Pentium® D vs Pentium® 4 w/ HT- which is better for me

[deardave]

These 2 PC's processor w/ memory i am interested in are below

-- Pc will be used will have outlook, winword, html edting, itunes, ftp, multiple websites, photo shop opened at once-


Pent D system costs 100 more . Opinons please


Processor:

Pentium® D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.80GHz, 800FSB),

Memory:

1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz- 2DIMMs


-------------------------------------------------------------------

VS.


Processor:
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 630 w/HT Technology (3.0GHz,800FSB),

Memory:
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (4x256M)

 

[mpasternak]

i'm going to sound like a fanboy here


Neither

the current Intels (Prescott based) CPU"s are horrible chips in comparison to what else is available

I highly recommend for any new build to use an Athlon 64 right now

if you had to choose one of the two though. the Standard 630 probably best

 

[greenmachineiijh]

They will probably perform roughly the same however the "D" will allow you to upgrade the CPU at a later date without needing new RAM or something else. A investment in the future.

 

[mpasternak]

Greenman.. WTF are you talking about!?

the D only there to let you know it's a Dual core CPU. it has NOTHING to do with future upgrade paths.

as for the memory. i don't see how thy're that linked to the CPU

get the 1 gig (2x512) no matter which CPU you go with

 

[sepuko]

OK You said it yourself. Multitasking. Pentium® D. End.

 

[deardave]

the memory is linked b/c thats the configuration from vendor-- not subject to change-

So it is what it is-

 

[apache_lives]

The pentium d has no upgrade path, theres the current 90nm dual cores, then you could posibly fit a dual core 65nm cpu (same performance, no point in going there) and i doubt hes gettin a 975 based chipset so its a dead system in 6 months, next gen intels (conroe) will use the 975 chipsets (as far as i know).

The A64 X2's are colder and faster but price wise is (or was) another matter.

If your keen on gettin Intel tho the dual core is the way to go,

 

[Stimpy]

Will you actually be running anything in the background or just having the applications open (i.e. very long running filters in photo shop)?
If not then you are not multitasking, but switching between applications.
In which case a faster single core would do you better.

Only if you are running long running tasks in the background and do not wish to have any slowdown on your foreground apps do you need a dual core (be it intel or amd)

 

[ltcommander_data]

Actually the 65nm Presler will offer more performance. The major problem performance-wise with Smithfield is that they are bandwidth starved with the same 800MHz FSB that single core P4s use. Presler doubles the L2 cache which, although the latency has increased, will still help performance, especially in a bandwidth starved circumstance such as this. As well, the Pentium D goes up to 3.4GHz with Presler vs the 3.2GHz of Smithfield. Of course these differences aren't going to help Intel beat AMD, but they do offer additional value to Intel's dual cores. It should be noted that Intel plans to have Conroe work with existing dual core 945 chipsets. Of course, whether this is going to be the case is still open to speculation.

In general based on the workload you suggest, I would recommend the 630. Outlook, Word, Websites, iTunes, FTP, and HTML editing isn't especially taxing for modern processors. As well, of those tasks only iTunes is constantly running so you wouldn't benefit much from a dual core. Only photoshop may benefit from the extra core, but unless you work heavily in it the difference isn't significant, especially when the 630 has double the L2 cache and is 200MHz faster. Even if you multitask, with the light load of those Office programs means that the Hyperthreading support of the 630 is sufficient.

My only hesitation with the 630 is with the specific configuration that you gave. The DDR2 400 RAM is definitely not preferrable. First of all the higher timings of DDR2 RAM in general require higher speeds to yield the same performance. As such you should at least get DDR2 533 or preferably DDR2 667 to get maximum performance. As well, the DDR2 400 that you listed fills 4 separate slots. That not only lowers performance because of the extra processing the chipset needs to do, but it also limits your upgrade options in the future since you need to replacement existing modules to add more RAM essentially wasting them.

A Intel Pentium 4 630 with 1GB of DDR2 667 RAM and a modern i945 chipset is probably your best bet. That's if you want Intel of course. Otherwise, I'm sure the AMD people have plenty of suggestions as well.

 

[endyen]

This is a first. I'm going to agree with L.C. Data.
There is one consideration that no-one else has mentioned. The "D" will run way hotter, and while either fan will drive you nuts, the 630 is a little quieter.
Unless this is a Dell, the same money will get you a better system, if you go Amd.
If it's a dell, get the celeron version. It's cheaper, and because it has less fluff, it will run just as fast.

 

[K8MAN]

The best option of the 2 is to get the 630 and spend the extra 100 bucks on another gig of RAM.

 

[DRAGoNX]

AMD FTW

I would really only consider dual core if it was AMD, RIGHT NOW. Maby when Intel gives up Netburst and the old FSB, then maby I'll reconsider.

 

[tupu23]

I have been following this topic and have not observed any mention as to how compatible the AMD is. Intel will be compatible with all software programs and hardware upgrades. I have noticed on several occasions that the AMD is not supported by many Adobe programs as well as some graphics cards and HDTV tuners. Sure the AMD might be faster in a wider variety of applications but the Intel will always work with everything you through at it.

 

[fishmahn]

I have been following this topic and have not observed any mention as to how compatible the AMD is. Intel will be compatible with all software programs and hardware upgrades. I have noticed on several occasions that the AMD is not supported by many Adobe programs as well as some graphics cards and HDTV tuners. Sure the AMD might be faster in a wider variety of applications but the Intel will always work with everything you through at it.

Now, I'm going to give a chance to prove your point. I have been using both AMD and Intel in professional and recreational situations since the 8088 and have never seen an incompatibility that could be attributed to the CPU in either case. Show me links to prove your accusation please.

Otherwise don't throw out that FUD crap here. :x

Mike.

 

[DRAGoNX]

I have been following this topic and have not observed any mention as to how compatible the AMD is. Intel will be compatible with all software programs and hardware upgrades. I have noticed on several occasions that the AMD is not supported by many Adobe programs as well as some graphics cards and HDTV tuners. Sure the AMD might be faster in a wider variety of applications but the Intel will always work with everything you through at it.

There both x86 processers there for the same programs can run on both. And please provide some evidence.

 

[endyen]

It's probably a simple misunderstanding. He probably saw "optimized for Intel P4s" on the box.

 

[apache_lives]

That just makes no sense, iv heard the ye-old cyrix's crashes in some apps in its day (not totally x86 compatible) but AMD? i think youve just grown up with people not trusting AMD - my dad wont touch em still.

 

[Crashman]

Nah, AMD started their life in the CPU industry as a manufacturer of Intel CPU's. That's right, Intel 386 by AMD. You didn't know? Intel couldn't make enough to fill demand so they hired AMD to produce them. And after Intel decided they didn't need AMD to fill their orders any longer, AMD went on to make CPU's for themselves, using Intel's x86 specifications and their own optimizations. AMD even uses Intel's SSE and SSE2 instructions.

I haven't ever seen any company say AMD isn't compatible with their software. As for hardware, I have seen companies state that SiS or VIA chipsets aren't compatible with their high end capture cards, but SiS and VIA make both Intel and AMD chipsets.

So I'd have to conclude that you read something, forgot what you read, and blamed the wrong company. Of course a smart person would hold his tongue and look up the info to be certain he didn't make a mistake, unless he was absolutely sure he memorized the information properly.

BTW, I look stuff up all the time, because like most of these guys, I'm...unlike you.

 

[endyen]

Nah, AMD started their life in the CPU industry as a manufacturer of Intel CPU's. That's right, Intel 486 by AMD

Not quite what I remember. A step closer to the truth is from wikipedia

IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the 80286, or 286, under the same arrangement

Of course bothe Intel and Amd are bastard children of Fairchild.

 

[apache_lives]

Looks like tupu23 sign'd up just to add that one comment- great one, and its not even advice, geez dont go totally from someone elses word about some mith, go do some research before posting crap here - were supposed to be helping deardave pick the best cpu for his hard earn'd $$$, and as for anyone who doesnt trust AMD for stability or compatibility or some crap compared to intel this would be why - cause idiots bull s#!+ about them.

BTW i aint a fanboy i own a P4c cause Intel was leading at the time (if it was 6 months later i would have an A64).

 

[margag_]

Yup you are right it is a never ending story...the cpu and computer business is going so fast you pay big $$$ and 6 months late you are obsolete..

So i say

amd = play
intel = work

is this totaly a missconception base on marketing ?

is that simple enough ?

I would go for the dual core for multitasking and encoding (video, dvd ect...)

 

[endyen]

So i say

amd = play
intel = work

is this totaly a missconception base on marketing ?

is that simple enough ?

Say what? Oh ya, who needs or wants opteron quality for workstations/servers?
Why put a bunch of A64s in a room, when the prescotts will supply enough power for office tasks, and generate enough heat to keep everybody toasty warm?
There is no sector left, where Intel has a better product than
Amd.
Intel only has one spot left. Intel is for idiots.

 

[apache_lives]

I agree - wether its budget, mid or high end AMD has it better and mostly at a better price, performance, and aswell as running colder!

Work or Play (currently) = AMD
Work or Play In the Kitchen = Intel (Fridges with PC's, ovens with intel, PC's can do everything except cook food, but hey! now they can)
Global Warming = Itanium

On the other hand the Intel Pentium M's have potential - there pretty decent for a laptop chip and should get better (hence next gen conroes based on Pentium M (P6)) - there the only thing that they have over AMD and that lead is getting smaller aswell, have to see how conroe turns out, it could be great, either way its better then a P4 and a step closer to the A64's.

 

[Crashman]

You're going to try to get a step "closer to the truth" from an OPEN SOURCE project? WoW!

Get a step closer to the truth with Crashman!
Intel 286 manufactured by AMD

I actually WORKED on some of these systems, I actually REMEMBER Intel CPU's being manufactured by AMD.

 

[fishmahn]

I have a 286 not made by either of them... (I think its my old 286) its a Harris CPU, I believe.

AMD/Intel 'competition' started around the release of the 386, but AMD had the fastest 286 ever produced (20mhz) - I don't think Intel made a 20mhz 286.

Mike.