Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel dual core cpu for $271 ??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2005 3:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
following:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...

"Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
page showing the cpu for sale is here:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...

"64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"

Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
little cheap to me, but what do I know?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2005 3:24:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Henry Nettles wrote:
> While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
> following:
>
> http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>
> "Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
> minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
> page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>
> "64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>
> Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
> so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
> little cheap to me, but what do I know?

Having bought a couple of ink cartidges, I get buy.com coupons
periodically. I can send you one, or watch the fatwallet type sites.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
June 27, 2005 8:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Henry Nettles wrote:
> While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
> following:
>
> http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>
> "Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
> minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
> page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>
> "64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>
> Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
> so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
> little cheap to me, but what do I know?

Try searching the intel site using the part number.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 5:10:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:11:41 -0500, Henry Nettles
<hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
>following:
>
>http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>
>"Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
>minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
>page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>
>http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>
>"64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>
>Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
>so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
>little cheap to me, but what do I know?

It is indeed a dual-core processor, here's Intel's product description
for it:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sS...


Note that the Box Order Code matches up. For me personally though, it
isn't particularly comforting to think that a company would sell a
chip without labeling it properly and providing a quick description
such of the chip.

As for the price, it seems about average for on-line vendors.
www.newegg.com currently has a one-day sale on these chips, current
cost is $256:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

I don't know what their regular price is, though I would guess that it
would be close to the $271 listed above.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 4:44:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:11:41 -0500, Henry Nettles <hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
>following:
>
>http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>
>"Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
>minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
>page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>
>http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>
>"64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>
>Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
>so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
>little cheap to me, but what do I know?

If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core products. Things are going to
change once Intel releases multi-core Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.
Right now the best option is to build a cheap Dual Xeon system with a E7525 based motherboard and
two Nocona core Socket604 Xeon CPUs, you'd end up paying almost the same as for a Pentium D based
system on a good motherboard.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 1:54:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Using a finger dipped in purple ink, geno_cyber@tin.it scribed:

>If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core products. Things are going to
>change once Intel releases multi-core Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.

The Pentium M does VERY well in a few things, and not NEARLY so well for most things.

It runs slower and cooler, and is great if cooler is your primary design factor.






--

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 4:05:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:54:25 GMT, Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:

>Using a finger dipped in purple ink, geno_cyber@tin.it scribed:
>
>>If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core products. Things are going to
>>change once Intel releases multi-core Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.
>
>The Pentium M does VERY well in a few things, and not NEARLY so well for most things.
>
>It runs slower and cooler, and is great if cooler is your primary design factor.

All rumors so far clearly stated that after the demise of Prescott/Tejas projects (with their insane
power requirements...) full control has been given to the Centrino division to deliver multi-core
high-performance desktop and server CPUs to replace the Tejas project and the Pentium 4 architecture
with a better one. The one that Steve Jobs decided to follow by switching from IBM PowerPC to
upcoming Intel new architecture based on Centrino/Pentium M revised technology in multi-core format
to appear in a year from now if not even before.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 4:23:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
> >If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core
> >products. Things are going to change once Intel releases multi-core
> >Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.
>
> The Pentium M does VERY well in a few things, and not NEARLY so well for
> most things.

No, you've got it backwards. The Pentium 4 (/related NetBurst Celerons and
Xeons) does VERY WELL in a very few things (basically code where streaming
throughput is what matters) and not nearly so well for most things.

The Pentium M is a much better general purpose chip; handles mixed and
branchy code much better.

> It runs slower and cooler, and is great if cooler is your primary design
> factor.

Slower megahertz doesn't always mean slower processing. If you're doing
streaming video, the P-M is the wrong choice full stop. For most other
things, the P-M clearly beats the P4 at a given clock speed, and often by
a large enough margin that it's still economical.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."
June 29, 2005 5:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:44:03 GMT, geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:11:41 -0500, Henry Nettles <hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>>While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
>>following:
>>
>>http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>>
>>"Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
>>minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
>>page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>>
>>http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>>
>>"64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>>
>>Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
>>so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
>>little cheap to me, but what do I know?
>
>If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core products. Things are going to
>change once Intel releases multi-core Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.
>Right now the best option is to build a cheap Dual Xeon system with a E7525 based motherboard and
>two Nocona core Socket604 Xeon CPUs, you'd end up paying almost the same as for a Pentium D based
>system on a good motherboard.

Dual Opteron would cost even less, perform in most tasks better, and
is upgradeable to dual core, making it effectively a quad system - you
can even put in the dual cores today, if the price wouldn't scare you.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 11:37:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Intel is "dumping" the slowest speed dual cpu's in order to compete with
AMD.

"Henry Nettles" <hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:n290c1lkd1d0ud27ca2v4rhcrgskispoqn@4ax.com...
> While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
> following:
>
>
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>
> "Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
> minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
> page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>
> "64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>
> Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
> so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
> little cheap to me, but what do I know?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 3:45:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:44:03 GMT, geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:11:41 -0500, Henry Nettles <hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>>While browsing the "Hot Deals" forum at Anandtech, I ran across the
>>following:
>>
>>http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&t...
>>
>>"Intel Pentium D Dual Core 820 - 2.8GHz processor" for $271, possibly
>>minus a 10% discount from some coupon that I don't have. The actual
>>page showing the cpu for sale is here:
>>
>>http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10409823&loc=...
>>
>>"64BIT MPU BX80551PG2800FN 2.80G 2MB SL8"
>>
>>Nothing on the web page above indicates that this is a dual core cpu,
>>so my question is, "Is this really a dual core cpu?" It seems a
>>little cheap to me, but what do I know?
>
>If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core products. Things are going to
>change once Intel releases multi-core Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.

And the year after that things are going to change again, and again
the following year, etc. etc. Buy what you need when you can afford
it, because if you're sitting around waiting for the "Next Big Thing"
you're always going to be disappointed.

>Right now the best option is to build a cheap Dual Xeon system with a E7525 based motherboard and
>two Nocona core Socket604 Xeon CPUs, you'd end up paying almost the same as for a Pentium D based
>system on a good motherboard.

Hmm..

Boxed 2.8GHz Pentium D processor = $252
Asus P5LD2 motherboard = $127

Total = $379
(prices both from www.newegg.com)

vs.

Boxed 2.8GHz Xeon (Nocona) $229 x 2 = $458
Supermicro X6DAL-XG motherboard = $318

Total = $776
(prices from www.pricewatch.com bottom-feeders)


That's a rather substantial difference in price between the two
setups! Ok, you might get a few more features in the Supermicro board
(the cheapest e7525 board I could find), but the majority of those
features would be totally useless for most users.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 3:45:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:23:05 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:

>Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>> >If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core
>> >products. Things are going to change once Intel releases multi-core
>> >Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.
>>
>> The Pentium M does VERY well in a few things, and not NEARLY so well for
>> most things.
>
>No, you've got it backwards. The Pentium 4 (/related NetBurst Celerons and
>Xeons) does VERY WELL in a very few things (basically code where streaming
>throughput is what matters) and not nearly so well for most things.
>
>The Pentium M is a much better general purpose chip; handles mixed and
>branchy code much better.

Both have their ups and their downs, neither is the out-and-out winner
from a performance standpoint. However the Pentium-M is definitely NOT
the end-all, be-all chip that a lot of people make it out to be. If
you're work is fairly floating-point intensive, the Pentium-M is a
pretty weak choice.

>> It runs slower and cooler, and is great if cooler is your primary design
>> factor.
>
>Slower megahertz doesn't always mean slower processing. If you're doing
>streaming video, the P-M is the wrong choice full stop. For most other
>things, the P-M clearly beats the P4 at a given clock speed, and often by
>a large enough margin that it's still economical.

The following article contains a pretty wide variety of benchmarks
comparing the Pentium-M vs. the Pentium 4 and Athlon64 (all
single-core chips). All of these chips are run on desktop
motherboards (using an adapter for the P-M). There are a lot of
applications where the P-M comes in at or near the top of the list,
but there are also an awful lot where it comes it at or near the
bottom of the list as well, and it's not just streaming media stuff.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 12:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>>>>> "geno" == geno cyber <geno_cyber@tin.it> writes:

geno> The fact is that the Pentium M was originally designed for
geno> mobile/notebook applications and not as a desktop/server CPU.
geno> The fact that a design like that can perform better than
geno> architectures designed for desktop/server high-bandwidth and
geno> massive floating point applications in many areas surely hints
geno> something about what's going to happen when the re-designed
geno> Pentium M based multi-core CPUs will be released next year to
geno> replace current Pentium 4 Prescott based CPUs....

That is a hope not a fact.

Whatever
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 12:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Alan Walpool wrote:

>>>>>> "geno" == geno cyber <geno_cyber@tin.it> writes:
>
> geno> The fact is that the Pentium M was originally designed for
> geno> mobile/notebook applications and not as a desktop/server CPU.
> geno> The fact that a design like that can perform better than
> geno> architectures designed for desktop/server high-bandwidth and
> geno> massive floating point applications in many areas surely hints
> geno> something about what's going to happen when the re-designed
> geno> Pentium M based multi-core CPUs will be released next year to
> geno> replace current Pentium 4 Prescott based CPUs....
>
>That is a hope not a fact.
>
>Whatever

Forgive Geno. He's an Intel fanboy, and rather clueless, as well.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 1:47:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:45:37 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:23:05 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
>wrote:
>
>>Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>>> >If I were you I'd absolutely avoid buying current Pentium 4 Dual Core
>>> >products. Things are going to change once Intel releases multi-core
>>> >Pentium M based desktop CPUs later next year.
>>>
>>> The Pentium M does VERY well in a few things, and not NEARLY so well for
>>> most things.
>>
>>No, you've got it backwards. The Pentium 4 (/related NetBurst Celerons and
>>Xeons) does VERY WELL in a very few things (basically code where streaming
>>throughput is what matters) and not nearly so well for most things.
>>
>>The Pentium M is a much better general purpose chip; handles mixed and
>>branchy code much better.
>
>Both have their ups and their downs, neither is the out-and-out winner
>from a performance standpoint. However the Pentium-M is definitely NOT
>the end-all, be-all chip that a lot of people make it out to be. If
>you're work is fairly floating-point intensive, the Pentium-M is a
>pretty weak choice.
>
>>> It runs slower and cooler, and is great if cooler is your primary design
>>> factor.
>>
>>Slower megahertz doesn't always mean slower processing. If you're doing
>>streaming video, the P-M is the wrong choice full stop. For most other
>>things, the P-M clearly beats the P4 at a given clock speed, and often by
>>a large enough margin that it's still economical.
>
>The following article contains a pretty wide variety of benchmarks
>comparing the Pentium-M vs. the Pentium 4 and Athlon64 (all
>single-core chips). All of these chips are run on desktop
>motherboards (using an adapter for the P-M). There are a lot of
>applications where the P-M comes in at or near the top of the list,
>but there are also an awful lot where it comes it at or near the
>bottom of the list as well, and it's not just streaming media stuff.
>
>-------------
>Tony Hill
>hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca


The fact is that the Pentium M was originally designed for mobile/notebook applications and not as a
desktop/server CPU. The fact that a design like that can perform better than architectures designed
for desktop/server high-bandwidth and massive floating point applications in many areas surely hints
something about what's going to happen when the re-designed Pentium M based multi-core CPUs will be
released next year to replace current Pentium 4 Prescott based CPUs....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2005 3:06:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:47:16 GMT, geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:

>The fact is that the Pentium M was originally designed for mobile/notebook applications and not as a
>desktop/server CPU. The fact that a design like that can perform better than architectures designed
>for desktop/server high-bandwidth and massive floating point applications in many areas surely hints
>something about what's going to happen when the re-designed Pentium M based multi-core CPUs will be
>released next year to replace current Pentium 4 Prescott based CPUs....

Or maybe it simply tells us that 2MB of fairly low-latency L2 cache
can make up for an awful lot of other potential performance penalties
in a modern processor.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2005 3:28:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:56:11 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Alan Walpool wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "geno" == geno cyber <geno_cyber@tin.it> writes:
>>
>> geno> The fact is that the Pentium M was originally designed for
>> geno> mobile/notebook applications and not as a desktop/server CPU.
>> geno> The fact that a design like that can perform better than
>> geno> architectures designed for desktop/server high-bandwidth and
>> geno> massive floating point applications in many areas surely hints
>> geno> something about what's going to happen when the re-designed
>> geno> Pentium M based multi-core CPUs will be released next year to
>> geno> replace current Pentium 4 Prescott based CPUs....
>>
>>That is a hope not a fact.
>>
>>Whatever
>
>Forgive Geno. He's an Intel fanboy, and rather clueless, as well.

Trying to insult me doesn't make you right. Your attitude given by your answer looks pretty childish
to me since you get so much irritated up to the point to try to insult me like that just because you
don't like what I said, a pretty basic analysis based on facts about Pentium M/Centrino
architectures and rumors up to now regarding its future.
!