TechSpot

Dual Core vs. Pentium D

By GThomp6654
Nov 11, 2008
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I bought a Pentium D 925 processor a while back, but I have a feeling that it is not working the way I was hoping it would :(

    So what I was wondering was, which cpu would be a better option

    ie:
    Stick with Pentium D running at 3ghz
    or:
    Buy a E5200 running at 2.50GHZ (best I can afford :( )


    thankyou in advance

    Graeme
  2. seanc

    seanc Newcomer, in training Posts: 284

    The E5200 is a much better CPU compared to the Pentium D.

    As far as I can see, the E5200 is now equivalent to what the E4600 was.
  3. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    Is it worth spending another £50 - £60 on a new processor better tho?
  4. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,284   +24

    The performance gap between any Pentium D and the E5200 is quite large. Go with the E5200, it is definitely worth it. Make sure your motherboard supports it first though.
  5. seanc

    seanc Newcomer, in training Posts: 284

    Well the next question is, what aspect of your current setup isn't performing the way you wanted it to?
  6. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    I just am not sure any more, my set up at the moment is:

    CPU: Pentium D 925
    RAM: 2gb DDR2 Kingston 667
    M/B: ASRock Conroe 133-667
    GPU: NVidia GeForce 9500GT
    HDD: Samsung SATAII 1tb
    Cooler: Xigmatek hdt-s1283
    PSU: Seasonic S12II-430

    but I am finding that the computer still takes quite a while to load up, both at the start, as well as opening extra programmes, and also other niggily little things.

    I am sorta assuming that it is down to the processor I have that is causing this to happen
  7. HaLo2FrEeEk

    HaLo2FrEeEk TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 225

    430W on the PSU probably isn't enough to run the 9500 GFX card, for one; 2GB RAM is not a lot by any means, and the 667MHz doesn't help that either; to my knowledge that Samsun drive was never intended for a primary master drive, only a backup storage drive. It may have the SATA 3.0GHz on it, but that's not actually what it gets, only what it's capable of, it doesn't have the speed you need for your bootup drive. In my experience, ASRock Mobo's SUCK, like, they're terrible. Maybe it was just mine, but it needed drivers that were nearly impossible to find anywhere, it wasn't supported anywhere, the graphics on it were horrible, the hardware support was extremely lacking, and it was slower than molasses flowing uphill in Alaska.

    All in all, I wouldn't blame it entirely on your CPU; though often upgrading something like that can improve performce, you are always only as fast as your weakest link, if that's not your CPU, then upgrading it will do little good.

    My $.02
  8. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,284   +24

    Motherboards do not affect performance in any way. And the Seasonic 430W PSU is of far better quality than many 500W+ PSUs out there and can easily power an HD 4850 without problems. As for the HDD, no SATA II drive actually reaches the maximum speed of 3.0GB/sec afforded by the interface, primarily because the performance is limited by the rotational speed of the drive's spindle.

    @GThomp6654, try the instructions in this thread. I suspect malware is to blame for the poor performance of your PC.
  9. k.jacko

    k.jacko Newcomer, in training Posts: 743

    To add to Rage's post, the Samsung 1Tb are very fast drives and easily capable of doing whatever is required of them on a standard desktop.
    The ram is certainly NOT a bottleneck, my kids gaming rigs runs 2gb at 667 and they are fine.
    Again, as Rage i would suspect software, although the cpu move would certainly give you far better performance. is your D925 a socket LGA775? And will the asrock accept it (with or without bios updates).

    Halo2freek.....you've just trashed his entire hardware setup, when there is very little wrong with it, unless its actually malfunctioning. Be a bit more thoughtful mate, it could easily be software related.
  10. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    Hello All, first off I want to thank you all for your advice, I am going to work my way through that list from Rages post first, I have bitdefender 2009 running in game mode, if that makes any difference?

    My mobo is a soket LGA775, and I am going to look further into whether I will need to do any bios updates, although the mobo says it should be able to run all chips upto quad core

    In relation to Halos post, I was a bit confused as most of the time before I buy any hardware for my computer I usually post here to see what people suggest
  11. k.jacko

    k.jacko Newcomer, in training Posts: 743

    bitdefender 2009 is fairly stealthy tbh, it doesn't hog up your system like Nortons does.
     
  12. gguerra

    gguerra TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 559

    If your going to upgrade to the E5200 why not go one better and get a Q6600 quad core. You can easily overclock it to over 3.0ghz and completely blow away the Core 2 Duo. The price difference is minimal. Newegg has the Q6600 for $189 US.
  13. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,284   +24

    The E5200 is a 45nm chip, that will OC farther than the Q6600 while staying cooler and being faster. The Q6600 is not very good value anymore, unless you use apps that take advantage of all four cores.
  14. gguerra

    gguerra TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 559

    The E5200 may OC farther but that does not make it perform faster. It's like running a 4 cyl engine at 6000 rpms versus a 8 cyl at 4000. Which one will perform better?? And even though you might not use all 4 cores it's still nice to know you have them. In addition a lot more apps are coming out to support more cores. Wait till we get to 8 cores..or 12 cores... Think ahead not in the past.
  15. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,284   +24

    An E5200 at 4GHz versus a Q6600 at 3GHz and you say the E5200 isn't faster? Well, I'll be damned, I haven't learned a thing in the three-or-so years I've spent at this forum! ;)

    As for four cores being "nice to have", if they're not used and just sit idle, what's the point of having them in the first place? And the future-proof point is moot, since you still do not have that many apps taking advantage of two cores, let alone four
  16. gguerra

    gguerra TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 559

    You obviously didn't read the part of my message about the 4cyl and 8cyl analogy

    2 cores x 4 ghz = 8 ghz
    4 cores x 3 ghz = 12 ghz

    you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    As far as not using all the cores that is NOW, but that will soon change to accommodate many more cores than just 4, THAT is the way of the future and if you dont believe you can stay stuck in the past..

    Intel pledges 80 cores in five years
  17. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    Unfortunatly a quad core is not a viable option to me as my mobo doesn't accept it, and unfortunatly I don't have the funds available for a mobo and cpu upgrade, however I would accept donations hahaha
  18. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,284   +24

    That is very wrong. Go learn something about CPUs first.

    And of course Intel plans for more multi-core CPUs, technology has to advance right? The question that needs to be asked is that how many people actually need, or can use, this new technology?
  19. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    I have just done the 3Dmark06 basic benchmark and got these results:

    3DMark Score 2241 3DMarks
    SM 2.0 Score 881
    SM 3.0 Score 792
    CPU Score 1513
    Result name Untitled

    I am assuming this is not very good, and was now wondering if a cpu would go a long way to sort this out?
  20. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,284   +24

    3DMark doesn't really tell you about software problems, which I think is your main issue. Sort that out first and if you don't find any problems, please report back and we'll try to help you further.
  21. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    I have done all of the tests etc, that were in that link you gave me, I done most of them through bitdefender and also the CC programme, alas to no real avail, although the computer did speed up slightly after doing the CC one
  22. tastegw

    tastegw TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 246

    toms hardware didnt test the 9500gt
    but the 9500gt is very simular to the 8600gt (witch toms did test)
    both are 128-bit with 32 stream prossesors
    the 8600gt with 256mb mem scored 4913.
    the variable here is the system this 8600gt was tested in.

    im not sure what your problem is as for your computer, maybe its just software related like rage suggests.

    but something tells me your 3dmark score should be atleast 4000.
    if you can burn the money for that new cpu, do it. it cant hurt anything but your wallet (just be sure your mobo can take it)

    i hope you get it all worked out.
  23. Justin

    Justin Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,595


    You're completely wrong with your analogy. If you had the most basic understand of how a modern multitasking OSkernel operates, from Linux to Windows to Mac OS X, you'd understand why your statement is completely wrong.

    You cannot liken cores to adding additional "horsepower" to a computer, nor can you liken additional cores to ANY sort of linear performance gain metric. You cannot compare a CPU to an engine. THAT is comparing "apples to oranges". An engine produces force to operate the drivetrain. A CPU is a decision-making calcuator, intepreting instructions and performing operations on those instructions to change register states and memory states.

    There's hundreds of factors involved in how additional processing power scales on a CPU. Things like the length of the pipeline, the amount of L1 cache available, the failure rate of instruction prediction, the cost of a failed instruction, et cetera. Even in true multi-threaded applications, there's no guarantee that you're going to see a linear increase in performance just by adding additional cores. Ultimately each individual CPU is going to share resources with other parts of the system, and this includes interaction with the OS.

    And not to mention we are dealing with hardware and software in 2008, not 2015 or 2020. For the overwhelming majority of applications and games available today, there will be little to no benefit in seeking more cores with a lowered clockspeed over a smaller number of cores with a substantially higher clockspeed. Unless someone can truly justify the need for a quad-core system, such as a multi-threaded CAD applications, it's much easier to justify saving money on a dual-core CPU.

    Yes, processors with dozens or even hundreds of "cores" is the future. You're 100% wrong as to why and as to how.
  24. GThomp6654

    GThomp6654 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 73

    Well I ordered myself a new cpu, so I will see how that goes, and will let you know :)
  25. gguerra

    gguerra TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 559

    I'm afraid you are wrong. Check out these real world results and take a look at the chart which compares the Penryn Duo and Penryn Quad running at exactly the same speed (3.33ghz). The quad is almost twice as fast as the Duo (which would make sense)

    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/521/1/

    In case you dont know what Cinebench is
    http://www.maxon.net/pages/download/cinebench_e.html

    What I meant from the beginning is that clock speed alone does not determine performance. which a lot of people cant seem to grasp. And you can argue about all day long about it but YOU are wrong. Real world results is what matters

    Oh and by the way. It wont take till 2015 for OS's and apps to catch up to multi-core technology. Give it a year at best. Windows 7 should take care of this. Oh and I know an engine is not a CPU, The analogy I was trying to portray is that an 8cyl is more efficient than a 4cyl (requires less cycles), RPM's in this case. Core 2 Duo CPU's are more efficient and do not need to run as fast to achieve the same results as other CPU's regardless of the OS. Anyway enough said (for me anyway).
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.