Pentium dual core D 805

[kenmo]

What is the advantage of DDR ram over DDR2...???

DDR works in motherboards designed for DDR, DDR2 in motherboards designed for DDR2. They are not interchangeable. If you're buying a Pentium D you need a motherboard that supports the proccessor. Which means you will be buying DDR2 memory. And almost certainly a PCI Express video card.

I thought newer mobos required 24 pin ATX power supplies and older used 20 pin ATX power supplies.... Hence the 20 to 24 pin converters now being sold...

http://www.xpcgear.com/20to24pinatx.html

PCgear's 20-Pin to 24-Pin ATX Power Supply Adapter Converter Cable will allow you to connect a standard 20-Pin ATX Power Supply to a 24-Pin ATX Motherboard Power Connector. Our cable is especially useful for the new Pentium 4 Socket 775/T Motherboards that require a 24-Pin Power Supply.

[ROF]

Just thought of something.... I'll neeed a 24 pin ATX powersupply as my powersupply is 20 pin...

What is the advantage of DDR ram over DDR2...???

I'd recommend getting a new power supply over purchasing an adapter cable, but then again I usually recommend a new case since it is a new computer. Nothing says new computer quite like a shiny new case and dust free power supply.

Advantages of DDR2 over DDR are numerous not the least of which is speed. There is less data collisions in the memory, the memory consumes less power and thus generates less heat, increase signal integrity, and a small design package. These are just the beginnings. Do a search for DDR Vs. DDR2 to learn more.

[lenti_75]

They are excellent CPUs and vastly more powerful than an Athlon XP.

not with today's software and OS.....maybe with vista coming out.

if you don't have it, don't tell me that is VASTLY more powerful because it's not.... :P

[ROF]

They are excellent CPUs and vastly more powerful than an Athlon XP.

not with today's software and OS.....maybe with vista coming out.

if you don't have it, don't tell me that is VASTLY more powerful because it's not.... :P

I own one today so I guess I can say they are vastly more powerful than the Athlon XP line of processors even without software readily available to take adantage of all the chip has to offer. Socket A processors are extremely hard to find today. They have quickly been over run by 64 bit chips and dual core 64 bit chips.

[kenmo]

ROF... what motherboard are you using...???

[ROF]

ROF... what motherboard are you using...???

See my current profile. In the next month or two depending on funds I plan to upgrade that machine. The only problem is nothing seems to catch my eye at the present time.

[kenmo]

Thanks for the reply ROF.... I guess I must have misunderstood your post as I thought you were using an Intel D 805 and your profile reports you're using AMD X2...

Cheers

Kenmo

[ROF]

Nah! As I said earlier in this thread, I wouldn't waste my money on a non-HT core or in this case non-HT for both cores. The AMD 64 Single cores are a much better option then the cheap dual core 805 IMO.

[kenmo]

So are the single core AMD Athlon64s hyperthreaded...???

Again thanks...

[ROF]

AMD doesn't have a single modern core that isn't HT. Even their Semprons are. Intel is the only one who offers cheap POS cores. If you want something quality from intel you have to empty your wallet.

[Treebeard]

I love to see others bashing Intel

[kenmo]

I'm a little confused... and honestly don't know the answer... Why is hyperthreading better then two physical cores...???

My understanding is hyperthreading is about a single core emulating two logical cpus... So wouldn't two physical cpus be better then two logical cpus....??? Again my understanding maybe out to lunch, so feel free to correct me...

I'm wanting to learn not prove I'm right....

Again many thanks...

[ROF]

If intel would offer something at a decent price and not require overpriced proprietary peripherals (AKA Memory) in order to support their cores it wouldn't be bashed as much by me.

[SingSing]

I think the issue is still heat and power consumption. Especially when laptop has become a desktop replacment. Those two issues are core item on portability.

[ROF]

You are mostly correct in your logic. Dual cores are better for the simple reason that you have two caches from which to process from. The problem I have with non-HT dual cores is just that. They are non-HT. For half the price of Intel HT-Supported Duals you can buy an AMD dual that runs cooler and consumes less power and is HT supported.

Since most software written today does not support your dual cores if you are given the choice of running an HT supported core which is supported by todays software or purchasing a non-HT dual core which runs as a solitary core for most applications, which would you choose in terms of todays performance? Given that choice, it's up to you decide whether you want to go faster today or hope and pray that software in the future will support something bought today.

For general users today I recommend purchasing a single core chip. Why? because the board I pair these with will support dual cores if they decide sometime in the future that a dual core is what they want.

[Doramius]

I love to see others bashing Intel

I wouldn't necessarily call it Intel bashing. He's right though. The lower cost processors are POS's. But if you fork over the $$ for a good one, can you really get an equivilent AMD to outperform it? I don't think so. I'm often torn between my wallet & desired performance. Most often the argument ends with my wife making the decision and she has a larger wardrobe. Haven't quite figured out how that relates to me upgrading the computer.

[jagabo]

Since most software written today does not support your dual cores if you are given the choice of running an HT supported core which is supported by todays software or purchasing a non-HT dual core which runs as a solitary core for most applications.

That is incorrect. Any program that supports hyperthreading (ie, any multithreaded program) also supports dual core. And in almost all cases, for a given clock speed, and as long as there aren't other architectual and platform differences, dual core will be faster than hyperthreading.

[ROF]

@jagabo

I speak in the real world perspective not something on paper.

A perfect example would be a test I did around the holiday shopping season. I put together two nearly identical system both were single cores. The first one used an AMD64 3700+ San Diego core running at 2.2ghz and cost around $225. The second was an Intel 640 Prescott core running at 3.2ghz with a same cost of $225. Both were 64bit, both were HT capable, both used same RAM, both used similiar configured boards.

Which one was light years ahead in terms of speed?

If you said Intel you chose it because of it's on paper speed. You would be completely inaccurate as the AMD chip smoothly booted faster, processed video quicker, and ran significantly cooler then the Intel. I believe someone else started a thread recently asking why AMD/Intel dropped the Ghz ratings from their names. This is why. The speed of the chip looks good on paper but when it comes right down to real world application Ghz means next to nothing.

[kenmo]

So an AMD X2 chip with hyperthreading would in theory have four logical cpus...????

[Treebeard]

If you want baseline tests w/ current cpu comparisons.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=255&model2=269&chart=71

[ROF]

Yuck! Tom's hardware is crap. I'd put more reliability in Antarctic penguins.

But in answer to the question, in theory Yes, in real world No.

[Treebeard]

I knew I'd draw out the tomshardware hater in you, lol.

[ROF]

Tom's used to be good up until a few years ago when they switched modes and I believe lost alot of their competent staff.

[Doramius]

What's funny is I always see Pentium Processors at the top of those lists. ALWAYS! But, as I stated earlier, does Intel really think I'm made out of $$? You're going to shell out the bucks for one of those top performers.

[ROF]

. . . or buy an 805 chip and think you got a bargain.

[jagabo]

@jagabo

I speak in the real world perspective not something on paper.

A perfect example would be a test I did around the holiday shopping season. I put together two nearly identical system both were single cores. The first one used an AMD64 3700+ San Diego core running at 2.2ghz and cost around $225. The second was an Intel 640 Prescott core running at 3.2ghz with a same cost of $225. Both were 64bit, both were HT capable, both used same RAM, both used similiar configured boards.

Which one was light years ahead in terms of speed?

If you said Intel you chose it because of it's on paper speed. You would be completely inaccurate as the AMD chip smoothly booted faster, processed video quicker, and ran significantly cooler then the Intel. I believe someone else started a thread recently asking why AMD/Intel dropped the Ghz ratings from their names. This is why. The speed of the chip looks good on paper but when it comes right down to real world application Ghz means next to nothing.

Rof, You are confusing Intel's HyperThreading (the execution of multiple concurrent threads) with AMD's HyperTransport (a connection technology that has nothing to do with multithreading). There are no AMD processors that support hyperthreading.

Obviosly, the architectcual difference between the Intel and AMD processors mean you can't directly compare clock speeds.

The reason some people prefer single core over dual core processors is because the single core processors are available at higher clock speeds. For example, when Intel first came out with the Pentium D the fastest version was 3.2 GHz. The fastest single core P4 at the time was 3.8 GHz. If you only looked at single threaded applications running one at a time the P4 ran faster.

[ROF]

but with a 1000mhz gap between the Intel and AMD which is faster on paper? That was my point. but given the choice of an increased FSB with greater throughput across that FSB I'll take hypertransport over hyperthreading every single day of the year. which again was my point.

[SingSing]

For CPU design, ability to feed data to CPU faster and better always win the war.

From my old professor : It's not he processer, it's the memory, Dummy.

[Doramius]

So you're telling me my 3.8GHz processor seems slow because I only have a stick of 32MHz RAM Now they tell me! :P

[vitualis]

but with a 1000mhz gap between the Intel and AMD which is faster on paper? That was my point. but given the choice of an increased FSB with greater throughput across that FSB I'll take hypertransport over hyperthreading every single day of the year. which again was my point.

ROF, I think you are missing the point because you are mixing up terminology.

As per above, there is no AMD processor that comes with hyperthreading, just as there is no Intel processor with hypertransport.

If you are working in a well multithreaded environment, be it well written software or simply running multiple concurrent applications, hyperthreading does improve performance, especially with only a single core. With multi-core processors, there are diminishing returns with using hyperthreading unless you are really stressing your machine.

In the current environment, I too would choose a dual-core Athlon over a dual-core P4 as well. However, reading early previews, the new desktop versions of the Core Duo processor will more than likely change my mind, unless AMD releases something equally good.

Regards.