Core duo or Intel Pentium d?

[mustangcobra133]

im building my first home made and i'm really having a hard time figuring out what parts are the best.. heres my post here

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1230107#1230107

I was wondering if anyone knows if a
Intel Pentium D 950 Presler 3.4GHz 2 x 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core Processor would be better than a

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Conroe 1.86GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor

I'm going to be using this cpu for 3d gaming and I don't really care about if the duo uses less poewr than pentium d.

Im trying to build a cpu that will be able to run the new 3d games for a good 3-4 years.

I was thinking with this setup if I wanted to upgrade later all I would have to do is drop a duo extreme in there and another one of those 3d cards, the quad sli drivers will be at their best by then and ill be fine for a while again... am i wrong?

 

[gOJDO]

E6300

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

Definitely the E6300...It is more current and will ensure that you will be able to run games that are coded for multiple core processors.

 

[Corasik]

E6300, because although its clock speed is lower, its alot more efficient then P4, especially in a gaming rig, as P4 was never 'that' good at gaming.

Even an Extreme P4-D 3.73Ghz is struggling to beat the E6300 in gaming benchmarks. Although obviously there are some things that the former top of the range P4 can do a little faster than the entry level Core2 Duo.

Pretty sure that the E6300 will beat a 3.4Ghz P4D in 9/10 test cases.

 

[mesarectifier]

Definitely the E6300...It is more current and will ensure that you will be able to run games that are coded for multiple core processors.

E6300 for sure, but ^^that^^ is bullcrap. They're both dual core - as in Pentium D-ual core.

 

[babbler]

I have an E6600, E6300 and 955 EE running at 3.73Ghz. While all of them are in different rigs, I did run Futuremark 3dmark2005 right before I swapped out the 955EE for the E6600 in my main rig. While this is only one benchmark, it may represent a comparison for gaming. I had to overclock the 955EE to 4.26Ghz, by changing the multiplier not the FSB, to get within 100points of the E6600 in the same rig. At 3.73Ghz it's about 600 points behind.

 

[gOJDO]

I have an E6600, E6300 and 955 EE running at 3.73Ghz. While all of them are in different rigs, I did run Futuremark 3dmark2005 right before I swapped out the 955EE for the E6600 in my main rig. While this is only one benchmark, it may represent a comparison for gaming. I had to overclock the 955EE to 4.26Ghz, by changing the multiplier not the FSB, to get within 100points of the E6600 in the same rig. At 3.73Ghz it's about 600 points behind.

when talking about points, we need a refrence. For example how much points exactly achieved each rig.

 

[babbler]

when talking about points, we need a refrence. For example how much points exactly achieved each rig.

Ok, since you asked so nicely, here ya go:

Score: 9088
Date: 2006-08-06
CPU: Intel Core 2 2400 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
529 MHz / 1316 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1024x768@32 bit

Score: 8958
Date: 2006-08-06
CPU: Unknown 4267 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
529 MHz / 1336 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1024x768@32 bit


The Unknown at 4267 Mhz is the Pentium Extreme 955. Not sure why the clock speeds for memory are different, they were set the same.

Since then I've replaced the 7800GTX with an X1900XTX: no comparison data.

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

My reference to the E6300 being better is simply based on the fact that it is a newer processor based on more recent technology. It is therefore, geared better toward the future and is more versatile for his needs, than the Pentium D. Where is the bullcrap in that?

 

[dougie_boy]

i knoiw its not the same speed as the 6300 but it will give u a rough idea.

 

[choknuti]

And when overclocked it definitely going to beat the crap out of that poor old P4

 

[gOJDO]

when talking about points, we need a refrence. For example how much points exactly achieved each rig.

Ok, since you asked so nicely, here ya go:

Score: 9088
Date: 2006-08-06
CPU: Intel Core 2 2400 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
529 MHz / 1316 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1024x768@32 bit

Score: 8958
Date: 2006-08-06
CPU: Unknown 4267 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
529 MHz / 1336 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1024x768@32 bit


The Unknown at 4267 Mhz is the Pentium Extreme 955. Not sure why the clock speeds for memory are different, they were set the same.

Since then I've replaced the 7800GTX with an X1900XTX: no comparison data.
Nice, this is better. We can now translate the 130pts difference in % of adventage:
100% * 9088pts / 8958pts = 1.45%
9088pts / 2400mhz = 3.79 pts/mhz -> E6600
8958pts / 4267mhz = 2.1 pts/mhz -> 955EE

so if we use these numbers for E6300 and 950D and if we skip the FSB & HT adventage of your EE and the 2MB of L2 adventage of your E6600, than
1867 * 3.79 = 7075.93 pts -> E6300
3400 * 2.1 = 7140 pts -> D950

looks like they are toe, but not all games are optimized for the crappy netburst like 3D Mark is. The E6300 for non-synthetic benchmarks and unoptimized code will perform better.

 

[mesarectifier]

My reference to the E6300 being better is simply based on the fact that it is a newer processor based on more recent technology. It is therefore, geared better toward the future and is more versatile for his needs, than the Pentium D. Where is the bullcrap in that?

Okay, so we agree that the 6300 is better. But it's not because it'll 'ensure that you will be able to run games that are coded for multiple core processors', because the PD is just as dual-core as the C2D.

To keep you happy, I'll retract the word bullcrap and replace it with words to the effect that what you said was a little misleading.

 

[babbler]

so if we use these numbers for E6300 and 950D and if we skip the FSB & HT adventage of your EE and the 2MB of L2 adventage of your E6600, than

Actually the Hyper Threading ends up hurting the EE in some benchmarks, including 3dMark2005. I ran it with HT off; it makes a few hundred point difference at least.

 

[rippleyaliens]

HAve to say , the core 2 duo, even the 1.8 version. I built a win 2k3 server yesturday, and WOW, that thing was pretty fast. It sat next to a p4.3.2 dual core, and it just smoked the other server. AND of all things, with the stock cooler, on, i felt more heat from the hard drives, then i felt from the cpu heatsink...

the core 2 duo, even came in cheaper, than the p4. lol..