Pentium D VS. AMD Dual-core?

By Coolmatt ยท 12 replies
Apr 15, 2006
  1. I noticed that it was WAY cheaper for a Pentium D than a Dual-Core AMD processor. I also noticed how the PD's are clocked at a much higher rate than AMD Dual-core processors. What's the main difference between the two???
  2. DonNagual

    DonNagual TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,406

    Why do you say a Pentium D is way cheaper than an Athlon X2? Are you trying to compare them at the same processor speeds?

    As you may have noticed, clock speeds don't really tell you as much about the CPUs as they used to. It is the model number that needs to be looked at, and that still is very confusing. Maybe in the future the CPU makers will give us an easier to understand system, but for now the only way to know is to do the homework.

    Here is a really useful interactive chart to compare CPUs. Have a look:
  3. Coolmatt

    Coolmatt TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 66

    Interesting...well I'm just seeing like 3.4 ghz Pentium Ds going at around the same price as a 2.4 or 2.6 ghz AMD dual-core. I'm just not sure which is better.
  4. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 4,274

    As of now, AMD. There's nothing a Pentium-D or even a Pentium-EE can do that an Athlon64 X2 or FX can't do much better.

    Things might change in the not so close futur (6 months down the road) once Intel comes out with their new Core based parts but in the meantime, Intel is a no show.
  5. N3051M

    N3051M TS Evangelist Posts: 2,115

    intel's core solo and core duo is already out.. a few places already have them, but i think its just oem manufacturers like toshiba's new laptops and Apple's Macbook pros... consumer not yet (as far as i know here in Aus..) quad is comming out i think in a few months time or longer.. will have to watch for that one :D and g'damn.. AMD is getting their @** kicked very soon (time will tell how effective the Cores are..)
  6. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 4,274

    The problem with the current Core solo & Core duo is that they're not really much different from the previous Dothan CPUs (apart fro being dual core & sharing the cache) so the real architectural improvements aren't used on it (SSE4, SSE instruction fusion, EMT64, etc.).
  7. KingCody

    KingCody TS Evangelist Posts: 992   +8

    you don't know that, you just hope (Intel fanboy?... lol :))

    The code-named Conroe core is all that Intel has going for it right now. It won't be released until the last quarter of this year, and will probably take until 2007 before you can buy it alone (not in an OEM machine). This may be why AMD has delayed the release of its new AM2 socket, we don't know what they are cooking up behind closed doors.

    How the Conroe will perform is all speculation at this point. The benchmarking tests showed a 20% performance increase over the FX, however the tests were not balanced (and were IMO... sketchy):

    1. The test rigs were setup by Intel at Intel test sites

    2. The test rigs were preloaded with software and Intel-modified drivers

    3. The test rigs used hardware that was optimal for an Intel setup, but not optimal for an AMD setup.

    4. the Conroe was hand-picked, the FX was off the shelf

    I'll believe all the hype about Conroe when it comes out and can be tested fairly.
  8. N3051M

    N3051M TS Evangelist Posts: 2,115

    well.. not realy a fanboy as such.. just gathering waht i've read on its speculations.. thats why you cant skip this part of my input...
    but so to speak.. i admit i've never had an AMD rig before. i had all pentiums starting from the MMX series to p4.. but may consider buying my friends one when he deciedes to upgrade his current rig..

    btw.. was the i386 intels or something else?
  9. DaProffessaT34

    DaProffessaT34 TS Rookie Posts: 39

    A AMD 2.4 is like an Intel 2.8, but I would say go for the AMD DUALIES
  10. AMDIsTheBest010

    AMDIsTheBest010 TS Rookie Posts: 398

    the main differnece is that one performs better than the other. in benchmark tests the dual core AMD(FX-60) as its native clock speed(2.2GHZ) scored a 141! the highest score ever for a out-of-the-box non-overclockd CPU, in contrast the Pentium D(840) scored a dissapointing 123 in benchmark tests and that was overclocked to 3.46 GHZ! AMD all the way and you'll be happy
  11. AMDIsTheBest010

    AMDIsTheBest010 TS Rookie Posts: 398

    the macbook pro is available since march here with the intel core duo
  12. 0009

    0009 TS Rookie

    remember an amd 3000+ at 2.0 ghz is just like or even better than a intel at 3.0 ghz.

    the thing you have to look for is the 3000+, 3200+ so on...that basically tells how it compares to intels ghz.
  13. CMH

    CMH TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,039   +9

    I think that way of telling how fast a CPU runs is quite outdated. AMD itself is testimony that measuring how many clocks a CPU runs is not how fast it is.

    There should be a much better way of measuring the speed of a CPU. And someone should come up with it. Maybe the same way they measure the speed of supercomputers?

    AMD will be in a good position in selling their processors, since there were rumors that Intel is gonna reduce clock speed, but improving performance. This way, the AMD xxxx+ numbers will be higher than Intel clock speeds :p

    And, fans' posts should be taken with a pinch of salt. You don't expect fans to diss what they're supporting anyway.

    I personally pledge allegiance to the maker of the most powerful processor available for PCs. And thats AMD for the moment.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...