Looking for a CPU equivalent

[-=Draven=-]

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

[ID]

I can't answer your question, but I did want to say welcome back!

[anewprelusion]

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)

[Maelphaedor]

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. ) 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!"

[EsaT]

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.

[-=Draven=-]

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.

[grafton]

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

[-=Draven=-]

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.

[ID]

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.

[Maelphaedor]

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.
Then come back once you've used it, seen the amazing difference in the power and thank us.

[knud]

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!

[grafton]

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

[-=Draven=-]

Ok,

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?

[knud]

INTEL

[Maelphaedor]

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.