Intel Pentium D processor

Do not buy a Pentium D. If you want, i'll show you an article displaying the terrible line of chips as the energy-wasting, under-performing pile of crap that they are.

Get an X2 if you want to do mulit-tasking more smoothly, a Venice-core Athlon 64 if you want a cheaper solution.
 
If you want the best gaming chip currently, then I wouldn't go for a Pentium D or an AMD. I would go for a Pentium M- yes that's right, the laptop processor.

I'd heard rumours about how good they were for gaming but didn't believe them, then just last week a had a go on one and couldn't believe it. This chip is blinding, I would say at least as fast as an FX55 (faster then an X2 4800)!

The top of the range processor runs at about 2.2ghz, and costs around £320, much cheaper then a similarly performing AMD. It also overclocks well and, best of all, gives off less heat then any other chipset.

Get a nice motherboard by any of the companies you name, some nice ram and a quick graphics card and you have a system at least as capable as a top end athlon, which costs much more money.
 
Yeah, Pentium M has a reputation for being a good performer in games, but it has a poorly-implemented SSE2, no SSE3, and a relatively-slow bus, therefore, it gets beat by K8's in a lot of tasks. If you're a total gamer, go for the Pentium M, but if you do all-round work, like compressing, multimedia, multi-tasking etc. then i think it'd be better to opt for a K8.
 
While the Pentium D is so much cheaper than the Athlon 64 X2, if your budget can handle it, I strongly recommend going for the Athlon 64 X2. The X2 has been coming down in price so that is good to see.

What you give up in single threaded performance is more than made up for by the improvements in multitasking and multithreaded application performance when comparing single core vs dual core.
 
alvino said:
No. If you're going to go for gaming, a budget processor would be the AMD Athlon 64 3500+. If you have the money, wait for the FX-57 or just get the FX-55. Dual-core processors don't really improve overall gaming performance. They're designed to be for intense applications and heavy multitasking.

Okay...the 3500+ is NOT a budget processor. the 3000+ is. Just oc the 3000+ to 2.7Ghz (yes, its on air) get a Thermalright XP-90c or a XP-120 and put a three blade delta on it. then let the AS5 settle in and push your cpu little by little until you get to 300(FSB) X 9(multiplier) and you have 2.7ghz. If you have h20 cooling you can go up to 2.8 or 2.9.
 
ownage said:
Okay...the 3500+ is NOT a budget processor. the 3000+ is. Just oc the 3000+ to 2.7Ghz (yes, its on air) get a Thermalright XP-90c or a XP-120 and put a three blade delta on it. then let the AS5 settle in and push your cpu little by little until you get to 300(FSB) X 9(multiplier) and you have 2.7ghz. If you have h20 cooling you can go up to 2.8 or 2.9.

Um, average people cannot achieve that type of overclock... but congrats if you did, very nice.

Regarding this issue... Pentium Ds are utter piles of garbage. Intel took two Pentium4 Prescott 90nm cores with enhanced sealed pipelines and put them on a chip with a logics processor to control both. Basically, a real world example of this would be:

You are driving down the road in a ferarri and your friend is in the other lane in a porsche. You are both going VERY FAST, and then a big semi truck takes up both lanes, and you have to go around him. What do you do? SLOW DOWN... which is what data does when it hit the logics processor, it slows WAY DOWN. Sorry, PentiumDs produce FAR TOO MUCH HEAT, and TERRIBLY INEFFICIENT with 62 pipelines total (AMD AthlonX2s have.. um....14....), and the PentiumD uses... 135+ watts!! AHH!! What is that/!?!? AMD X2s use 85!! 85!! Holy... such waste Intel.
 
your wrong, average people have achieved that kind of overclock, plenty of them. 3000+ is a very low budget processor, a 3200+ is also a budget, and that also can go up to 2.7.
 
Back
Top Bottom