On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:31:34 GMT,
(E-Mail Removed)lid (sapple) wrote:
>What is the performance difference between the two CPU models below?
>Is that something noticable and worth paying the extra $70 ???
>
>P4 INTEL 2.8GHz 533MHz 1 MB LGA775 $126
>
>P4 INTEL 3.0GHz LGA775 800MHz 2MB 64Bit $199
Hmm.. I can't seem to find any reviews that directly compare those two
chips, so you may need to extrapolate a bit from a variety of reviews.
FWIW the two chips you're looking at are officially called the
"Pentium 4 510" and the "Pentium 4 630" respectively. You may find it
EXTREMELY difficult to find any info on the first chip since it's very
rare. You'll probably be better off looking for comparisons featuring
the "Pentium 4 2.8A GHz" processor, which is exactly the same as the
515 except in a Socket 478 format instead of LGA775 (performance
should be roughly the same).
As for whether it's worth the extra $70, I really couldn't say,
because in my mind the point is totally moot. The only possible
reason I can think of to purchase either of these processor is if
you've already got an LGA775 system board and are looking for the best
single-threaded chip for under $200, ie a VERY narrow market.
For $134 (from
www.newegg.com) you can get a Pentium D 805 processor
(dual-core, 2.66GHz and 2MB of L2 per core). The two cores will make
this a much better solution for most desktop users, giving you a more
responsive desktop system and better multitasking at the expensive of
slightly reduce single-thread performance (ie you're tasks themselves
will take slightly longer, but you'll be able to actually use your
computer to do other stuff while tasks run in the background). For
most desktop users, this is the chip I would recommend at this time if
price is much of a concern.
Side note: for comparison sake, Newegg sells the P4 511 processor for
$113 and the P4 630 for $169, slightly less then the prices you're
quoting above.
Now, if price is NOT much of a concern, then AMD's Athlon64 X2
solutions are unquestionably the best bet for most desktop users. AMD
has Intel beat hands-down in terms of performance these days, but
sadly the Athlon64 X2 3800+, at $295, is their cheapest dual-core
chip. While this chip is quite a bit faster than Intel's Pentium D
805 chip, anyone on a budget is probably better off saving the $160
and getting the low-end Intel chip.
The other options are if multitasking is of no interest to you. If
you're applications are not multithreaded and you have no desire to do
other work on the computer while tasks are running, then a single-core
processor is the choice for you. Here AMD is the only real solution,
as they are quite a bit faster than Intel at every price point. At
the lower end of stuff, a Sempron64 3000+, at $86, should match the
Pentium 4 510 chip. Slightly up the scale, the Sempron64 3400+ at
$120 should be a match for the Pentium 4 630 in most applications.
Going up to the Athlon64 3200+, at $146, would tend to put the AMD
chip in the lead pretty much across the board. And finally the
Athlon64 3700+, at $212, hits a very nice price/performance point for
high-end single thread performance.
Given the applications your listed in another message, I would go for
either the Pentium D 805 if you want to multitask while running these
apps or the Athlon64 3200+ if you just need the applications to run
fast.
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Similar Threads
