homem-da-(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Hello, I'm going to buy a new PC in the coming couple of weeks and I
> am sort of trying to decide between 1 of 2 options I got in this
> proposal the guys at a store gave me about going with one type of
> processor or another.
>
> But since I don't know too much about technology I'd appreciate if I
> got some input on which of the 2 options is better. I'd also be deeply
> appreciated if we could stick to these 2 options rather than telling
> me to buy other stuff such as AMD, etc. I know there's a lot of fans
> of Intel Vs AMD in this newsgroup but I'm already confused enough as
> it is without getting into that. Thanks.
>
> I'm just going to type what's written on the paper because I don't
> understand any of this stuff:
>
> I can either buy:
>
> 1) An Intel Pentium 4 P670 3.8 Ghz processor Skt 775 FSB 800 Mhz 2 MB
> cache box
>
> Motherboard: Asus P5LD2 Deluxe Intel 945P DDR2 sk 775 1066/800 FSB
> supports Dual Core.
>
> 2) An Intel Pentium 4 D840 3.2 Ghz Skt 775 FSB 800 Mhz 2x 1MB Cache
> Dual Core Box.
>
> Motherboard: P5ND2-SLI/DELUXE - NVIDIA nForce5 SLI DDR2 sk 775
> 1066/800 FSB Dual Core.
>
> Now, for an ignorant like me 3.8 Ghz sounds better than 3.2 Ghz but
> the latter proposal is a "Dual Core" that so many people talk about
> today, I know this doesn't literally mean 3.2 Ghz times 2 = 6.4 Ghz of
> processing power which of course is more than 3.8 Ghz but everybody
> talks about Dual Core being the future of gaming etc and maybe I'd be
> better of with 3.2 Ghz Dual Core over 3,8 Ghz. I'm confused to I'd
> really appreciate an honest, cool headed opinion over which one is the
> better option for me both for now and as far as having been the wiser
> choice when I look back in 12 months.
>
> One interesting thing is the guy tells me the 3.8 Ghz's motherboard is
> prepared to handle a dual core processor in the future so I have the
> option of buying the 3.8 ghz option now and if in a year I come to
> realise a 3.2 Ghz dual core is better I can always upgrade to that.
>
> Regarding the other components of the PC (they are the same for both
> proposals):
>
> Graphics card: XFX Geforce 7800 GTX PCI-E 256 MB DDR3 DUAL DVI.
>
> Memory: Two Maxtor 250 GB Serial ATA 150 - 7.200 rpm - 16 MB cache
>
> Other type of memory: 1 GB DDR2 PC4200 (533) Kingston (2x 512 MB DDRII
> - Dual Channel). the guy alaso says I can double this and it will only
> cost me an extra 80 Euros by going with a 2GB DDR2 PC4200 (533) (2x
> 1GB DDR2) Kingston.
>
> Well, that's about it. I've already bought a very nice Viewsonic
> Professional Series P225f CRT 22 inch monitor and I'm just waiting to
> make a decision over which computer to buy so I can have an happy
> gaming Christmas.
>
> Thank you very much
>
>
>
> André
Dual core has the promise of being exceedingly fast *if* there are
multithreaded applications that can take advantage of the cores.
Otherwise the P4 and [you did not want to hear this] and AMD 64 will
beat the pants off the dual core. AMD 64 actually beats the pants off
of anything Intel has.
The Intel CPU roadmap offers incremental performance boosts, depending
on the CPU. AMD offers significantly more than simple increments of
performance boost. Tom's Hardware has a roundup of CPU performance
benchmarks. You will see that Intel's performances are distributed
fairly tightly about a mean performance index while AMD is really off in
its own world at a mean peformance well above Intel's mean performance.
In other words, based only on benchmarks, any Intel CPU is going to be
in the neighborhood of any other Intel CPU in the second-rate CPU
category.
The Mother of all CPU Guides:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html
Q
Similar Threads
