• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Pentium D

Even though it's a slower clock speed? It's only like 1.8 for the E6300. What are x2 like?
 
Wow, the Pentium 4's sucked more than I realized. A 1.8Ghz chip beating a 3.6Ghz chip is absurd.

Edit: Excuse me, 1.86Ghz vs. 3.73Ghz.
 
Its all in the architecture. Netburst was a bad processor line. They did there job I guess but compared to c2d they are nothing.
 
So what did we learn?

Pentium Ds are not worth the money but you get more bang for Buck using AMD 64 X2
 
[v]@bans said:
So what did we learn?

Pentium Ds are not worth the money but you get more bang for Buck using AMD 64 X2
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be "more bang for Buck using a conroe e6300"?
 
WarriorX said:
Its all in the architecture. Netburst was a bad processor line. They did there job I guess but compared to c2d they are nothing.
Click to expand...
Netburst was not a "bad" line.

Netburst and AthlonXP were direct competitors at the time, and Netburst absolutely kicked the crap out of AthlonXP. When AMD released their new AMD64 architecture, Intel decided to refresh another 4 years out of Netburst (by increasing clock speed and cache) instead of spend the R&D on a new architecture. Judging by the number of Prescotts they sold to OEMs, I'd say they did a damn good job of it. ;)
 
WarriorX said:
Its all in the architecture. Netburst was a bad processor line. They did there job I guess but compared to c2d they are nothing.
Click to expand...
That's why the megahertz myth was precisely that, a myth. Just because it can go 5 GHz doesn't mean it can do a lot of stuff; it's all the archetecture and HOW it works.
 
spectrumbx said:
Shouldn't that be "more bang for Buck using a conroe e6300"?
Click to expand...

From what I read into that article provided above was the E6300 is $189 a similar AMD 64X2 was $153. Scale it up and for a 2.4 x2 it's $242 and $314 for a E6600 with close enough similar performance. Where else can I find information on this with more comparasions
 
[v]@bans said:
From what I read into that article provided above was the E6300 is $189 a similar AMD 64X2 was $153. Scale it up and for a 2.4 x2 it's $242 and $314 for a E6600 with close enough similar performance. Where else can I find information on this with more comparasions
Click to expand...


Agree with above Pentium D just sucks, rather have a X2

Core 2 Duo performs more operation per clock cycle.

Personally id go for the e6300 and do a very mild overclock to 2.8gig (2.8 is very mild for these things) which will give you performance of around a e6600 which is fantastic value and very safe.

Only catch is you need to watch what board and ram you buy.
 
[v]@bans said:
From what I read into that article provided above was the E6300 is $189 a similar AMD 64X2 was $153. Scale it up and for a 2.4 x2 it's $242 and $314 for a E6600 with close enough similar performance. Where else can I find information on this with more comparasions
Click to expand...

Wrong... the only X2 (5200+) that can compete with an e6300 costs $289.
Even then, the e6300 beats it in many benchmarks.

Look here to get some ideas.

The lowest AMD CPU that can compete with the lowest conroe line (e6300/e6400) is an FX-62.
Don't let the clock speed difference fool you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top