Looking for a CPU equivalent

Windows, Linux, Mac -- hardware and software discussion.

Moderator: CM Moderator

Looking for a CPU equivalent

Postby -=Draven=- on Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:04 pm

Hi there,
First off, it's good to be back on the forums ;) after my long absence.

My question is about CPUs, I'm planning on buying a Core 2 Duo processor, but I need to know, what's the equivalent to a Pentium D 3.2 Ghz??

Thx
Heh-heh alllriiight.
User avatar
-=Draven=-
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Where the people speaks french

Postby ID on Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:36 pm

I can't answer your question, but I did want to say welcome back! :D
User avatar
ID
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Ontario

Postby anewprelusion on Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:22 pm

Is there an equivalent? Last I checked, the E6300 at stock speeds outperform the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (3.73 GHz).

Closest would probably be the E4300, but even that probably performs better than the Pentium D. (Overclocking aside)
anewprelusion
Aerogate Geek
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Maelphaedor on Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 am

sweet-spot right now is the E6600 @ 2.4, nearly every one of them in existence can be o/c'd out of the box to 3ghz and run on stock voltage and stock cooling and still maintain reasonable cooling levels. Add in a decent aftermarket cooler & good case airflow and 3.4 to 3.6 become real possibilities for a lot of chips.

E6600 is considered the sweet-spot because it has the 4M cache, but is still pretty easy to o/c (if that's your thing, and with the 2.4 going to 3 so easily, there's virtually no reason not to. :D ) The "lesser" chips will often o/c better, but only have 2M cache, so you loose some performance there that you won't get back unless you are crazy powerful o/c'd. And with the E6600 costing roughly $300, you could afford to buy 3 of them and o/c them to the breaking point for the price of 1 of the "extreme" chips (dual or quad) and still have some cash left. And more importantly, get roughly the same performance.

And nearly ANY of the conroe chips will run circles around a P4 of a PD chip.

Examples from my 3dmark06 scores:
P4 @ 3.4 w/ 7900gtx: 5107
PD @ 2.8 w/ 7950GX2: 5837
E6600 @ 2.4 w/ 7900GTX: 6116
E6600 @ 3.0 w/ 7900GTX: 6374

Those scores aren't the streamlined, bare boot scores, that's loading the normal startup stuff, then running the benchmark. Running barebones benchmarks to simulate everyday use is stupid. :)

Here's a nice example comparison for you:
My system: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1290812
Opposing P-D system: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1112933

Side by Side: http://service.futuremark.com/orb/multicompare_view.jsp?p0=1112933&n0=Best+P-D&p1=1290812&n1=My+Core+2&t=Core+2+vs+Pentium+D&k=14&s=1&l=1&c=-529936511

Mine is the core 2 system. The P-D system is clocked a full 1ghz more than me, and his video card is clocked up as well compared to mine. I still beat him for overall score and BURY him on CPU score 2634 to his 1981, and remember, he's a full ghz faster than my 3ghz. And the score I tested against is almost certainly a barebones run, his was an entry in the dell performance shootout contest, so he should have been going for a high a score as he could possibly get.

Wow, this got a little longer than I thought it would. Sorry about that. :)

Pretend I just said "Get a core 2 duo e6600, it'll do you right!"
Image
Maelphaedor
Aerogate Geek
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:24 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby EsaT on Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:08 am

In certain type of calculations fastest "Emergency Editions" are even with E6600 but in real world tests practically even slowest C2Ds are even with fastest NetBurst CPUs.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
-George Bernard Shaw
EsaT
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:15 am
Location: 61.6N 29.6E Finland

Postby -=Draven=- on Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:08 pm

I want to thank you all for your help.

The main reason why I'm trying to find this equivalent is that I am eventually planning on buying a Blu-ray burner, but right now they're so expensive and not worth it right now, because of their BD write speed.

Anyways, one of the minimum requirements on those burners is:

CPU Type: Intel Pentium D 3.2GHz or Equivalent (3.4GHz Or Higher Recommended)


That is why I am trying to find it's equivalent.
I want to build myself a new machine and I really don't want to buy a Pentium D processor :?

Any suggestions on CPUs is appreciated, but right now, i'm leaning towards a Core 2 Duo.
Heh-heh alllriiight.
User avatar
-=Draven=-
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Where the people speaks french

Postby grafton on Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:56 am

simple solution if the core 2 duos STOMP the P4's and you need at the very least a 3.2 Ghz PD then not matter what c2d you get you'll be fine but yeah get a e6600 and your requirments are not only met they are blown outta the water
Image
grafton
Centurion Officer
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:41 am

Postby -=Draven=- on Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:22 am

grafton wrote:simple solution if the core 2 duos STOMP the P4's and you need at the very least a 3.2 Ghz PD then not matter what c2d you get you'll be fine but yeah get a e6600 and your requirments are not only met they are blown outta the water


Really?

I thought "Pentium D" and "Core 2 Duo" were pretty much the same considering they both are dual core CPUs.
Heh-heh alllriiight.
User avatar
-=Draven=-
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Where the people speaks french

Postby ID on Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:54 am

It doesn't look like the two are comparable at all.

Here are a few comparisons. The numbers pretty much speak for themselves:

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?op ... mitstart=0

http://www.techspot.com/review/8-intel_ ... uo_family/

http://www.pcworld.com/printable/articl ... table.html

They both use the same socket, but the E6600 uses a different chipset, has 4MB (2x2) L2 cache instead of 2MB (2x1), and a bus speed of 1066Mhz instead of 533Mhz. Benchmarks aside, it's pretty clear which processor is superior.
Last edited by ID on Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ID
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Ontario

Postby Maelphaedor on Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:55 am

Nope, they have completely different internal architecture, the netbus guts of the pentium 4 and pentium D are extremely inefficient compared to the conroe (core 2) architecture. So like it was with AMD, comparing clockspeed alone with them doesn't nearly tell the whole picture. That much should have been pretty clear from the links I provided above.

Don't trust us, go to HardOCP, Anandtech, Tom's hardware guide, any of the big name sites. They'll tell you the same thing.

Now march right over to newegg and order a E6600. :wink:
Then come back once you've used it, seen the amazing difference in the power and thank us. :D
Image
Maelphaedor
Aerogate Geek
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:24 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby knud on Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:18 pm

I didn't read the whole story, but to go short,

Get that C2D right now! It's the best deal you can have now, no matter what the budget is, you're always making the best choice!
CM Parts shop
QX6850 @ 3.2 Ghz | Abit IP35pro | OCZ DDR2-800 4gb Reaper | Leadtek 8800GTX | WD Raptor 74GB | ATCS 840 | CM Real Power M700 | 1x CM Aerogate 3 | Z600 Black
User avatar
knud
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:48 am
Location: Europe

Postby grafton on Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:43 pm

you can think of CPU's as cars the p4 dual core being a Honda accord yeah its fast but when you look at the Core 2 Duos it's like looking at Lamborghini ( or what ever super car you like) there is just a MAJOR difference under the hood
Image
grafton
Centurion Officer
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:41 am

Postby -=Draven=- on Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:53 pm

Ok, :D

So with all the articles you've shown me and all of your personal opinions, I guess I can't go wrong with a Core 2 Duo processor ;)

Thank you all again, the choice seems so obvious, but just to make sure, I should go for Intel, right?
Heh-heh alllriiight.
User avatar
-=Draven=-
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Where the people speaks french

Postby knud on Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:22 am

INTEL :twisted:
CM Parts shop
QX6850 @ 3.2 Ghz | Abit IP35pro | OCZ DDR2-800 4gb Reaper | Leadtek 8800GTX | WD Raptor 74GB | ATCS 840 | CM Real Power M700 | 1x CM Aerogate 3 | Z600 Black
User avatar
knud
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:48 am
Location: Europe

Postby Maelphaedor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:18 am

I've been a fan of Intel since the days of the 386, way back when AMD was just a second tier knockoff chip maker.

These days, AMD does truely make decent products, not a thing wrong with them, and before the Core 2 was released, were actually beating Intel at their own game by making a more powerful processor than the "giant".

While I've never personally owned an AMD, I did consider getting one if the Core 2 hadn't been a homerun in the performance department. Intel was resting on their butts too long on making innovations and that let AMD catch up to them, and pass them briefly. Now the armsrace for maximum performance is much more even. Similar to the nVidia / ATi competition. This product cycle, Brand-X is the best. Next, Brand-Y, etc.
But hey, competition is good for everyone, espically the consumer, since it drives prices down sooner.

Unfortunately I don't know the AMD lineup well enough to make an informed suggestion on what chip to buy if you were interested in going that route, but I'm sure someone else passing by may.
Image
Maelphaedor
Aerogate Geek
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:24 am
Location: Nashville, TN


Return to PC Knowledge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest