Does pentium d have heat issues?

[kony]

Thanks but what better alternatives are there for the current price of an
intel d820?

Your system is old enough that it will require replacing
everything, yes? If so, a few dozen dollars for a Core2Duo
and the newer technology motherboard is not that large a %
difference in total system cost.

Therefore my order would be E6300 Core2Duo, Athlon 64 4000+,
Pentium D820. If you're using this system much over the
next several years, the D820's higher power usage will cost
you a bit too, even at idle it's consuming around 50W,
power=heat.

 

[kony]

According to toms hardware cpu charts the cpu you recommend benchmarks
nowhere near as good as the d820, 1/2 the performance or less in a lot of
tests.

You are either looking at the wrong CPUs or very odd
benchmarks. Right now you can get an A64, 4000+ from Newegg
for about the same price and it is faster on average, and
MUCH faster at the typical legacy applications someone with
the system you have, would likely be running. Maybe you
have all new software or plan to put some $$$ into buying it
now, but you make no mention of that so...

If you only want to consider specific things the D820
architecture is suited for, that might be a valid reason to
choose one, IF that's what you're running, same app and
version of it as was benchmarked.

Multitasking, video encoding although the d820 thrashes the equivalent
priced amd in every test I looked at including games.

There is no "thrash". The same price Athlon 64 is
substantially faster at games, the D820 has no hope at all
in this area. The only exception would be if you live in
some odd country that doesn't follow regular market pricing
and has artificially kept Athlon 64 prices very high but
recently dropped D820 prices, such that you were only
comparing some oddly low end Athlon 64 instead of today's
equivalently priced models.. In the US, $80-100 will get
you the D820 or a 4000+. I've just checked again and at
many popular 'sites, the 4000+ and heatsink (your pick
instead of getting stuck with the loud Intel retail 'sink)
are actually cheaper for more performance.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103037
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116213

If your pricing is different, it should be pretty important
for you to mention that, since you are continuing to mention
"equivalent priced" but we don't know what you were planning
on paying.


For multitasking, we can ignore the word multitasking since
it will depend on what you're actually doing. In benchmarks
where the D820 does so well it is because it is already
using both cores, you don't then have that 2nd core
available for something else simultaneously, multitasking.

If you will be doing mostly video encoding with a modern
codec optimized for P4 dual core, that alone is a very good
reason to choose D820 at this price-point. Newer content
creation software is same story. Certain things the D820 is
great at, but even with it's strengths it is still slower on
average at most common tasks.


I'd still get the Core2Duo though, only one of the above if
you really have to spend $100. If you really plan on video
encoding you ought to plan good system cooling too as the
D820 will be producing a fair amount of heat at 100% load as
with encoding. Mainly I mean, choose your case carefully if
you want it to be as quiet as possible.

 

[JAD]

You are either looking at the wrong CPUs or very odd
benchmarks. Right now you can get an A64, 4000+ from Newegg
for about the same price and it is faster on average, and
MUCH faster at the typical legacy applications someone with
the system you have, would likely be running. Maybe you
have all new software or plan to put some $$$ into buying it
now, but you make no mention of that so...

If you only want to consider specific things the D820
architecture is suited for, that might be a valid reason to
choose one, IF that's what you're running, same app and
version of it as was benchmarked.







There is no "thrash". The same price Athlon 64 is
substantially faster at games, the D820 has no hope at all
in this area.

AMD AMD AMD AMD he was asking about heat and your trying to change him into a
AMDr.....let it alone.
screw AMD.



The only exception would be if you live in

 

[risc]

You are either looking at the wrong CPUs or very odd
benchmarks. Right now you can get an A64, 4000+ from Newegg
for about the same price and it is faster on average, and
MUCH faster at the typical legacy applications someone with
the system you have, would likely be running. Maybe you
have all new software or plan to put some $$$ into buying it
now, but you make no mention of that so...

If you only want to consider specific things the D820
architecture is suited for, that might be a valid reason to
choose one, IF that's what you're running, same app and
version of it as was benchmarked.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=486&model2=448&chart=166
These are the benchmarks I am looking at, you should take a look, they are
mainly real life benchmark programs, I don't give any value to theoretical
benchmark programs. The cpu you talk about is no longer available in my
country of New Zealand. You are right in that in certain applications the d
820 is slow but multitasking performance is a big attraction to me and this
is where dual core cpu's shine.

There is no "thrash". The same price Athlon 64 is
substantially faster at games, the D820 has no hope at all
in this area.

Not according to benchmarks i looked at on toms hardware cpu charts.

The only exception would be if you live in

some odd country that doesn't follow regular market pricing
and has artificially kept Athlon 64 prices very high but
recently dropped D820 prices, such that you were only
comparing some oddly low end Athlon 64 instead of today's
equivalently priced models.. In the US, $80-100 will get
you the D820 or a 4000+. I've just checked again and at
many popular 'sites, the 4000+ and heatsink (your pick
instead of getting stuck with the loud Intel retail 'sink)
are actually cheaper for more performance.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103037
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116213

If your pricing is different, it should be pretty important
for you to mention that, since you are continuing to mention
"equivalent priced" but we don't know what you were planning
on paying.

No there is no odd pricing here in New Zealand.

For multitasking, we can ignore the word multitasking since
it will depend on what you're actually doing. In benchmarks
where the D820 does so well it is because it is already
using both cores, you don't then have that 2nd core
available for something else simultaneously, multitasking.

Sorry don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[kony]

AMD AMD AMD AMD he was asking about heat and your trying to change him into a
AMDr.....let it alone.
screw AMD.

I'm suggesting an Athlon 64 for the same/similar cost or a
Core2Duo for higher cost. If you need a hint, one of them
isn't AMD.

 

[kony]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=486&model2=448&chart=166
These are the benchmarks I am looking at, you should take a look, they are
mainly real life benchmark programs, I don't give any value to theoretical
benchmark programs.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=486&model2=448&chart=169

It is not lack of benchmarks causing my view, it is lack of
benchmarks causing your view. The entire industry knows the
A64, 4000+ is significantly faster at most things.

I'm not going to argue about this, what do I care if you end
up with a slower or faster CPU? I don't have to use it.

The cpu you talk about is no longer available in my
country of New Zealand. You are right in that in certain applications the d
820 is slow but multitasking performance is a big attraction to me and this
is where dual core cpu's shine.

Not necessarily, as I mentioned previously, any time that
CPU is really good, it is using both cores already at single
tasks. You seem to be thinking this is a new frontier, but
these are the old architectures now, many people have
already compared them in actual use.

If you will have video encoding or similar running in the
background continually, a dual core is a good idea, but then
if the system is under this kind of continual load, a faster
CPU, different architecture is also, an even better idea.
Enter Core2Duo. You can't really have it both ways, either
you don't care about performance as much as all these
benchmark-huntings suggest, or you do and it's pointless to
try to arbitrarily make the CPU some specific dollar amount.


Now quit wasting time, you were given good advice and just
want to argue. Seek more benchmarks, sticking with only one
set at Tom's Hardware isn't as useful as a broad array.

 

[risc]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=486&model2=448&chart=169

It is not lack of benchmarks causing my view, it is lack of
benchmarks causing your view. The entire industry knows the
A64, 4000+ is significantly faster at most things.

You maybe right but without a reference to other benchmarks to qualify your
remarks I have no way of knowing who's opinion to trust, need something more
than this is just how it is, you must have seen by now the many people that
claim all sorts of incorrect conclusions based on their own ignorance and/or
bias.

I'm not going to argue about this, what do I care if you end
up with a slower or faster CPU? I don't have to use it.

You don't have to argue, I have taken your opinion on board and have looked
for evidence to confirm the accuracy of your statements.

Not necessarily, as I mentioned previously, any time that
CPU is really good, it is using both cores already at single
tasks. You seem to be thinking this is a new frontier, but
these are the old architectures now, many people have
already compared them in actual use.

If you will have video encoding or similar running in the
background continually, a dual core is a good idea, but then
if the system is under this kind of continual load, a faster
CPU, different architecture is also, an even better idea.
Enter Core2Duo. You can't really have it both ways, either
you don't care about performance as much as all these
benchmark-huntings suggest, or you do and it's pointless to
try to arbitrarily make the CPU some specific dollar amount.


Now quit wasting time, you were given good advice and just
want to argue. Seek more benchmarks, sticking with only one
set at Tom's Hardware isn't as useful as a broad array.

Hey no need for that tone, you must remember there are others that give
different advice to you and i am not to know who is right and who is wrong,
besides the right and wrong will differ with your frame of reference. At
this stage I am set on a dual core solution.

 

[risc]

I'm suggesting an Athlon 64 for the same/similar cost or a
Core2Duo for higher cost. If you need a hint, one of them
isn't AMD.

I'm not really interested in game performance and I would guess that games
with no programming to use dual cores would run faster on your suggested
cpu. I don't know if the price of the amd 3800 dual core just came down or
if I just got confused with all the different options but after checking
your facts on price i noticed this cpu is not much dearer the the d 820 and
looks like a better solution to me, so thanks you inadvertently pointed me
to a better option.

 

[risc]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=486&model2=448&chart=169

It is not lack of benchmarks causing my view, it is lack of
benchmarks causing your view. The entire industry knows the
A64, 4000+ is significantly faster at most things.

Then maybe toms hardware is not a good place for advice, the cpu charts
benchmarks on this site do show the d820 to be the better performer, they
should have included some benchmarks that reflect your opinion then.

 

[kony]

You maybe right but without a reference to other benchmarks to qualify your
remarks I have no way of knowing who's opinion to trust, need something more
than this is just how it is, you must have seen by now the many people that
claim all sorts of incorrect conclusions based on their own ignorance and/or
bias.

If there is anything Google can find, it is CPU benchmarks.
More benchmarks than you could ever care to view, and then
some. Athlon 64 is faster on average at practically all
price-points, until the budget can accomdate a Core2Duo.

Hey no need for that tone, you must remember there are others that give
different advice to you and i am not to know who is right and who is wrong,
besides the right and wrong will differ with your frame of reference. At
this stage I am set on a dual core solution.

You may be jumping to the wrong conclusion. Dual core is
not in itself a performance advantage. AMD and Intel would
have stayed with single core if they could have continued
ramping up single core speeds, but at the time they could
not. Thus, two cores, but to get two fast cores you have to
spend more money which is something you don't want to do.

For typical windows uses, you will have higher performance
for ~ $85 from one faster single core than two slower dual
cores. The exception is as was noted previously, particular
apps well optimized for the 820 like newer versions of video
codecs and applications.

You should not be considering whether the CPU is dual core
at this price point, only whether it excells at your most
frequent or most demanding jobs regardless of dual or single
core. Multitasking is not automatically faster on dual
core, it requires a good distribution of workload over both
cores, and that the task not in focus be linearlly bound
instead of just sitting idle waiting for your next command.

In other words, you WILL be making compromises for $85,
there's not enough thought that can make as much difference
as just spending more on the Core2Duo, but if you must stick
with some random $ amount, look closely at exactly what you
are doing with the system down to the specific application
brand, version number, and directly applicable benchmarks,
NOT some random set of benchmarks at only one website.

 

[kony]

Then maybe toms hardware is not a good place for advice, the cpu charts
benchmarks on this site do show the d820 to be the better performer, they
should have included some benchmarks that reflect your opinion then.

No, they show how it performs at specific applications, but
you ignore applications where it is the other way around,
and why it is such a difference, that the distinction is
whether the particular app is optimized for the architecture
or not, and THAT as shown by the benchmarks, will make a
substantial difference in resulting performance in your
specific uses.

 

[Paul]

Then maybe toms hardware is not a good place for advice, the cpu charts
benchmarks on this site do show the d820 to be the better performer, they
should have included some benchmarks that reflect your opinion then.

The problem with the Tomshardware benchmarks, is they are tuned for
multithreaded performance. In other words, they emphasize dual
core processors, by only using programs that can use both cores
simultaneously. Toms was careful to use only the latest version
of the test programs, getting patches for dual core operation,
so that the benchmarks would no longer show a fast single core
in a good light.

I had to look long and hard at those charts, until I could find
a benchmark that only used a single core on that site.

There are other, smaller sites, that have compared single threaded
performance of dual core processors.

If you look at the Itunes benchmark on Tomshardware, that one seems
to be single threaded.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=486&model2=448&chart=181

Notice how:

Pentium 4 630 3.0GHz single core
Pentium 4 530 3.0GHz single core
Pentium D 920 2.8GHz Dual core
Pentium D 820 2.8GHz Dual core

are all near one another at the bottom of the chart. That means the ITunes
benchmark is not using both cores at the same time. It also means the
ITunes benchmark is not cache sensitive, as those four processors show
cache differences, and it isn't making a difference. Within a few seconds
of performance, that is. That benchmark is only sensitive to equivalent
CPU core clock rate. And by "equivalent", that is why there is a
2.9GHz processor at the top of the chart, because it gives much more
than 2.9Ghz worth of work on a single core. That is called IPC or
instructions per clock -- some processors/families do that better than
others. So you could buy a Core2 Duo with a high clock rate, use only
one of its cores, and still win in a single threaded benchmark.

The Athlon64 4000+ is way up the chart on that one, because the Athlon64
has "close to" a 4GHz clock equivalent of performance.

What other anomalies can present themselves ?

SSE/SSE3/SSE3 issues. Some programs will use SSE on an Intel processor,
but not the equivalent flavor on an AMD processor. For some multimedia
applications, an application can be optimized for one family over the
other. If doing multimedia (rendering, transcoding) you had better find
a web page that reviews the program's behavior, rather than a CPU
performance page.

The designers of the Tomshardware web site, had as their objective, to
enhance the appearance of dual cores. If you have a lot of older software,
and don't plan on buying a lot of new software, it is possible a single
core is a better choice.

Benchmarks can be tilted to prove just about anything

If you are on a budget, and cannot afford a device from the top of the
chart, then you have to tune your purchase, to the software you are
using.

Paul

 

[~misfit~]

Hey no need for that tone, you must remember there are others that
give different advice to you and i am not to know who is right and
who is wrong, besides the right and wrong will differ with your frame
of reference. At this stage I am set on a dual core solution.

risc, FWIW I value Kony's advice over anyone else's here. He's been here
longer than the many years that I've been posting and I've never managed to
catch him out yet.

BTW, "here" indicates a.c.h.o, the group I suggested you post to. Those
other groups aren't so useful in this particular case. <dons flameproof
suit>

Good luck with your new PC, whichever way you go.

 

[~misfit~]

risc, FWIW I value Kony's advice over anyone else's here. He's been
here longer than the many years that I've been posting and I've never
managed to catch him out yet.

BTW, "here" indicates a.c.h.o, the group I suggested you post to.
Those other groups aren't so useful in this particular case. <dons
flameproof suit>

Good luck with your new PC, whichever way you go.

Heh! Actually, Kony posts mainly in a.c.h. My bad. The above still stands
though, he really knows his hardware.

As for the gurus of a.c.h.o, they would be Phil Weldon, David Maynard, Wes
Newell, Spajky and a few others. (Forgive me if you feel you should be on
this list but I disincluded you. I've not spent so much time here of late as
I used to)

 

[~misfit~]

Paul wrote:


[snip]

The designers of the Tomshardware web site, had as their objective, to
enhance the appearance of dual cores. If you have a lot of older
software, and don't plan on buying a lot of new software, it is
possible a single core is a better choice.

Benchmarks can be tilted to prove just about anything

[snip]

I agree. While I've been visiting Tom's site for years now, I've unsubed
from his newsletter. It's good to keep on top of the latest tech and all
that but by skewing his benches towards dual cores so strongly when average
real-world use still favours faster single cores is a bad move. Maybe in a
couple years when everyone (ha!) is running software re-written from the
ground up to utilise multi-core CPUs then Tom's current benches will be more
useful. As it is they're not that useful for most of us.

 

[kony]

Heh! Actually, Kony posts mainly in a.c.h. My bad. The above still stands
though, he really knows his hardware.

As for the gurus of a.c.h.o, they would be Phil Weldon, David Maynard, Wes
Newell, Spajky and a few others. (Forgive me if you feel you should be on
this list but I disincluded you. I've not spent so much time here of late as
I used to)

I don't visit the a.c.h.o group much as a primary target,
overclockers are just too much of a PITA. If they knew what
info to provide they wouldn't need to ask why they can't hit
32GHz by putting an ice cube in a pepsi. Of course I'm
kidding, I o'c quite a bit as a hobby but I figure if
someone can get themselves into a mess by choice, they can
get themselves back out.

 

[kony]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:08:03 +1300, "~misfit~"

I agree. While I've been visiting Tom's site for years now, I've unsubed
from his newsletter. It's good to keep on top of the latest tech and all
that but by skewing his benches towards dual cores so strongly when average
real-world use still favours faster single cores is a bad move. Maybe in a
couple years when everyone (ha!) is running software re-written from the
ground up to utilise multi-core CPUs then Tom's current benches will be more
useful. As it is they're not that useful for most of us.

Yep, especially not the typical person who wants something
cheap and hasn't upgraded since the P3-500 era... not so
likely to have the $2000+ worth of new software that Tom's
benched with unless they pirate it, but i can't even
understand that, going to such lengths to get this demanding
newer software but nothing that runs it very well yet. I'm
not suggesting that is what the OP is doing - I have no
idea.

 

[~misfit~]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:08:03 +1300, "~misfit~"



Yep, especially not the typical person who wants something
cheap and hasn't upgraded since the P3-500 era... not so
likely to have the $2000+ worth of new software that Tom's
benched with unless they pirate it, but i can't even
understand that, going to such lengths to get this demanding
newer software but nothing that runs it very well yet. I'm
not suggesting that is what the OP is doing - I have no
idea.

Yeah, Tom's has ceased to be the 'touchstone' of hardware reviews that it
once was for me. It's benches have lost all touch with what most users are
actually doing. Shame really. I guess I'll have to re-visit Anand's and see
what he's up to, see if his benches are more real-world.

Cheers,

 

[~misfit~]

I don't visit the a.c.h.o group much as a primary target,
overclockers are just too much of a PITA. If they knew what
info to provide they wouldn't need to ask why they can't hit
32GHz by putting an ice cube in a pepsi. Of course I'm
kidding, I o'c quite a bit as a hobby but I figure if
someone can get themselves into a mess by choice, they can
get themselves back out.

Yeah, agreed. That said though, the above-mentioned long-time a.c.h.o.
regulars keep on proffering good advice long after I got tired of saying the
same old stuff over and over. (Much as you do in a.c.h.) Kudos to them, and
you.

Cheers,

 

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

I nearly took this core D route ...the 3.6 Ghz x 2 can be had for less than
1/2
a C2D E6600 ...
Assuming you check for correct Motherboard (Pentium 4 Type with the extra
mid-board 4 pin power plug/socket) & good PSU of at least 350 w
with your modest intentions for the graphic card..all should be fine..
(it really won't overclock tho.)

BUT I decided the C2Duo E6300 at around same price as Core D is
best bet ..& it will overclock well .

As for case heating issues it will need one case fan...unless like me you
always
run with the outer case cover off.
Or no case at all (sic) ..just lay the bits out or stick on some wall panel
& plug it all together.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse