Finalizing My Decision - Pentium D 830 vs. P4 3.6ghz

[N00b]

If I was you I would consider the AMD Athlon X2 as the X2 cpus consistently outperform the Pentium D cpus within the same price range. For a quick look go here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=1

 

[Coola]

If I was you I would consider the AMD Athlon X2 as the X2 cpus consistently outperform the Pentium D cpus within the same price range. For a quick look go here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=1

AMD isn't really an option, I'm buying from Dell and I would probably blow myself up if trying to build a computer. From what I've read, the AMD dual cores are a bit pricier than their Pentium counterparts.

 

[epicstruggle]

you could always go with alienware, i believe they carry amd systems.

epic

 

[Pete]

OK, Guden, but you're in Europe, which means you probably have a PSU with at least passive but probably active PFC. American PSUs, AFAIK, tend not to have either, which means a much higher VA load from the PC.

BTW, my APC BackUPS has three powered outlets and three merely surge-protected ones. You mention five inputs. Do you have a better unit, like a SmartUPS?

epicstruggle, he just mentioned "pricier" as a deterrent and you recommend Alienware?

 

[Guden Oden]

I dunno about any PFC being in my PSU; if there is, I would think it is in all Dell PSUs, as there is a switch on the back to select between 110/220V operation.

The UPS is a simple Back-UPS CS 500 with one powered outlet to the PC, one to the monitor, and one to a powerstrip. Yes, I know you're not supposed to do that, but I'm not going to hook up all my kitchen appliances to the UPS anyway.

 

[ANova]

If I was you I would consider the AMD Athlon X2 as the X2 cpus consistently outperform the Pentium D cpus within the same price range. For a quick look go here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=1

AMD isn't really an option, I'm buying from Dell and I would probably blow myself up if trying to build a computer. From what I've read, the AMD dual cores are a bit pricier than their Pentium counterparts.

Yeah, a good $200+ more over the 830 just for the lowest X2.

 

[mczak]

If I was you I would consider the AMD Athlon X2 as the X2 cpus consistently outperform the Pentium D cpus within the same price range. For a quick look go here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=1

AMD isn't really an option, I'm buying from Dell and I would probably blow myself up if trying to build a computer. From what I've read, the AMD dual cores are a bit pricier than their Pentium counterparts.

Yeah, a good $200+ more over the 830 just for the lowest X2.

Unfortunately true, though the lowest X2 will easily beat the 830 in performance for almost anything. Next month sometimes the X2 3800+ should appear (there are also rumours of a X2 4000+ but maybe that's just a rumour), which ought to have a very similar price than the 830 (and that X2 will still easily beat the 830). Though if you just need dual core for the absolute lowest price the 820 will still be cheaper.

 

[epicstruggle]

epicstruggle, he just mentioned "pricier" as a deterrent and you recommend Alienware?

The preminun on alienware isnt that much more.

epic

 

[Guden Oden]

What, aren't alienware PCs expensive as hell?

 

[ANova]

Unfortunately true, though the lowest X2 will easily beat the 830 in performance for almost anything.

No, not really. The differences are quite miniscule in everything but gaming where yes even the 4200+ outperforms the 840 by a fair margin. In everything else the two trade blows. The X2s are nice, but not worth their current prices imo.

What, aren't alienware PCs expensive as hell?

Not as expensive as Voodoo or FalconNW.

 

[mczak]

Unfortunately true, though the lowest X2 will easily beat the 830 in performance for almost anything.

No, not really. The differences are quite miniscule in everything but gaming where yes even the 4200+ outperforms the 840 by a fair margin. In everything else the two trade blows. The X2s are nice, but not worth their current prices imo.

You must be reading difference benchmarks than me
Not even looking at the benchmarks but just by simple theory you can conclude the Pentium D has no chance of winning.
Ok, let's be fair and compare at the same price point, 840D vs. X2 4200+. If you look at the single-core variants, that's a 3.2Ghz P4 (1MB prescott) vs. a A64 3500+. I could agree if you say these are about equivalent in performance - the A64 will win in games easily, the P4 offers better performance in some multithreaded apps and maybe in some media encoding benchmarks. BUT now look at the dual-core versions: the P4 loses HT (no more advantage in multithreaded apps), and on top of that scales slightly worse (because it's really just two P4 with a shared bus whereas the A64 X2 is quite a bit more advanced).

So if you say the X2 are not worth their current prices, you must also conclude that the Pentium D aren't worth their prices neither. Except, of course, you're talking about the 820D (which has no price equivalent part from AMD) and the 830D (which should soon get that price equivalent part).

And I won't even mention that your power bill will certainly be lower with the A64...
Let's face it, northwood was nice for its time, but intel blew it with the prescott. It's not quite as bad as the first revisions were, but all the (power related) fixes won't make it good, neither does making it multi-core.

 

[Coola]

...wow

correct me if im wrong, i will see a significant jump in performance from switching from a 2.0ghz celeron w/768 ram to a Pentium D 830 right??

i'm starting to question my belief... and religion

 

[mczak]

correct me if im wrong, i will see a significant jump in performance from switching from a 2.0ghz celeron w/768 ram to a Pentium D 830 right??

Certainly. Those early P4 Celerons are horrible performers, that crippled 128KB cache kills performance completely. Combine that with sdram and it will be outperformed by a lovely 1.4Ghz P3-based Celeron Tualatin any day of the week...
(Celeron D is certainly a lot better nowadays).
So even for single-threaded performance a Pentium D 830 (which is 2.8Ghz 1MB cache) is a LOT faster than that old celeron - lots more cache (with higher associativity), 6 times or so more ram bandwidth...

 

[RussSchultz]

Its unfortunate they call them Celeron D's, when there's no "dual" about them.

 

[Coola]

correct me if im wrong, i will see a significant jump in performance from switching from a 2.0ghz celeron w/768 ram to a Pentium D 830 right??

Certainly. Those early P4 Celerons are horrible performers, that crippled 128KB cache kills performance completely. Combine that with sdram and it will be outperformed by a lovely 1.4Ghz P3-based Celeron Tualatin any day of the week...
(Celeron D is certainly a lot better nowadays).
So even for single-threaded performance a Pentium D 830 (which is 2.8Ghz 1MB cache) is a LOT faster than that old celeron - lots more cache (with higher associativity), 6 times or so more ram bandwidth...

Does the Celerons 128KB cache bottleneck like say, download bandwith as well?

 

[Pete]

If the Cel's L2 cache has less associativity, I believe it'll be slower than its related Pentium's full cache. Less L2 doesn't cripple bandwidth to and from system memory, but the whole point of L2 is to avoid RAM As much as possible, so less L2 means hitting the RAM more often. Celerons also tend to have slower FSBs, so it's a double-whammy (and if all you're running is SDRAM, make that a triple).

It's pretty safe to say that the new Dell should be a big improvement, if for no other reason than your new HD (most often the slowest thing in a PC) will be much faster. You'll likely also learn quickly why dual CPUs are praised for their "creamy smoothness." Try something like running a full Microsoft Anti-Spyware scan while doing something similarly CPU-intensive.

 

[ANova]

You must be reading difference benchmarks than me
Not even looking at the benchmarks but just by simple theory you can conclude the Pentium D has no chance of winning.
Ok, let's be fair and compare at the same price point, 840D vs. X2 4200+. If you look at the single-core variants, that's a 3.2Ghz P4 (1MB prescott) vs. a A64 3500+. I could agree if you say these are about equivalent in performance - the A64 will win in games easily, the P4 offers better performance in some multithreaded apps and maybe in some media encoding benchmarks. BUT now look at the dual-core versions: the P4 loses HT (no more advantage in multithreaded apps), and on top of that scales slightly worse (because it's really just two P4 with a shared bus whereas the A64 X2 is quite a bit more advanced).

Everyone knows the A64 is better for gaming, no one is debating that. When it comes to multitasking, yes the X2s make a big difference, however Intel has been the performance king in this area for a long time as well as in media encoding and while the X2s have narrowed the gap considerably, they do not outperform the Pentium Ds. In some situations they do, in others no. Like I said, they trade blows when it comes to processing something other then gaming with the differences being quite miniscule.

So if you say the X2 are not worth their current prices, you must also conclude that the Pentium D aren't worth their prices neither. Except, of course, you're talking about the 820D (which has no price equivalent part from AMD) and the 830D (which should soon get that price equivalent part).

And I won't even mention that your power bill will certainly be lower with the A64...

Not at all. Truth of the matter is that an 830 is hardly a slow processor and will hold it's own in everything but gaming against the 4200+ while being greater then $200 cheaper. And even when it comes to gaming, 60 fps versus 75 fps. Worth that extra $200? Maybe for extreme gamers, maybe not for others. If you're worried about power consumption and gaming performance then you would be better off with a Pentium M anyways. Nearly half the power draw of an A64 and greater performance with a little overclocking.

Let's face it, northwood was nice for its time, but intel blew it with the prescott. It's not quite as bad as the first revisions were, but all the (power related) fixes won't make it good, neither does making it multi-core.

Is that so. Tell me why then does the 840 significantly outperform the 3.2 GHz P4 in pretty much everything. You are right about one thing, going dual core doesn't magically fix the flaws of the Prescott but dual core does improve performance considerably, especially when multitasking which works alot better then hyperthreading on a single core. I'm not arguing that the X2s are bad CPUs, they are very nice and very fast, but atm those advantages over the PD come at a price premium, especially when gaming is the only true area where they kill the competition. Sorry to dissappoint but there is method to my madness.

 

[Tim]

Everyone knows the A64 is better for gaming, no one is debating that. When it comes to multitasking, yes the X2s make a big difference, however Intel has been the performance king in this area for a long time as well as in media encoding and while the X2s have narrowed the gap considerably, they do not outperform the Pentium Ds.

That is simply untrue, the X2 outperforms the P-Ds in encoding with a good margin(the 4200+ actually beats the 840EE in many cases):

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1813851,00.asp
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=11
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_x2_4800/page5.asp
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-840_13.html
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a64x2&page=9

All shows the same thing.

 

[Moloch]

Everyone knows the A64 is better for gaming, no one is debating that. When it comes to multitasking, yes the X2s make a big difference, however Intel has been the performance king in this area for a long time as well as in media encoding and while the X2s have narrowed the gap considerably, they do not outperform the Pentium Ds.

That is simply untrue, the X2 outperforms the P-Ds in encoding with a good margin(the 4200+ actually beats the 840EE in many cases):

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1813851,00.asp
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=11
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_x2_4800/page5.asp
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-840_13.html
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a64x2&page=9

All shows the same thing.

Was wondering would someone would confront him with cold hard facts.

 

[ANova]

The differences are small in most cases. Ok so a 4200+ would be a better buy over the 840 but $550 isn't exactly cheap.