Pentium D Vs Pentium 4

[kevlar557 0]

First of all, It's good to be back at Xisto after being away from the internet for ages (-48 credits). Anyway, I have been looking at getting a new motherboard/processor for my computer. I have the mobo picked out, but I'm still debating on the processor. It's between the new Pentium D, or the P4 (LGA 775). I haven't done much research on the D, so I hope that you guys can help me out.

[wutske 0]

It's actualy verry simpel. A Pentium D are 2 Pentium 4 Prescotts on a single die, only difference is that only the P-D EE has hyperthreading enabled.But, you have to know that these chips consume a lot of energy and also radiate a lot of waste energy.

[madcrow 0]

Well, persoanlly, I wouldn't go with either chip. AMD makes better CPUs by and large and they're slightly cheaper too. So I'd take a look at a 64-bit AMD CPU rather than any 32-bit CPU.

[cyborgxxi 0]

1. AMD is more for hard work. For example, it is a bit more powerful than an Intel but it heats up a lot. You need to reboot your computer more often than an Intel computer does. This was proven with web servers.2. What's a 64-bit CPU and a 32-bit CPU?3. AMD is cheaper, yes. Since I am more of a gamer, I would probably get an AMD. But I need to learn more about these CPU components before I buy anything.

[wutske 0]

1. AMD is more for hard work. For example, it is a bit more powerful than an Intel but it heats up a lot. You need to reboot your computer more often than an Intel computer does. This was proven with web servers.

 

2. What's a 64-bit CPU and a 32-bit CPU?

 

3. AMD is cheaper, yes. Since I am more of a gamer, I would probably get an AMD. But I need to learn more about these CPU components before I buy anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No, that's not true. Intels run a lot warmer then AMD's. AMD's create about 80-90w heat while Intels even go over 100w (!) of heat (top= 113w). And about rebooting, check tomshardwareguide, the AMD system ran flawlessly while the Intel kept generating problems. Both are stable enough to run almost 24/7.

 

2. Windows works with 32 bit adressing, this limits the memory it can work with to 4gb. 64bit allow a few terrabytes of memory (even more, petabytes). You'll need a 64bit OS (some linux versions or WinXP64).

 

3. Google

 

//edit, here are the links for the stress tests.

Single Core:

http://www.tomshardware.com/t/cpus/

Dual Core:

http://www.tomshardware.com/t/cpus/

[itachi46 0]

actually the pentium D produces more heat than the pentium 4... (obviously since it has 2 cores.) but yes an amd would be a better option

[cyborgxxi 0]

1. No, that's not true. Intels run a lot warmer then AMD's. AMD's create about 80-90w heat while Intels even go over 100w (!) of heat (top= 113w). And about rebooting, check tomshardwareguide, the AMD system ran flawlessly while the Intel kept generating problems. Both are stable enough to run almost 24/7.

I swear... I really read about an AMD and an Intel in two seperate computers that were on for a week or so. The AMD computer had to be rebooted a couple more time than the Intel did. If I'm wrong, either my eyes or brain is deceiving me...

Also, what is waste energy? How can it be harmful?

Hmm... I don't think I am liking my Pentium 4. It was bought about 4 years ago and maybe it's time to change? My computer has two memory sticks: 1 giga + 256 mega with an Intel Pentium 4, 2.0 GHz CPU. All I changed were memory sticks and the PCI slot cards (like GeForce FX 5700). What's going on? I can't play games as well as some other computers, which has worse system specifications than mine!! o_O

[743422 0]

The main reason why computers slow down is because they get "clogged up" as they get old. When there are so many files and folders it takes a long time to search for one. Try going into your c: drive and deleting or uninstalling any files you don't need. Right click on internet explorer and click internet properties. Go to delete cookies and delete tempory internet files (offline files too). This makes a big difference. Tempory internet files are all the copies of files that your computer makes when it downloads something. Then go to start/program files/accessories/ system tools/Disk Cleanup. Let it scan your hard drives and then check tempory internet files, offline files, tempory files, tempory office files, recycle bin, and all other tempory stuff. Finially, defragment your drive. Going into C:/Documents and Settings/-your user-/ and deleting files you don't need ex. files that start with some old program you don't have on your PC anymore helps too.

[cyborgxxi 0]

Alright! Cool!You know, I'm not a newbie I have done everything else previously except defragging my drive. I'll go into safe mode and defrag it because I heard it take a LOT less time that way.Man... I just quit Battlefield 2 because my computer has good specs but it sucks. I dont know why but my computer just stops receiving data from me... and keeps making internal 'beep' sounds everytime I click during that "stop time".ARGH!!

[iGuest 3]

Amd is the bees knees. It is however amazing how the market share is split considering Intel normaly looses the processor of the year award.... more expensive and not as powerful, it must be the blue man group.

[cyborgxxi 0]

Amd is the bees knees. It is however amazing how the market share is split considering Intel normaly looses the processor of the year award.... more expensive and not as powerful, it must be the blue man group.

Hey, you must know that competition is the key here Would you like to sell your products? Then tweak it up a little but lower the price a little too!! That means your profit is going to drop by 5% but sales will increase by 25%!!

Well, you have to know this thing - it's economics and sales strategy stuff. Supply, demand, competition, inflation, etc.

You know, Intel should start lowering their prices and REALLY work on their processors.

[wutske 0]

AMD has actualy lost their fame from being very cheap. I mean, where was the time you could get a CPU for $50 ??? And it wasn't an Intel for shure.Intels prices are getting better these days, their dual cores are actualy a bit cheaper and maybe even faster then AMD Dual Cores.And (not shure) the FX57 costs +$1000, you get an Intel Extreme Edition Dual Core 3.2Ghz for that money, that are 2 cores + HT !Waste heat, is the energy that is created during a process, but isn't the energy you wanted. Eg. a light bulb creates a lot of heat, this is waste heat, because the energy you want is light, not heat.

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

AMD has actualy lost their fame from being very cheap. I mean, where was the time you could get a CPU for $50 ??? And it wasn't an Intel for shure.Intels prices are getting better these days, their dual cores are actualy a bit cheaper and maybe even faster then AMD Dual Cores.
And (not shure) the FX57 costs +$1000, you get an Intel Extreme Edition Dual Core 3.2Ghz for that money, that are 2 cores + HT !

Ok here is my opinion.

Fist off for your comparison of the Pentium D to the AMD 64. There are 2 flavors of the AMD 64 as I understand it. There is the Single core 64 bit processer and the Dual Core 64 bit offered by AMD, this is to allow those that want to try out a next gen processor an entery lvl chip and a upgrade when they decide they like it, and they will like it I'm sure. As for comparing the Pen D to the AMD 64, there is no comparision IMO. Now my data could be wrong but the Pen D is a Dual core yes, but both cores are 32 bit while the AMD Dual has 2 64 bit cores. Now like I said I could be wrong with this but if I'm right your comparing a Dodge Viper to a Volkwagon Beetle. Both are cool, depending on who you talk too, but they aren't even in the same league.

The Pen D is defifinetly a step up for Intel but its still a long way from touching the true 64bit power of AMD. While Intel does offer a 64 bit processor it is NOT backwards compatible with 32 bit programs, last I heard, while the AMD 64 is backwards compatible and will run 32 bit programs a heck of a lot faster.

If I'm wrong with any of this please let me know.

[unimatrix 0]

Previous company I worked for was in the process of switching back to intel machines from AMD's because of several issues they had with AMD and heat. This was in 2004. Personally I've had much better luck with Intel stuff over the years and a mixed history with AMD. We had an Intel 486DX2 for several years then I uped the speed with one of those AMD k5 upgrade kits to 133Mhz. Blazing for the day. My dad still has an older K6-2 400 compaq he's been running since 1999 when I went off to college. Works great for him even today.I went off to college with the PII 400 and I still have it today set up as a cheap file server at home with FreeBSD. We bought that in 1998 and I custom built a new system in 2002 with an AMD 1.2Ghz T-bird chip. I had nothing but problems with it until this time last year when it finally died. The system was never stable under Windows 98 SE and barely stable under Windows 2000 Professional. Heat was an issue from day one and I was running it in a full tower case with two extra fans. Finally had to take the side off and use a box fan on it and even then it still would lock up, especially in 98, from over heating during game play. Although, I know some of the instablity was caused from the VIA chipset on the motherboard. So much so that I now stay away from AMD just because so many motherboards for AMD use VIA chipsets. The fact the system never worked quite right that drove me to buy an iBook and really abandon the PC platform all together three years ago. The company I a was working for in 2002 as an intern was in the 3D animation business and they opted to go other custom built AMD machines because AMD offered a better price/performance at the time. They had similar issues with instablity and heat including more than one machine where the CPU actually melted. When the HT P4's were introduced, they were negoiating a deal with DELL for new boxes when I left last year. The first AMD 64 chips were out, but frankly the cost vs. benefit for rendering was not going to be useful until software was written for the AMD64 instruction set. The plan then was to move to more of grid system using IBM blade servers and Xeon chips. The company had had DEC Alpha boxes, still have a few too as far as I know, back in the day. Their lead technical people in the IT department even then wondered if the DEC Alpha boxes 64-bit processors really offered that much in Lightwave rendering or was it the fact they were 500mhz when PC's were 166Mhz? When BF2 was released I seriously considered buying a new PC until I read about all the game issues and that many people were having lots of heat issues even with gaming rigs from big manufactures including Falcon, Alienware, Dell, and especially home built units. When a version of BF2 was announced for the PS2 I decided that spending $50 for the game as opposed to $1,800 for a new PC was a better deal especially since I might get to play 8 hours a week max. At work we've had the 64-bit G5's for quite a while now. OS X isn't a true 64-bit platform, but some of our applictions, mainly final cut pro, do offer support through the extentions and we've noticed quite an improvement in rendering times. We also have a couple dozen Xserve Cluster nodes installed just for Lightwave rendering, and FCP as well. Howmuch having the 64-bit processors, especially the PPC chip for rendering, actual helps in lightwave is questionable. The common thought of most in the field today is that Intel and AMD chips beat the living daylights out of the PPC chips. Clearest example is the fact Mental Ray is now written to take advantage of the AMD 64 code set. Since the business in primarily in video production, getting the Xserves for FCP rendering was the main decision. Plus they were a 100% Apple shop to begin with. Lightwave is not used often enough to justify spending $50,000 for a renderfarm of its own.I could go on about the 64 bit thing, but we are just now starting to see software written for the AMD 64 platform, but still intel has to be supported because they have 70% + of the marketshare. If I were to build a new PC today, which I really wouldn't because we are in the middle of a transition in technology, I would probably go with an Intel chip and motherboard. Also, I'd get the biggest honking case I could find. It seems that a brick wall has been reached and that smaller=hotter=really big heat issues have become a major problem.

[743422 0]

Personally, I would go with the pentium 4.It's cheaper, and, in my opinion, it preforms better. You get more fore your buck with pentium four.Pentium D simply allows more time before your processor is at 100% capicity. It doesn't allow more speed. Maybe it would help to improve fps in some games.Pent 4 allows more speed for lesse. This is what I have and would go with. My pentium 4 3.2 gh works great.If I had a million dollors, I would go with a higher speed pentium D. (3.2 or 3.4 gh). Unfortunatly, it is expensive to do this. Although capacity is important, I value speed higher. With pentium 4 you can get 3.6 for not tremendously priced. Pentuim D typically comes in about 2.8 gh, so it would be slower then a cheaper 3.4 gh pentuim 4.If you wan't the best processor ever, go with the Pentium 4 extreme edition. It is better and it is overclockable.As for energy consumption and heat and all that junk, who cares. Your processor may use 80-110 watts or whatever of power, while the lamp on your desk uses 110 plus the other 200 lights in your house x 10 million houses. The pool uses over 100000000. Heat doesn't matter either as long as you have a fan. The only thing that matters is SPEED.