Pentium Dual core vs AMD Athlon Single-Core Processor LE-1620?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tha General

Tha General

Posts: 1,105   +0
I am buying a new rig tomorrow, just wanted to see what you thought about it.

I have a choice between a $269 used pentium dual core vs a brand new 299 AMD Athlon™ Single-Core Processor LE-1620?

Whats better and how faster is the AMD Athlon™ Single-Core Processor LE-1620 vs my pentium III/600MHZ?
 
Pentium Dual-Core CPUs are basically low-end versions of the Core 2 Duo Allendale chips (E4xxx series) with a lower amount of L2 cache memory. Any of them will run circles around that Athlon chip.

So based purely on the CPUs, the system with the Intel chip is the better buy. But as Tekkaraiden pointed out, you need to compare all the system specs before deciding which one to buy.
 
Tomorrow i am buying a new computer, most likely the AMD one, only because its brand new. This gateway pentium Dual core is 2 months used and the computer guy told me its only a 30 day warranty. He is only charging me 269.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq

Or i could buy a brand new desktop from best buy for 300, the amd one with a one year warranty.

I will be gaming of course, thats the main reason, also getting away from this Pentium III/600MHZ. And as for performance is concern, 20-40fps is perfect with me, i don't care about getting anything higher. The AMD sounds good tho, should provide with me everything i wanted. I will let you guys know what i will get tomorrow. As for the gateway one, i have to look the rig over good, i guess a better question how much faster in performance over the Pentium III vs the AMD 1620?
 
Cited from your link: "NVIDIA® GeForce® 7100 integrated graphics provide excellent frame rates", in other words, it won't be too great for games, though probably an improvement over your Pentium III.
 
On-Board Video Card

Based on the system specs, it looks like the video card is on-board and has shared memory.
I'm not sure what type of gaming you do but on-board cards generally give you a lot less flexibility than an add on card. Shared memory means not all of the cards memory will be dedicated to your gaming. This may not be the best choice for a gamer.

You could always add a card down the road if the on-board card doesn't fit your needs.
 
Um, i am finally starting to see that people who buy new rigs use onboard, but i sure dont ha. I plan on using my 2400HD and 8400GS and i plan to buy a 9500GT and a 4670 mid next month. I dont game using onboard, i stopped doing that what back in 2005.
 
Tha General said:
I am buying a new rig tomorrow, just wanted to see what you thought about it.

I have a choice between a $269 used pentium dual core vs a brand new 299 AMD Athlon™ Single-Core Processor LE-1620?

Whats better and how faster is the AMD Athlon™ Single-Core Processor LE-1620 vs my pentium III/600MHZ?
Click to expand...

I really can't speak to the AMD machine, but any dual core pentium should be exponentially faster than your P-3.

Personally, I would lean toward the Intel machine, at least if I could do a more extensive "background check" on it. First, is this a Pentium "D" dual core, or one of the E2xxx or E5xxx new Pentium dual cores.

Just as a point of reference, I have a P-4 3.06Ghz machine and a Pentium dual core E2200 machine. The dual core skins it alive. With Nero "Recode" the P-4 puts out about 350 FPS when in "advanced analysis". The E2200 box is usually hovering around 1000FPS

How did it come to be traded in? An upgrade swap maybe?

Anywhere you go, used equipment carries a 30 day warranty, which obviously sucks. Nonetheless, most electronics failures occur in the first 30 days so you could view that machine as being quality control tested for you.

Even the weakest of the new "E" series dual core chips should eat practically any single core box, especially one in the price range you're describing.

So, if it's a Pentium D leave it alone, if it's an "E" series Pentium, ask some more questions. At least that's what I would do.
 
Well the pentium dual core, he drop the price to 150, but he also drop the warrarty to 2 weeks and he said whatever you buy thats it, meaning if the rig don't work good, well after 30 days if can't do anything. He also said, all his systems are custom built, so that i did not know and i will damn sure will pass on that.

So anyways, you said this AMD system is a bad purchase, you may be talking about the price who knows. All i know, this rig is super fast, speed is fast, i can open up like 15 windows and still have no issues with slowdown, my 2400HD got like a super boost in gaming, no more bottlenecking, no more stuttering, nothing. Jericho at the highest settings at 1280x1024 is moving amazing at a solid 17-29fps. Really amazing man, a little too fast at times haah.
Videos is perfect, HD/HQ no problems.

I am very happy with this rig , and i will be moving on to PCIE next month. I am going to stop using PCI cards for this rig anyway. I will be buying a old backup for old games rig only late this year, maybe a P4 or something. That rig will only be meant for older games.

Anyways peace
 
The thing is you have a history of poor decisions, the Intel setup is faster than the one you bought. Now, you've made it abundantly clear that what you bought is fast enough for you, but the fact is the Intel rig would be faster.

17-29fps in anything other than movie framerates is not fast, and in many games it becomes nearly unplayable, maybe it seems acceptable to you, but for everyone else it isn't. Coming from a P3 600 to anything more modern will seem like a big jump, but going from your AMD system to that Intel one you didn't buy would also be a jump.

You are only convincing yourself with your arguments for your purchase.
 
If you say 17-29fps is not playable, thats on you bud lol. Its fast , a little too fast if you ask me. I said to myself last night when playing jericho when i was fighting like 2-3 enemies, shooting them, the game was moving at 21fps and i said to myself, 40-60 would be too silly. But yea you are right, its acceptable to me, can't speak for others.

Anyways, this system is a beast, and i am happy its my main rig now :)
Crysis in directx10 is unplayable when trying to play high or very high, thats why its time for me to move away from pci and i will be buying a new pcie card very soon. The Diamond 4670 should be good enough :)
 
Those Magnificent Men and Their Computing Machines

Well, I took a video course at Phila Community College. At that time the Imaging lab had P-3 800Mhz (around there don't remember exactly). Rendering 30 seconds of video with those babys usually involved at least a full crash to the desktop, if not a BSOD. If you took a $90.00 computer course, I think they were giving away P-2s. Didn't go for that. So later on I bought an Emachine with a Prescott P-4 3.06Ghz. You can imagine how surprised I was, when I found out that I didn't have to go to lunch while waiting for Photoshop to apply a single filter. Wow, the computer age had finally arrived. As I posted earlier, my E2200 machine, is at least twice as fast as that, even if it's having a bad day.

An Ahtlon "Lima" LE-1620 is actually too low end to be stocked by Newegg,. They start at the LE-1640, and it's $39.95.

With 2 gigs of DDR800 running around $25.00, DVD drives on sale at $22.00 and the Pentium E5200 priced @ $72.00, it shouldn't take more than a rudimentary grasp of mathematics to figure out you could build a machine based on that CPU for about $300.00 anyway! $50.00 for a Seagate 250GB SATA 2 drive, and about $60.00 to $70.00 for a P-31 Gigabyte mobo, and you're done, well with the exception of some crappy $30.00 free shipping case with a POS PSU, that you'd have to get rid of ASAP.

So, if you had $150.00 left over after buying the E5200 box, exactly how f****** much do you think would be wrong with it that you couldn't fix it with that money?

The most comforting thing about the decision making process, is that it spares those of us incapable of making a good one, the agonizing realization that we've made a bad one.

I castigate myself for my own periennial bad decision with this mantra; "never give advice, wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it"!

And if you're wondering, yeah, I enjoy being a buzz-kill.
 
Tha General said:
If you say 17-29fps is not playable, thats on you bud lol. Its fast , a little too fast if you ask me. I said to myself last night when playing jericho when i was fighting like 2-3 enemies, shooting them, the game was moving at 21fps and i said to myself, 40-60 would be too silly. But yea you are right, its acceptable to me, can't speak for others.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure you really understand what framerates mean in a game. I think part of this is because you have been stuck playing games at such terrible framerates that you actually *think* that a higher framerate makes the game action faster. I can see how this would happen if you've never played one with acceptable framerates. The difference in game speed between 60fps and 2000fps is 0. But if you have a computer that is struggling to do 20-30, then at times it will be so overloaded that the game will actually run slower, slowing enemies down, movement of everything down. I know this can happen because I have seen it happen to me on Command and Conquer 3. I ran a demo of that game in Vista with a 7800GS with everything maxed out (1680x1050 res) and thought it was playing at normal speed. A little while later I upgraded the motherboard and GPU to an 8800GTS 320 (kept the same CPU) and found the game played much faster, my previous setup just could not process everything at the speed it was meant to be played. I could get a faster processor, more RAM, and the fastest video card out there now and it would not make the game play any faster than it does for me right now on my 8800 (but the framerates would likely increase).

I feel like I need to state that about 3 different ways before you'll understand it, but I wonder even if you do understand what I'm trying to say if you'll actually accept it as true.

Really the only types of games that are acceptable at the framerates you think are would be board games like checkers and card games.
 
Well if i don't understand it, it really does not matter. The game is moving normal as i should say, no stutter , no pausing, no slowdown, its moving a steady pace. The framerate is 17-29, never hits 30 for some reason. The point is, i can play my games like i want now, and i am happy about my computer. I don't need any of that high end or whatever stuff, so while everyone is buying quad's or 600 dollar video cards or cards that require power connectors, i will buy cheap stuff, which is good. Timeshift i have at 1024x768 all best settings with HDR and i get 20-35, other games such as shade wrath, 1280x1024, high settings, 50-200. So either way, gaming is good now :)

All i know, this computer is amazing :) Guess i been using my p3 too long haha.

peace :)
 
lol you could have got the intel rig droped the rest of the money on an ati 4830 or 4850 and you would have really seen a leap in performance like two or three times as fast in games and that intel rig would probably overclock to a nice pace to i second that you wasted your money on amd but in the end its your money and your choice.
 
Nice debate here...seems like one of those things that don't get anywhere.

a little too fast if you ask me
Click to expand...
That would actually be you monitor not receiving enough signals, not your eyes percepting too slowly.


never hits 30 for some reason
Click to expand...
Please go into your graphics settings and change whatever option from "30 fps" to Vsync, or noVsync, preferable no Vsync.

BTW, it is hard to tell exact speeds normally, even more so in intense gaming, but whatever makes you happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Snapdragon X Elite is faster than Intel and AMD flagship CPUs in Geekbench
Replies
15
Views
192
quadibloc
quadibloc
D
Dual-core "Intel 300" CPU disappointing benchmarks prove modern games need more cores
Replies
22
Views
451
RocketPak
R
midian182
Apple A17 Pro SoC single-core benchmark score close to the Intel i9-13900K and AMD 7950X
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
kiwigraeme
K

Latest posts

Back