Pentium 4 vs. Pentium D

[Legion Kreinak]

What are the differences between the two? Is there anything really significant? I hear this stuff about HT vs. DC technology. It sounds like they're jazzing it up more than need be.

 

[HRHunteRHR]

I belive PD > P4, but I'd go with an AMD 64.

 

[TRDCorolla1]

There's like 3 different kind of Pentium 4's. Penium 4 EE, Pentium 4 HT, Pentium 4. The main difference between the Pentium D and all the Pentium 4's is that the Pentium D is dual core.

 

[lhuser]

Pentium D is better. Pentium D EE is costy, but its like AMD Athlon 64 FX...

 

[Jayj2k1]

Pentium D is way faster than a P4. Definitely get this for multitasking and video-editing, but I wouldn't really use it for gaming. Stick with an AMD64 processor for that.

 

[Legion Kreinak]

I'm not that big on computers - I can use one well, but the specs aren't something I'm familiar with. Why is an AMD better for gaming? My current comp (P3, 128 MB SDRAM, 933 MHz - 4 years old now) plays the games I like (AoE II, Diablo 2, Worms World Party, emulated SNES games, etc.) with ease. I can also multitask.

I don't see why a Pentium D would be needed for "multitasking". I guess it depends on how you define multitasking, though. 'cause for me, it's using AIM, MMJB, wordpad, Mozilla and maybe a spreadsheet at the same time. My 933 MHZ, 128 RAM does that with slight lag already. Don't see a need for anything that advanced.

Not trying to jump down anyone's throat here, just debating and trying to learn a bit.

 

[TRDCorolla1]

Pentium D uses dual core. Better for multitasking. But so does AMD Athlon 64 X2. Athlon 64 processors main advantage over Intel is their integrated memory controller within the CPU unlike Intel. It's faster, highly efficient, and the Athlon 64 and the X2 (dual core version) proves it in benchmarks. AMD is dominating right now in multitasking and gaming:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1813757,00.asp

 

[Legion Kreinak]

I guess it doesn't help me anyway - I don't build my own computers, and I typically go with DeLL. I trust them. They don't offer AMDs. Only Intel.

Does it really make a huge difference to the average person, though? I mean, if I'm multitasking fine now with my computer, then how much better can it be? Aside from gaming and video editting (I don't even do the latter), you don't really need anything fancy, do you?

 

[JustinMcG67]

You're right, infact this forum has needed that said in a long while! So congrats for that. Multitasking is truly subjective. For you, running AIM, a spreadsheet, maybe some songs and what not on a PIII is perfectly fine. But unless you're one of those guys that runs like 60+ programs then an X2 is NOT for you. Get an older P4 with HT technology. They're not that expensive and really do help out. I had a 600MHz Pentium III a few months back before I upgraded to a Pentium 4 at 2.8GHz with HT technology. It runs a lot of programs really well. It's great for when you want to install something quick, say you just downloaded a cool media player and have to install it, on a typical Pentium III this can take some time, but with somethign that has HT technology it goes a lot quicker, and allows you to run multiple programs simultaniously. For instance say you're installing the program, but still want to listen to music and surf the web, on a Pentium III your install will take a lot longer and your music may end up lagging, I knwo this because I have done it. But with somethign that has HT technology you'll experience very minimal lag or no lag at all.

So for you a high end CPU is NOT for you. Get something that suites your needs. A Dell is definetly for you, although more then half the people in here will disagree and say Dells are the devil, but don't pay attention to them. I'm sure you can find a decent PC that has pentium 4 w/ HT for a good price, say around $400, which was the last ad I saw for a Dell, so that could either be higher or lower.

But yes, don't get an X2 unless you plan on running MP3s, a video editing program, surfing the net, installing multiple programs, chatting on multiple messengers, while all at the same time copying and deleting files from one drive to another.

So I hope this gives you another perspective on multitasking and I hope it helps you in your quest to get another CPU when the time comes.

 

[TRDCorolla1]

I guess it doesn't help me anyway - I don't build my own computers, and I typically go with DeLL. I trust them. They don't offer AMDs. Only Intel.

Does it really make a huge difference to the average person, though? I mean, if I'm multitasking fine now with my computer, then how much better can it be? Aside from gaming and video editting (I don't even do the latter), you don't really need anything fancy, do you?

Dual core processing is definitely better performance wise, but if you're asking if you MUST need it? The answer like 1337DuD3 said is no, not at all. Dell do offer nice systems and I give them credit for that with an excellent price to match. Any computer built or prebuilt today regardless if you are running an Intel or AMD processor will do anything you can think of. Of course if you are a heavy hardcore gamer, you may want a beefier system right? (applies to certain games). Everyone knows that. But if you want to be able to do the basic things on a PC, play a lot of games, watch movies, reports, and everything else, you can even get away with a Pentium 3 if they're still around.

With that being said and all the countless threads in this forum, I think you should know by now what you need to get.