Pentium D vs Core 2 Duo

[Stoney X]

I'm debating upgrading some of my kit. I'm toying with the idea of either a 3.0 Ghz Pentium D for £80 or a 1.86 Ghz Core 2 Duo for £120. I know that due to changes in the FSB speeds and L2 cache things that the clock speeds can't be compared directly, so is the Core 2 Duo a better buy that the Pentium D?

I haven't ruled out AMD processors, I just don't know much about them, so if anybody wants to recommend something comparible to the above I'm all ears.

p.s. I'm looking at upgrading the mobo, mem and graphics cards at the same time so it's really just down to the processor at this point.

Regards
Stoney

[ORAC]

Good comparison of the 6300 (Core 2 Duo 1.86Ghz) against other CPUs can be found here. (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802) Seems to perform as well as, or better than, the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (3.73GHz). So I'd go for the 6300.

[Oceanz]

I've been using an AMD 64X2 (dual core) 4200+ on an Asus board since November and can't fault it.

[slim_slag]

I haven't ruled out AMD processors, I just don't know much about them...Everything I have seen/heard that isn't sponsored by Intel says AMD processors are better and cheaper.

[Saab Dastard]

Everything I have seen/heard that isn't sponsored by Intel says AMD processors are better and cheaper.

True up to quite recently, but intel definitely have regained the edge with their new multicore processors, as they consume much less power for approx. same performance - and so run cooler and lead to longer battery life (laptops).

This allows smaller, quieter, more efficient PCs and laptops than you can get with equivalent AMD CPUs.

All down to intel being first to move to a 65nm fab. process, and likely able to maintain its lead down to the next - 45nm - fab process.

SD

[planecrazy.eu]

I would disagree about the whole AMD been better than Intel thing, it may have been true a while back, i thought my AMD was better than my familys P4 machine but now i have a dual core intel laptop and my partner dual core amd laptop and when i go on hers i can feel its been more slugish and not as prompt as my own machine, they are both acers running more or less the same software, if anything, my machine is bloated with junk.

Not sure what it is, but at the moment i get the feeling that intel are producing the better processors, i have no data to back this up, but i have some real world experiance.

Funny thing is, hers benchmarks slightly higher, but in every day use i can so tell the difference as i work my machine hard, and notice the difference when im on her when i stay over...

[Saab Dastard]

notice the difference when im on her when i stay over...

Glad you are getting SOME pleasure, then :p

SD

[Spitoon]

Can't answer the specific question but I recently upgraded from 2.4 GHz P4 to Cor 2 Duo of the same speed - admittedly upgraded the RAM too - but it was a significant improvement for general processing and graphic design stuff. It was a bit of a gamble, of course, because I couldn't try it out before buying but I'm happy with it and from what I could see the Core 2 Duo is the best processor range around today................although who knows what will be around tomorrow.

[icemel_aratt]

why not wait a couple of months and the quad core will come out.....

[slim_slag]

No doubt true on the metrics you chose, SD, but are Intel 'better and cheaper'

Tom's hardware gives an idea on Price and Performance, and AMD is still tops

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=465&chart=195

Though I am sure for some people the latest Intel chips would make more sense, for the majority of us AMD is still the way to go.

IMO of course :)

[spannersatcx]

Those charts are quite interesting. Because if you pull up the charts for performance Intel wins every time, it's only the cost that gives AMD the upper hand.:eek:

[Mac the Knife]

Performance of modern mainstream CPUs is now so good that unless you are doing something quite special (like editing hi-res videos) or extensive multitasking, that subjective differences are very small.

[Oceanz]

Too true Mac,

And if you are into those high end apps then you will be looking at multi-processor machines (Xeons, Opterons etc.) - lovely, but a bit outside my business' price range at present.

[Saab Dastard]

unless you are doing something quite special

You mean like... running Vista? :}

SD

[slim_slag]

Those charts are quite interesting. Because if you pull up the charts for performance Intel wins every time, it's only the cost that gives AMD the upper hand.:eek:But as SD pointed out earlier, this is a recent phenomenon. No doubt AMD will pull back. Intel only gets as much business as it does because of its name, IMO, and probably because it gives Dell a cracking deal. But you can even get AMD chips from Dell now, and they are almost always the better choice for the likes of you and me. Anyway, it's good there is a choice, keeps the price down and innovation up.

And for the linux folk, you can get a 64 bit AMD chip for less than 30 quid. On my latest play system the chip is about the only damned thing the OS recognises :)