This below is what I have found so far and very confusing dew to lack of actual 2009 CPU chart on tomshardware.com
Trying to figure out what is current performance of the D 965 with the outdated / irregular / missing 2009 CPU charts and noticed this below.
Q1 / 2008
Divx 6.6.1 QX9770, 67secs
Q3 / 2008
DivX 6.8.3 QX9770, 264secs
So about 200secs difference ?
So if the D 965 gets Q1 / 2008 Divx 6.6.1, 143secs then it is adjusted to Q3 / 2008
DivX 6.8.3 it should be about + 200 secs or total of +/- 343secs ??
Surely the D 965 can not beat the AMD X4 PII 940 as well as the AMD X2 PII 550 ??
If this results is true I can understand why there is no 2009 CPU chart on Tomshardware as it is too embarrassing for AMD. AMD fanboy here.
$99 to $219, D 965 to q9550 gets me 45 secs improvement
I know this is not a speed test as a office PC needs fast but not powerful cpu but if acting as backup then I might just need the extra power.
Is the AMD X2 PII 550 $109 + $70 Mboard worth the extra cash instead of the D 965 $99 + $50 mBoard ? Both can be overclock somewhat
A D 965 draws a lot of power (130W) and not all motherboards can support it. Having it on the charts serves no purpose, but you might be interested in this test: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280.... An E5200 probably is better for office applications and for gaming, particularly if you overclock it.
A Pentium D should not even be considered, using a single benchmark to is not an accurate way to judge the performance. Pentium 4s were good at a few specific tasks but were absolutely slaughtered in everything else. A Pentium D is essentially two Pentium 4s slapped together.