InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
The 955 boards have arrived...now where are the Pentium D's? I am SO ready to earn some money this summer and get a new computer for myself.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
When, oh WHEN will we get the Pentium D?
- Thread starter InorganicMatter
- Start date
Im going to say late May, early June we should see them on Newegg. Why do you want to pay 1000 for it anyways? Wait to Intel releases the other Pentium D's and the 945 chipset. It would be about half the price of the Pentium D Extreme Edition.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
You misread me. I want an Intel nForce4 board (already out) with a Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz). What I'm saying is that we have the boards needed for dual-core processors, but where are the processors?!Lazy_Moron said:
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
sac_tagg said:
Ok now dont take this the wrong way....but why exactly do you want a dual core? You are getting an SLi board so I assume you want good gaming performance, however that is certainly something that the Intel DC solution is not particularly well suited for. You would be much better off getting a SC P4 if you want this computer for gaming purposes. If you want DC for multitasking / content creation, then you would be better off going with the X2 as it performs better in most all respects than the PentiumD.
Stellar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,975
Erasmus354 said:
Intel Dual Core + SLI gives you the best of both worlds.... a MUCH more affordable dual-core solution for multitasking and multithreaded workloads with better performance in encoding, and a very powerful video subsystem so you can play any game you want at the highest resolution with ops on.
X2s won't be mainstream until much further on than Intel's Dual core, and will be much more expensive. How do we REALLY know if X2 kicks Intel's ass at everything, anyway? I've said it once and I'll say it again, don't trust internet CPU review benchmarks (especially when they come from Tom or Anand)
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
steviep said:
"AMDs Athlon 64 X2 is currently leading the pack in the world of dual core computing. If you are a computer user that wants to be able to heavily multitask and are into 3D gaming or content creation, you would be remiss to not purchase the AMD Athlon 64 X2 solution. Combine the overall AMD Athlon 64 X2 mega-multitasking-performance with its subtly increased power needs and its compatibility with current 939-pin Athlon 64 motherboards and AMD has what amounts to a silicon homerun with the bases loaded." --- Kyle Bennet
How about from [H]ardOCP then?
Yes the AMD solutions are a bit pricier for the lowest end then Intels lowest end, but the 4200X2 is no comparison to an Intel dual 2.8. I dont care if you are an intel !!!!!! or not, the fact is that the AMD dual core solution is just as fast as intels in multitasking environments, and is much faster in single threaded environments thanks to the fact that AMD did not have to reduce the clockspeed when moving to dual core. Couple that with the fact that AMDs Dual Core chips consume about HALF the power of intels, and you not only have a powerful chip, but a *ahem* cool n' quiet one as well.
If however, he isn't really going to need a dual core chip, then a regular P4 would be a fine choice.
Stellar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,975
By "a bit pricier" you mean almost exactly twice as much, right? 
MOST people can't and/or won't pay $530 for a CPU, dual core or not.
MOST people can't and/or won't pay $530 for a CPU, dual core or not.
duby229 said:
?? Do you even read overclockers.com at all?? Because I have no idea where you are coming from, none at all. btw, ANYONE can write a article for overclockers.com, if it gets accepted by the editors (plural) it goes up on the site, and the authors of the best few articles's in a given month get paid $100.
==>Lazn
duby229 said:
"On the whole, you'd have to say they (AMD X2's) are as good or better than the EEs, and definitely better than the Pentium Ds. "
ooh so biased.
He tends to prefer AMD's actually, he is just usually so depressed by how badly AMD marketing and management misses opportunities that he can sound like a Intel fan if you misread his posts. (he bemones them, and is not happy about them)
And yes Ed is one of the editors. (Joe the other main editor I think there may be more.)
==>Lazn
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Think about it, a huge chunk of Intel's sales are in the prebuilts. Now, when a computer illiterate person goes to pick the processor, which processor do you think they will go for? Of course, the cheaper ones. I think that "Ed" is saying that yes, AMD does have the better processor, but Intel is going to win anyway because they are offering a chip of decent (still not the best) performance, but at a much lower score.Lazn_Work said:
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
Get one on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=80144&item=6768688460&rd=1
Overpriced.... but early.
Overpriced.... but early.
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
delusion_2005
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 805
The Pentium D is already here in Australia just right after i built my new rig which is in my Sig. I was really pissed off when it came out 3 week after my new ring is built.
steviep said:
.... um. Where have you been? AMD chips have been stomping Intel's for gaming for years, and the X2s are more powerful for video encoding and well, almost all tasks. They also blow away the first Dual Core intel chips in basically all single threaded tests. When every reputable tech review site (Anandtech, TechReport, HardOCP) turn out similar results (even if HardOCP's review of the X2s made no sense and had poor testing methodologies that led to them falsely breaking even in tests) ... turns out the SAME result, it's believable.
Long story short. If you're a heavy gamer, you don't want to buy an Intel CPU and Dual-Core Intel chips don't seem to be the ideal purchase for heavy encoding work either given recent tests, simple as that. Maybe that'll change when Intel releases its next generation of dual-core chips that aren't a quick rush-job like these are .. 2 cores slapped together in a package on a bottlenecked socket anad bus and called revolutionary.
64bit_is_here
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 773
Epicenter said:Maybe that'll change when Intel releases its next generation of dual-core chips that aren't a quick rush-job like these are .. 2 cores slapped together in a package on a bottlenecked socket anad bus and called revolutionary.
hahaha, well said
im just waiting for the x2's to come out, ill immidiately get the 4200+ when they arrive, they seem to be killer DC chips that even beat the P-D 840EE on quite a few apps
pstang said:
They arn't anti-AMD. They are so Pro-AMD that they don't even consider Intel to be much of a choice. Ed writes half his articles to people who have AMD XP's and are looking to upgrade and double their performance cheaply. He has spent a lot of time recommending that people wait until they can get a AMD64 that will do 3GHz. Although now he starting to say just get a venice as a stopgap until cheap DDR2 AMD dual cores come out. "Wait" is Ed's favorite word...
But no where does Intel even come in as a serious recommendation on that site.
To say that it's worth skipping over a generation of excellent CPUs like the A64s because of lack of (immediate) DDR2 support alone is demented. DDR2 does modern chips about as much good as RDRAM did for the Wilamettes. The latency is way too high and the performance gains just aren't there yet. It's worth getting a chip that can use DDR3 but should you want to wait for that, you may be stuck with your present computer for 2 or 3 more years. Right now, DDR3 is so expensive 256 megs of it for a video card adds about $250 to the price.
Right now, DDR3 is so expensive 256 megs of it for a video card adds about $250 to the price. Jonsey said:
I have been a long time supporter of Intel's products and user of their processors and chipsets. I recently switched from a 3.9GHz Pentium 4 550 to my A64 3800+ amd let me just tell you that the difference is earth shattering in games. I've noticed a significant jump in performance with some games and less so in others.
After checking out the benchmarks between Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2, I'd say X2 =teh win!
Sad to say it. The performance of Intel's latest offerings just isn't there. The rock solid Intel stability just isn't as much of a seller anymore, as the NForce platforms continue to mature. They get better everytime.
I can see why many pro AMD people simply do not consider Intel to be a valid choice. I am starting to feel that way. Especially when it comes to the dual core products.
The problem is that Intel has been failing to innovate recently. Instead they've been, essentially, scaling the clock of the netburst architecture chips again and again, and reselling them. When they eventually realized they weren't going to hit 5 GHz and the pipelines on Prescott were killing per-cycle performance, they had to do something to get a new product out to market fast that would provide some improvement without further increasing heat output too dramatically.
We'll start to see interesting things from Intel when they start trying to migrate Dothan's architecture over to a desktop implementation, but until then, we're going to see a lot less innovation and a lot more quick hack jobs of the existing (flawed) P4 designs.
We'll start to see interesting things from Intel when they start trying to migrate Dothan's architecture over to a desktop implementation, but until then, we're going to see a lot less innovation and a lot more quick hack jobs of the existing (flawed) P4 designs.
Stellar said:By "a bit pricier" you mean almost exactly twice as much, right?
MOST people can't and/or won't pay $530 for a CPU, dual core or not.
i would not pay that much for something that has no software available for it yet. i prefer buying a fx55 (if i had the money) moving to amd, faster than intel and all software available work on it.