Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 13, 2005 6:20:30 PM

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)

More about : pentium pentium

December 13, 2005 6:49:32 PM

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
December 13, 2005 7:10:20 PM

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.
Related resources
December 13, 2005 7:13:57 PM

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
December 13, 2005 7:41:37 PM

OK You said it yourself. Multitasking. Pentium® D. End.
December 13, 2005 7:55:03 PM

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

So it is what it is-
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2005 10:31:48 AM

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,
December 14, 2005 2:31:00 PM

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)
December 15, 2005 1:22:12 AM

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.
December 15, 2005 1:47:30 AM

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.
December 17, 2005 4:45:40 AM

The best option of the 2 is to get the 630 and spend the extra 100 bucks on another gig of RAM.
December 18, 2005 5:11:06 AM

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.
December 18, 2005 12:09:10 PM

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.
December 18, 2005 12:30:02 PM

Quote:
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.
December 18, 2005 2:36:03 PM

Quote:
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.
December 18, 2005 10:47:32 PM

It's probably a simple misunderstanding. He probably saw "optimized for Intel P4s" on the box.
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2005 11:01:15 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 19, 2005 12:15:22 AM

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.
December 19, 2005 1:09:38 AM

Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2005 1:55:08 AM

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).
December 19, 2005 2:07:10 AM

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...)
December 19, 2005 2:31:47 AM

Quote:
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.
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2005 4:00:28 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 19, 2005 4:14:26 AM

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.
December 19, 2005 1:17:46 PM

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.
December 19, 2005 1:34:04 PM

Here is some proof to my apparent bold claim.

http://store.adobe.com/products/dvcoll/systemreqs.html;storesessionid=L50UNOWEXS4MVQFI0IKRCZGAVDJBIIV1

And as far as the HDTV Wonder, research it yourself and you will find that everyone using an AMD had terrible problems installing it. Anything that that includes a reformat of my hard drive during installation isn’t compensated by the gain that an AMD offers.
Sure I only have 1 post. I didn't realize that some people had no life and could afford to spend enough time writing 40000 posts.

Tough crowd!
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 19, 2005 1:57:33 PM

AMD also had a 40MHz 386 and a 133MHz 486.
December 19, 2005 3:59:45 PM

Tupu23, I looked at your link to Adobe's video collection, and I see nothing that says an AMD is incompatible. Am I missing something? As for ME doing research to prove YOUR point? Hahahahahahaha!

Mike.
December 19, 2005 4:01:48 PM

Got a 386/40 in my Novell server in the basement, and I had (might still have it) one of the AMD 486/80's. Skipped the 100+mhz 486s to get a P120 (that I promptly OC'd to 166...).

Mike.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 19, 2005 4:18:20 PM

Hey, I read that page, you're using someone else's laziness to prove your falicies! Great job! But I have bad news, we have very many Adobe users here, spanning the entire array of Adobe programs, most using AMD processors. You should do Adobe a favor and inform them of their oversight.

I've heard of ATI's TV-Wonder problems with non-Intel i8xx chipsets. You should be warning people with P4's to stay away from nVidia's nForce4 SLI Intel Edition chipsets, as well as Serverworks.
December 19, 2005 6:42:33 PM

Well ok you have an emotive approch to posting...

Millions of people can be 'diffrent' but i d'ont think 'idiot' is the appropriate term for intel owners.

i'll keep on cooking then. :roll:
December 19, 2005 6:48:46 PM

Interesting points

Does somebody knows why are so many people going with intel then?
:twisted: is intel an evil empire :twisted:

note :i am not an anti amd nor a intel only kind of guy i had a amd486dx4
was an excellent computer for the time...
December 19, 2005 7:02:45 PM

Quote:
Does somebody knows why are so many people going with intel then?

Multitude of reasons, including: Good marketing dept. at Intel. Poor marketing dept. at AMD. 'Intel Inside' campaign. K6-2 not running as fast as equal clock PII. Bad chipsets for early Athlons. "XP2200 doesn't run at 2.2ghz? I'm buying a real CPU that runs at 2.2ghz thankyouverymuch..." etc.

Quote:
:twisted: is intel an evil empire :twisted:

Some people think so... :twisted:

Mike.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 19, 2005 7:47:43 PM

Marketing and past problems. Intel had thermal protection before AMD, some builders wouldn't use AMD because of that. I actually had the honor of servicing a system where the cooler came loose and the CPU blew chunks. The sad part is, I only got to see it once.

The K6-2 had a horrible FPU and was terrible in some games in spite of AMD's 3D-Now initiative. Its introduction was followed by two years of VIA chipset dominance where VIA was the source of many AMD system problems.

Probably AMD's biggest problem the entire time was VIA.
December 20, 2005 11:49:08 AM

Thank you for shedding some light on the subject.

I will consider AMD seriously now when my p4 530 will be out of the game...

for now it warms up the house...

It is cold here in Canada, very cold...... :wink:
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 20, 2005 5:02:36 PM

That's what I use my 530 for, it sits in a test system keeping me warm while I do my work on something else.
December 20, 2005 8:11:17 PM

I just had this idea. An Intel-Prescott stove!
Intel Inside and all. You can't overcook your eggs and bacon anymore because it shuts itself down when it's overheating!
This could be a great business opportunity, I say.
December 20, 2005 9:38:58 PM

Quote:
Tupu23, I looked at your link to Adobe's video collection, and I see nothing that says an AMD is incompatible. Am I missing something? As for ME doing research to prove YOUR point? Hahahahahahaha!

Mike.


He's right.. AMD cpu were incompatible with some Adobe product. I ran into problem trying to install I don't remember which Adobe program on an old Athlon T-Bird 900 chip. Those CPU were missing SSE instruction set ...

From AthlonXP and up, They now have all the SSE instruction set to run Adobe product.

Did I mention that it was back in 2000 ..or 2001 .. I did have that problem...
December 20, 2005 9:41:59 PM

Quote:
Thank you for shedding some light on the subject.

I will consider AMD seriously now when my p4 530 will be out of the game...

for now it warms up the house...

It is cold here in Canada, very cold...... :wink:


Yep.. same boat budd..

I even tried to OC my AMD 3000+ in order to get more heat, but that never brought me even near to what a Prescott can do..
December 20, 2005 9:57:29 PM

Ok...
Watch out everybody...
Quebecers have the strenght of two now .... :twisted:


well is 50deg c full load that hot ?

My 530 is oc 3.3 and never get hotter than that
i use stock intel fan and 1 3inch case fan.
December 20, 2005 10:01:36 PM

I don't know.. My Winchester could not go further that 40 some degrees OCed at 2.35 ...

To be honest, I think I have yet to see it even go at 40.. Well, I just sold that cpu to a friend so I doubt I will ever see it now ..
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2005 10:18:29 PM

Quote:
And as far as the HDTV Wonder, research it yourself and you will find that everyone using an AMD had terrible problems installing it. Anything that that includes a reformat of my hard drive during installation isn’t compensated by the gain that an AMD offers.
Sure I only have 1 post. I didn't realize that some people had no life and could afford to spend enough time writing 40000 posts.


Its because of idiots like you AMD gets a bad name, if you dont like AMD go back to the cave you came from and stick to your prescott fire, you dont even know what your talking about, and as for that list of system requirements, they prolly do that cause AMD numbering schemes used to match Intels so instead of writing a whole lot more they write P3 800 and P4 3.06 so its equal to AMD@800 or 3000.

(BTW my main system is a P4c (quicker cause of no A64s at the time) so i dont say that cause im a fanboy, i do own many AMD systems and they have proven to be both quicker and cheaper but not incompatible)

Quote:
Anything that that includes a reformat of my hard drive during installation isn’t compensated by the gain that an AMD offers.


Sounds like your system is damaged (or you didnt build it correctly) either way you didnt diagnose the issue correctly, have you ever thought about asking on the forums about how to go about finding the issue? That problem could be anything "in an AMD system", but not the AMD's fault, sounds like faulty HDD, bad ram, Damaged board, Crap PSU or poorly cooled CPU.

Even the old K6-3 400mhz i own works 100% and iv seen it in Windows XP (slow but works), its my classic games pc - cosmo, jill of the jungle, megarace2 anyone? good fun.

I know AMD has had its own issues in the past like crap chipsets, no thermal control, and so on, but has there ever been an issue with the actual processing power and performance - NO! ITS BEEN CONSISTANTLY BETTER THEN INTEL. When the northwoods came out i remember the older wilamette celeron 1800 was $4 more then an Athlon XP 1800+ here - i know what i would prefer to spend my hard earnd cash on.


Quote:
Sure I only have 1 post. I didn't realize that some people had no life and could afford to spend enough time writing 40000 posts.


People have alot of posts cause they have alot of good advise and interesting input, not crap. Geez thats your secont post here and you didnt even prove anything, nor give advice or help, unless it was to prove your an Intel Idiot Fanboy.

THEY HAVE YOU, THEY OWN YOU.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 21, 2005 12:03:33 AM

Calm down Apache, let's keep it peaceful before the flames begin.
!