm bouncing between the Athlon X2 and the PentiumD. Now you can get a 2.8GHz PentiumD for $215, and a 2.0GHz X2 for $300. I would assume get the Intel. But is my logic flawed? Is there any real difference the two other than the clock speed?

It depends on how much you care about the price difference, but the X2 is the better chip.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-01-11 09:27pm

USSEnterprise wrote:I want to build myself a new computer. I cannot afford an extreme edition or FX class processor. Now I'm bouncing between the Athlon X2 and the PentiumD. Now you can get a 2.8GHz PentiumD for $215, and a 2.0GHz X2 for $300. I would assume get the Intel. But is my logic flawed? Is there any real difference the two other than the clock speed?

Honestly, the x2 3800+ or it's server equal (Operton followed by some number 165 maybe) with the larger cache, is simply a great processor.

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2006-01-11 09:31pm

So the 800MHz difference in clock speed really doesn't make much difference?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-01-11 09:45pm

USSEnterprise wrote:So the 800MHz difference in clock speed really doesn't make much difference?

Clock speed means nothing, if the chips don't have the same core design. Athlon 64s have higher performance for the same clockspeed compared to a Pentium 4/Pentium D.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-01-11 09:49pm

Beowulf wrote:
USSEnterprise wrote:So the 800MHz difference in clock speed really doesn't make much difference?
Clock speed means nothing, if the chips don't have the same core design. Athlon 64s have higher performance for the same clockspeed compared to a Pentium 4/Pentium D.

And there's also the issue of the bus the CPU is talking over, and AMD also has an advantage here.

And let me put it to you this way: One core of my X2 4800+ (2.4 GHz) flat out annihilates my old 2.8 GHz P4 Northwood.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-01-11 09:53pm

No. The Athlon X2 3800 crushes the Pentium D 820. I have an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.16GHz and it runs rather nicely - though said O165s aren't as cheap as they used to be

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2006-01-11 10:06pm

I really don't want to spend more than $350 on a processor, so I guess the lowest X2 would work

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-01-12 05:21pm

The lowest X2 the 3800+ (which I just bought) can be overclocked to the same or higher clock speeds as the 4800+ on stock cooling, if you wanted to give that a go.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=192&type=expert

I haven't tried it but its tempting

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

PentiumD vs Athlon 64 X2

PentiumD vs Athlon 64 X2

Re: PentiumD vs Athlon 64 X2

Re: PentiumD vs Athlon 64 X2