Pentium dual core D 805

[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.

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

OK! Can you please explain how any hyperthreaded processor(intel) has anything to do with the the functions of a Front Side Bus? I believe it is a misunderstanding, but not from my end.

[kenmo]

Well...can I ask what AMD cpu at the price of the Pentium D805 can compete with it... I'm an AMD guy... Last Intel I had was a P166...
I've been with AMD since the K5 days...

If someone can show me an AMD of the same performance for the same price, then that's what I'll be upgrading my AMD XP 1800 or Duron 750 to...

My present highend pc is a MSI mobo and AMD XP 2500+ computer used for photo editing and 2D & 3D graphics rendering...

I have NO problems with either.... I love 'em...

But I dislike these brand loyalty wars

Pepsi vs Coke
Chevy vs Ford
Import vs Export
Levis vs Wrangler
DC Comics vs Marvel Group

Cheers

Kenmo

[budz]

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

Thanks for that link! It was very informative since I just ordered a AMD 64 3200+ Socket 939 Venice CPU from Newegg.com. I use to only buy INTEL processors but lately I've become a fan of AMD. Because of the ease in overclocking when using a Nvidia mobo and the price is reasonable compared to INTEL. I was amazed at how the AMD 64 stock hsf's are able to keep the cpu temps cool compared to the stock INTEL hsf's.

[rallynavvie]

Speaking from years of experience, and I think I've stated this here before, enabling hyperthreading on two CPUs (or "cores" as is the case here) will not increase performance over not having HT enabled. Case in point: I enabled HT when I first built my DH800 and did a simple encode using TMPGEnc and then disabled and tried it again. The results with HT disabled were about 10-15% faster.

If you are to get a dual-core Intel chip then the necessity for hyperthreading is right out the window. There are only a few instances I can think of when you'd need to parse those out to 4 logical CPUs and I don't have any experience with them. I believe they're statistics applications that change the way they do their calculations depending on how many logical processors are present. Last I checked these were all Linux builds that could support quad Xeons with HT enabled so they could run 8 logical CPU "threads".

My next system was to be a dual Opteron Italy board. Yes, dual dual-cores, to replace my faithful Xeon rigs. Software encoders like TMPGEnc will absolutely fly with that much processing power on tap. However Intel has just put out dual-core Xeons, but I haven't seen many results on their platforms. The chips are fantastic but the chipset they run on could still use some work. However I just got a huge promotion at my day job so I'm quitting the video biz and taking to the road with a laptop now: an Intel Centrino Duo. Can't wait to pit it against my two Xeon rigs, they have some mighty-impressive stats on paper.

[jagabo]

OK! Can you please explain how any hyperthreaded processor(intel) has anything to do with the the functions of a Front Side Bus?

Intel's NetBurst architecture requires very fast sequential memory access to work at it's best. When you have multiple threads (hyperthreading or/or dual core), accessing different areas of memory and I/O, the FSB becomes the bottleneck.

[jagabo]

I enabled HT when I first built my DH800 and did a simple encode using TMPGEnc and then disabled and tried it again. The results with HT disabled were about 10-15% faster.

On my old 2.8 GHz HT P4 I see a slowdown in TMPGEnc Plus of about 5 percent when hyperthreading is enabled. The good news for TMPGEnc is that its multhithreading works really well with dual core processors. My Athlon 64 X2 3800+ encodes nearly twice as fast when using both cores (rather than just one). I've seen reports from some Pentium D owners that indicate the speedup is similar there.

[ROF]

Well...can I ask what AMD cpu at the price of the Pentium D805 can compete with it... I'm an AMD guy... Last Intel I had was a P166...

If you simply want to beat the performance in speed and sheer processing power I'd opt(no pun intended) for an Opteron 246 or any Venice Core Athlon.

[kenmo]

Aren't socket 940 Opteron mobos expensive compare to socket 939...???

How much should an Opteron 246 chip or similar Venice core go for...???

Cheers

Ken

[ROF]

Aren't socket 940 Opteron mobos expensive compare to socket 939...???

How much should an Opteron 246 chip or similar Venice core go for...???

Cheers

Ken

An Asus SK8V 940 Board will run you around $50-$60 which is pretty much typical for starter 939 boards. An Opteron starts around $150-$160 and goes up to around $1000. The Venice core Athlons are all under $200.

[jagabo]

Well...can I ask what AMD cpu at the price of the Pentium D805 can compete with it... I'm an AMD guy... Last Intel I had was a P166...

If you simply want to beat the performance in speed and sheer processing power I'd opt(no pun intended) for an Opteron 246 or any Venice Core Athlon.

From NewEgg.com this morning:

Pentium D 805: $135
Opteron 246: $162

AMD doesn't currently have any dual core processors to compete (price wise) with the 805. If you play lots of games the Opteron might be a better value. If you do video encoding (most video encoders are multithreaded) the Pentium D will be a better value.

[Treebeard]

I say drop $213 on a Athlon 64 3700+(san diego core), its worth the extra few bucks

[rallynavvie]

From NewEgg.com this morning:

Pentium D 805: $135
Opteron 246: $162

AMD doesn't currently have any dual core processors to compete (price wise) with the 805. If you play lots of games the Opteron might be a better value. If you do video encoding (most video encoders are multithreaded) the Pentium D will be a better value.

Which is hilarious because for years now the AMD-philes have been touting cheaper CPUs than the Intel camp. The cheapest Athlon X2 is more than double what the 805 cost. Now that's funny

[Treebeard]

From NewEgg.com this morning:

Pentium D 805: $135
Opteron 246: $162

AMD doesn't currently have any dual core processors to compete (price wise) with the 805. If you play lots of games the Opteron might be a better value. If you do video encoding (most video encoders are multithreaded) the Pentium D will be a better value.

Which is hilarious because for years now the AMD-philes have been touting cheaper CPUs than the Intel camp. The cheapest Athlon X2 is more than double what the 805 cost. Now that's funny

Thats b/c the 805 is crap compared to the X2.

[ROF]

Which is hilarious because for years now the AMD-philes have been touting cheaper CPUs than the Intel camp. The cheapest Athlon X2 is more than double what the 805 cost. Now that's funny

Don't laugh too hard because the cheapst Athlon X2 is triple the 805. It has triple the L1 Cache and twice as fast an FSB. Plus it supports all the latest technology from AMD whereas the 805 has a paltry 24K L1 Cache and an FSB measured in Mhz, no hyperthreading or any of the latest intel instructions. It can't compete or even be accepted on the same playing field as even the slowest dual core AMD. Comparing the two is like comparing a single grape to all the wine in california.

Cheaper doesn't always equate to better. Anyone who touted AMD as the cheap alternative failed to look at why AMD is the stronger of the two.

[SingSing]

Not good, I run a CPU-Z on these, and instead of running at FSB266x14, the core is actually running at FSB200x14=2.8GHz. Doh.. paying for overhead of sharing memory with two CPUs, but what's in there for me ?

[Treebeard]

Not good, I run a CPU-Z on these, and instead of running at FSB266x14, the core is actually running at FSB200x14=2.8GHz. Doh.. paying for overhead of sharing memory with two CPUs, but what's in there for me ?

I ran CPU-Z (my cpu's are same as yours in Device Manager), it Identified them as running at FSB200x18.

[SingSing]

I get FSB266x14 = 3.6GHz, from this Dell GX620 with dual core. What makes CPU-Z detected a different bus speed ?

[jagabo]

I get FSB266x14 = 3.6GHz, from this Dell GX620 with dual core. What makes CPU-Z detected a different bus speed ?

I think you need a new version of CPU-Z. All Pentium D processors, except the 805, use a 200 MHz clock, quad pumped for an 800 MHz FSB.

[SingSing]

The Z-CPU I used is Version 1.32.1- March 2006

[jagabo]

The Z-CPU I used is Version 1.32.1- March 2006

Do you have a Celeron D? That would have a 533 MHz FSB. It wouldn't be 3.6 GHz though. Or are you overclocking a 2.8 GHz P4 or PD?

[SingSing]

It is a Dell Box.

[ROF]

It is a Dell Box.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[Treebeard]

Dell is all we have at work

[ROF]

Dell is all we have at work

Somebody should fire your acquisition team. I'm surprised accounting hasn't caught this.

[Treebeard]

Dell is all we have at work

Somebody should fire your acquisition team. I'm surprised accounting hasn't caught this.

lol, we used to have all Compaq desktops, switched to dell a couple years ago, some 3000+desktop machines.

[ROF]

From Compaq to Dell is a lateral move in quality and price. So sorry to hear about your loss.

[rallynavvie]

Oh I'm laughing. As far as architecture, cache, and bus speeds don't matter hardly a lick when software encoding/transcoding (as most folks on this site are wont to do), only how well the clock speed can handle that single process. With modern chips (P4s and Athlons of all sorts) it only matters which instruction sets are on-die to help with the software encoding engine.

For purely software video encoding I don't think the cheapest AMD X2 would perform twice as fast as the cheapest Pentium D (the 805 we're discussing). The PR clock on the Intel is 2.66 and to the AMDs 3.8. Though we can't really take that as gospel and run with it I'm pretty sure the architecture of the Athlon X2 is not going to approach 5 GHz per core in speed. In fact I don't know if it would perform twice as good in most situations, though if you're wringing a lot of performance from your system it would be a good buy. Both have all the SSE instructions currently available (that most encoders use), just that AMD adds 3DNow! to its list as per usual.

And there's nothing wrong with 533 FSB Intel architecture. I run two of them that are in almost all ways superior to my 800 FSB Intels.

[jagabo]

I haven't seen any benchmarks of the Pentium D 805 but it looks like it will be 15 to 20 percent slower than the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ when encoding video.

[rallynavvie]

I haven't seen any benchmarks of the Pentium D 805 but it looks like it will be 15 to 20 percent slower than the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ when encoding video.

I wouldn't say it's that close in performance. If we assume the PR clocks for both the 805 and 3800 the Intel would have 5.33 GHz of processing power to the 3800s 7.6 GHz of processing power. If we leave it at that the AMD would have about 40% more power. Given the architecture and platforms available to the AMD I'd maybe up the speed difference to be 50-60%.

Now I could go back to some AMD fanboy statements on this very forum that say that AMD offer more "bang for the buck" but it looks like Intel has finally answered.

Now of course it's more complicated than that and we're assuming use simply with a software video encoder. But also consider that though the 805 has seemingly "inferior" components to that of other Pentium Ds it is still a Pentium D, not a Celeron, just like the Athlon X2 is not a Duron. And for gaming the AMD is still going to reign pretty high over the 805.

But for ****'s sake, there is no definite winner between the two chip manufacturers, each will have some sort of high ground over the other in something. I switch back and forth between AMD and Intel each time I build a machine. I don't like one or the other more unless we're talking specifics, but I don't like hearing either side bashing the other when it seems obvious they're just trying to justify their own purchasing decision. We'd all be much happier if we just let it alone at that.

[SingSing]

We should keep Intel and AMD ( VIA too ) go at it forever. We are the benifactor of this competition.

The Blue-Ray and HD war instead is working hard to find a way to empty our wallets.