Athlon 64 x2 V. Pentium D
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Gaming and Information Technology
Forum Discription: Technology and Computer-related discussions; PC and Video Games…
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18759
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 18:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Athlon 64 x2 V. Pentium D
Posted By: Cywr
Subject: Athlon 64 x2 V. Pentium D
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 17:47
|
So I want to upgrade my computer, at first i considered going for a high end single core, which is cheap way of getting me a better computer. But i'm thinking of going for a cheapish dualcore option. Now, i know that the high end Intel dual cores beat the current AMD offerings, but they are a bit too pricy for my budget. How are things when it comes to similary priced Athlon 64 x2 vs Pentium Ds? Idealy i want a processor that has faster speed than my present 2.8 Ghz one, as older software that doesn't utilise multitherading will only use one of the cores at maximum speed. I will most likely go for a 64 bit operating system too, now, AMD offers the potental of 64 and 32 bit compatability at the same time, does the Intel offering also have this? I've heard scared stories of 32 bit software actualy running slower on 64 bit systems. Overblown hype? Or something to consider? I've totaly ignored dualcore upto now seeing it as a very expensive overkill option for my needs, so my knowledge is thin, but now that the prices have come down, its time for me to join the 21st century. Any experts/geeks? -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Replies:
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 17:51
You need to get a 64 bit nowadays you have no choice. Most applications and games work on a 64-bit. There both relativly old processors. what is your pice budget if I may ask? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 18:13
|
100 - 150 pounds (just for the processor). I'm sort of eyeing up an Athlon 64 5000+/5200+ vs a Pentium D 940/945. If i go with the Athlon solution, i already know the rest of my setup easily, as i've already worked out the MB and such i'd get. The Intel option would send me back to the drawing board so to speak. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 18:36
|
I think you should take the intel core duo
------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 18:42
|
Out of my price range. The cheapest one is like 1.7 Ghz, and its still 100+ quid. On software that doesn't use multi-threading (most stuff on my machine right now), i'd probably get better performance by upgrading the RAM on my present machine.
------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 19:24
|
hmm I got my for 220€ so I thought it was in your price range. and yes Upgrading your ram can & will speed up you pc ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 10:18
|
As far as upgrades are concerned I've been there seen that and wrote the book. Don't waste your money playing catch up as one thing tends to lead to another and can work out more expensive. For example: will your motherboard take the upgrade processor or will you have to buy a new motherboard as well as a new processor. Ram upgrade, or graphics card would probs be next on your wish list and so on till you tote up what you've spent upgrading and realise you could have bought new.
The best thing anyone can do is to buy as best a spec computer with the money they have available. Spend no more than £500 on a comp and then bin/replace it after 3 years for a newer faster model within same £500 price range. Don't be tempted to take out additional insurance warranty; instead bank this cash every month and utilise when buying another comp.
And yep! I'm one of the original comp geeks from the 70s/80s
 . Failing on my above tip then make sure your motherboard can take desired upgrade as motherboards/processors tend to fit hand in glove.
Athlon is cheaper and gets a thumbs up from me.
 Can't say I've noticed much difference between the two types of processor though I'm only using my comps for run of the mill stuff and not testing them to the extreme. Here is the peeps I use.
http://www.Maplins.co.uk - http://www.Maplins.co.uk
------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 11:10
|
myt current comp costed me €1 312.00 And I payed it all my self since I turned 18 I'm not getting much from my parents.(i'm 19 now so it's been 1 year that I'm broke  )------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 12:18
|
Well my present PC doesn't have much upgrade potential, so i'm starting from scratch here. And i have no intention of trying to buy the best of everything, as jusy after you buy it theres something new and better. Hmm, figures stuff would be cheaper on the continent, but in my experience computer stuff isn't that much cheaper, and then you have to add on delivery charges. Eitherway, the cheapest Core Duo i'm seeing is the E6300, which doesn't look that impressive. I figure that with my intended budget i could go for a higherish end Pentium D or Athlon 64 x2 and get more bang for buck so to speak. As for motherboards, for the AMD option i've found a neat Abit one that is reasonably priced and is satisfactory to my needs without being overkill. For the Intel option i'd have to do my homework, but i'm more used to non-intel based chipsets and instinctivly tend to look for them on motherboards, SiS or Nvidia generaly. Meh. So nothing on the Athlon 64 x2 V Pentium 2 then? ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 12:21
|
I have a E6400 with 1gig ram on an Assus motherboard I'm quiet satisfied with it
------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:18
|
Its 160 pounds though. Meh, i'll probably go for a cheap athlon solution. I'm not an 'extreme' gamer, and i'm happy to let a graphics card take care of the graphics side of things. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 17:33
|
Pentium D versus AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor Info Review
http://www.gen-x-pc.com/dualcoreinfo.htm - http://www.gen-x-pc.com/dualcoreinfo.htm
Dual Core Shootout - hit link and use go to section menu bar for additional information. (7 pages)
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/components/0,1000001694,39233885-1,00.htm - http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/components/0,1000001694,39233885-1,00.htm
I'd still favour the cheaper Athlon too
 ------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 18:44
|
Yeah, i've been googling and the general consensus seems to be 62 X2 > Pentium D in most departments, save for perhaps running multiple applications at the same time. April 9th AMD slashes prices, with the high end X2s seeing the biggest drops http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2041-view-Amd-next-price-drop-Fixed-price.html - look here for details . So when next month's [ay check comes in, i'll get to shopping. This is what i'm aiming for, the CPU - X2 5200 MB - Abit KN9S RAM - cheapest PC6400 modules i can find, 2x1GB GPU - deffinitly an nVidia geforce 8 series, but i'll wait before making the decision on which exactly. And 4 hard drives (one for the system, 3 for raid storage) And then i'll go looking for a case, one with a transparent side panel, the geek in me likes to look, and i can put lights inside to light up my desk at night. BTW, maplins is a bit of a rip off IMHO, i only use them if its something obscure i can't find elsewhere. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 04:41
|
Hey!
you were having us on
 Seems you know more about comp insides and componants than you let on.  Yeh! I know about Maplins but I've a store near me and I tend to be lazy and shop there for convenience. I tend to want a component same day and not next weeks slow post. I don't mind paying extra if it saves me time and the hassle of looking elsewhere.
 Have you tried sourcing your required items on Ebay shops? You just might get your computer wish list cheaper.
Anyways good luck and welcome to the computer geek club
though I reckon you were a closet geek all along keep us informed as to how you get on.
 ------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:49
|
Well, i have done my share of building machines (and got paid for it), though i am a total dual core noob. I got an A+ in a programming course i did for college, man i so chose the wrong subjects at my first shot at Uni. I guess i was a closet geek all along. As for ebay, oddly, it doesn't seem as competative for some new components as you'd think, at least, not for motherboards or CPUs. memory looks good there though. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 12:05
|
Computer technology advances that fast and I too find it hard keeping pace with the latest updates.
For me computers are just a hobby and the geek in me is curious and wants to know them inside out.
Hence: My main objective is to complete and pass a Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator course I've elected to do at 42.
 off my rocker or what? ------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 12:16
|
Wait, don't know if you've ever looked at Overclockers.co.uk, but they have some tempting bundle deals with Core Duo E6600s (with mother board and RAM thrown into the mix). Intel may win me over yet. I think its a safe bet that the E6600 would out perform the X2 5xxxs in all departments right? As for MCSA and age, deffinitly not. I've started a foundation (2 years) degree in IT-Netowrking, and i'll do CCNA, MCSA, N+, A+, and something from Oracle as well as getting the degree (well, you don;t actualy have to complete the vendor qualifications, but IMHO you'd be a fool not to seeing as the exams for them are already paid for). And when thats done, one more year tops it up to a full degree. Its evening classes, and, though in my late 20s, i'm one of the youngest people there. My first two shots at Uni were Geological Sciences, followed by Human Geography. Bad choices, i should have done something ITish right from the start. And if you work in IT, getting some recent certifications is a huge plus, as UK IT industry is very ageist. Have you started it? You get an MSDN Alliance account, which means free Microsoft goodies! ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:13
|
More or less just started MCSA as I had to complete a couple of other computer related courses before I started this one.
Going for MCDST first (exams 70-271 and 70-272) then I'll decide which order to tackle the other 3 exams. I'm having to do MCSA as a homestudy course as I can plod along at my own pace and sit exams locally when ready.
I've set myself a target of around 12-18mths to complete this course.
 free goodies and invites to various seminars with all expenses paid. Microsoft must think I'm someone else though so far I've elected to decline these free invites in case I get caught out. Maybe Microsoft thinks I'm already a Microsoft Certification Member or something but I ain't as yet so don't know why I get invites to these seminars and such. Did you get invited to any of the Vista related seminars? or was it just me Anyways like I said this is just a hobby for me whereas your going on to an IT career.
------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:22
|
Ooh, i only got 70-270 books so far, so you must be a step ahead of me.
------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 02:57
|
Cost me around £1200 but I've got everything I need including a load of Thomson Netg interactive CD Roms and all the relevant guide books. I've just the 5 exams to pay when I elect to sit them. They'll cost me around £90 per exam. When I first heard about Windows Vista I thought something new to learn but it's still more or less XP Professional (longhorn tech) apart from the new window dressing features. At the end of the day you'll be the one earning the big bucks whereas I'll still be a hobbyist. ------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 17:08
|
Do use any virtualisation software like VMware or the Microsoft version?
------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 04:30
|
I have avoided going down the VMware road in the past with preference to keeping OS segregated.
I take it virtualisation software has become more reliable? I've a spare computer with windows 2003 server doing nought so I could experiment a little if 2003 can be set to play host. If it works out okay then it would make things easier for me.
What do you reckon is the best? VMWare or Microsoft? I'm leaning more to Microsoft for obvious reasons though VMWare may be the better software.
------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 10:36
|
Depends what you are doing. VMware is more powerfull and faster, but some people prefer Virtual PC for ease of use. For my needs VMware is superior as it has good support for non Windows based Operating systems as well as Windows, which is a plus for me as i like to test and muck about wih Linux. There is a 'Shoot out' article comparing the two http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/vm.ars/1 - here Virtual PC comes free if you get that MSDN alliance thing, where as VMware Workstation edition is somewhat costly. However, here is a VWware server edition that does everything you need that is free to download, and if you already have virtual machines set up (unlikely, but you can download them), then VMware Player will do the job. Both VMware Workstaion and Virtual PC have free trial peroids AFAIK. I've been toying with the idea od using some old 8-10 GB hard drives i have lying around as boot drives for various OSs, but the effort of swapping them all around would be a pain in the arse, i guess a hot-swap HD bay is in order, but at the moment i'm not sure if its worth the hassle (or cost). ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 11:02
I looked into Microsoft virtual pc 2007 but according to the system requirements 2003 server can't play host. Seems they have geared the 2007 version for Vista related OS though XP pro would do.
So I jumped in and
I downloaded and installed it anyway and got a message saying 2003 maybe could be host(
seems to be working okay) but wouldn't be supported by microsoft.
 If it works then why not support it Anyways going to locate that VMWare software you mentioned and see about downloading and do some comparing before I commit. Though I may have to think about using another comp running XP pro if I can't get 2003 server to run proper as host.
You and I are thinking the same about Hard Drives though I'm now thinking more of an external USB hard drive. Do you reckon you could Virtual PC an external hard drive with various OS and access via a normal computer without too much hassle?
------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 11:18
|
Deffinitly, i use a portable 20GB USB hard drive, and move them back and fore between home and college. The virtual hard drives don't do anything to your real operating system save for taking up space. If your Virtualisation software can read from it, you can use it, you could use DVD ROM if you wanted too i guess if you wanted to. You can get the free server edition of VMware http://www.vmware.com/download/server/ - here I've not actualy used it, but i hear it can do pretty much everything that the Workstation version can, only its slightly older. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 17:26
|
I've got the VMWare free server edition downloading.
It doesn't matter that it's an older version so long as it fulfills basic requirement and does the job for now. If things work out then I'll upgrade to a newer version at a later date.
Thanks for the info and links
------------- Scorpian |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 05:01
|
Cywr, I hope you haven't bought your new pc yet, because I found a test in Latvian IT and computer tech. portal which might interest you. They are testing three different processors - AMD Athlon 64 3000+, Pentium4 2.4c and Pentium4 2.4c@3GHz (over clocked) You can check out the graphs from different testing software: http://www.boot.lv/index.php?pg=202&news_id=626 I translated "conclusions" for you: Athlon 64 shows very good performance on 32 bit applications, while it is intended for 64 bit applications. Only on few tests Athlon lost to Pentium. Besides the largest defeat was experienced by Athlon in PCMark04 test, due to Pentium's HyperThreading technology which was very essential for that test. Athlon showed himself very good on 32 bit video games, so we just have to wait for 64 bit games where Athlon could show its true power. In archiving task even overclocked Pentium system considerably lagged behind the Athlon. Athlon's memory controller showed good performance. Besides Intel was very skeptical about this Athlon's innovation. Furthermore in this task Athlon worked only in single channel regime. In dual channel regime Athlon would be unreachable for Intel systems. I hope this will help you to make decision. ------------- |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 09:03
|
Hmm, thats a slightly older AMD single core chip, there are 4000+s now that are even faster and still reasonably priced. AMD is the king of single core, i have no doubt about that. I've been thinking of making a cheap single core machine, but what i need to know is: will an AGP card work in a PCI-Ex16 slot? This would make a single core option nice and cheap, as all i really need is the CPU and motherboard. Edit: No, you can't. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|