Tech Support Guy banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

which processor is better?

2K views 26 replies 12 participants last post by  GripS 
#1 ·
im ordering a new computer for gaming and i dont know which processor is better, a dual core process with a lower speed(3.2) or a pentuim 4 with a higher speed(3.8)...here are the 2..... Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)...or....Pentium® 4 Processor 670 with HT Technology (3.80GHz, 800 FSB)
 
#4 ·
Don't worry about it.. Another "Buy AMD in an Intel thread" post.

There are no games that will take advantage of the dual core processor yet, so you might as well go with the faster single core processor.
 
#5 ·
AMD stands for Advanced Micro Devices. It is the name of the company that is Intels competitor.
 
#6 ·
AMD is the alternative to Intel. It uses lower clock speeds to begin with as it does more work per clock cycle then an Intel. So you'll see a processor like an AMD 3000+(running at 2.0ghz) performing about the same as an Intel P4 at 3.0ghz. Intel USED to constantly beat AMD in certain benchmarks(programs that guage performance) and AMD usually took the gaming oriented benches. Each one had their strength's and weaknesses. But now AMD has made huge gains on Intel when it came out with the AMD64 line. Now the tables have turned and Intel is trying to catch up. It's even been stated that the Intel dual core line was "rushed" to try and keep up with AMD's already successfully tested and released dual cores. Now that Intel has dual cores out the tests have been performed and AMD is still the way to go. It uses less expensive DDR(not DDR2....yet) RAM. Not to say Intel won't catch up with AMD soon enough but AMD is the shizzy right now.

By the way. I'm not trying to start another AMD vs. Intel. Just educating someone who doesn't know that there might be something more suited to his needs at a better price out there. I also have an Intel based machine.
 
#8 ·
is dual better than 1... hmm think about that .. anyway AMD will always be better and cheaper for the gammer Intel is like microsoft they got into the game earlier :)
 
#9 ·
SirKenin said:
Don't worry about it.. Another "Buy AMD in an Intel thread" post.

There are no games that will take advantage of the dual core processor yet, so you might as well go with the faster single core processor.
Yes there are, and more and more coming all the time. Check NVidia`s site, video card drivers are taking advantage of dual cores in some games now and more to come. Beside, if you leave the task manager open to the performance tab and run a game, then shut down the game quick after playing it, many games use both core even though their not suppost to.
Yes, dual core is better then one, if your building a gamer system and have the funds, you want an AMD dual core.
 
#10 ·
alright, srry if im being stupid but i cant seem to fiure out which one is better, everyone keep telling me to go wiht an AMD processor, but im ordering from dell.com(inless u can provide a better place to order from) and my 2 options are...Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)...or...Pentium® 4 Processor 670 with HT Technology (3.80GHz, 800 FSB)...out of those 2 which would be batter for a gaming computer? im jsut confused cuz the dual core has a lower speed and im not quite clear on what it does
 
#11 ·
#13 ·
Dual Core isn't that useful for gaming, most games do not take advantage of dual core processors. Quake 4 is one of the few that does benefit from Hyperthreading, dual cores, or dual processors. Even AMD believes this as they contiune to market their Athlon FX processors to extreme gamers and they are only single core. As a side note AMD processors are the processor of choice for gamers.

You must be very careful when buying from Dell, most Dell systems are not designed for gaming. Choose your configuration very carefully and be aware that you may be limited in future upgradeability due to the somewaht properitary nature of Dell systems.
 
#15 ·
how stuck with dell are you? I mean, have you simply decided to go with them because htey have the best package that you want, or do you have other options to consider? There's a link around here somewhere debating the new amd vs the p4, and the general consensus was that hte amd blew it out of the water......

But if you are tied to dell, then you are tied to dell. I'll see if I can find that link.
 
#17 ·
all comes down to your prefernce mainly iv used amd and intel and i like intel better my amd cpus died easyer and could be broke by heat alot easyer then a intel i have presscott one of hottest intel cpus and its made it thru 4 motherboards because of power surges and so on were when i had 1 surge with amd it took board cpu and psu out.
 
#18 ·
Bal3Wolf said:
all comes down to your prefernce mainly iv used amd and intel and i like intel better my amd cpus died easyer and could be broke by heat alot easyer then a intel i have presscott one of hottest intel cpus and its made it thru 4 motherboards because of power surges and so on were when i had 1 surge with amd it took board cpu and psu out.
the new amdz run very cool, much cooler than a Precott, I have a XP2500+ barton, in a proper case, with proper cooling theyre fine, if you try to oc them in a dinky, cramped case with no cooling, of course you'll have problems, these heat horror stories were mostly over blown, and often the fault of the end loser. the other thing that helped Intel is that if they over heat they slow down, at least they use to, this made them a little more fool proof. I've had 4 AMD socket A Athlon XP machines and never had a heat problem that caused any problem, but seeing how you would be getting a Athlon A64, heat wouldnt be any kind of consideration anyway.
 
#20 ·
check out tigerdirect.com. Just remember to qualify yourself correctly and do your research. The problem, as I see it, is that not a lot of software is written for dual core yet, and brite, you will have to check me on that, as my hardware skills are not as advanced as yours. I've got an athlon 3000+, bought it a year ago, and have had exactly zero probs with it, either gaming, or video, or any type of media conversion you can think of.
 
#21 ·
renegade981 said:
so it owuld appear that most people are syaing to go with teh 3.8 single processor than the 3.2 dual core processor?(and im not stuck on dell, if u giv eme a better link to order from i would bw much obliged =-) )
Dell makes an excellent computer in their high end, and if you're willing to spend the money I highly recommend them. There is one small catch though... Their tech support sucks the big one.

And yeah, the single core is the way to go, at least for now.

Intel you get better reliability, and that is as much to do with the supporting hardware than anything. It is really tough to beat a chipset as good as Intel's matched up with an Intel processor.
 
#22 ·
#23 ·
They used to do that heavily, but not so much anymore. Now their gear is pretty much standardized for their towers. They have their slim systems and stuff like that, but that's a different ball game.

The BIOS does come lacking of ANY tweaking options. No overclocking possibilities there, but that's not a problem if you only want to run the system at spec.

We have a Dell sitting in the other room. I was using it to diagnose my computer, which is a mutt, and all the parts were interchangeable. I think Dell might have learned their lesson.. It used to be that you couldn't even use standard RAM in their machines.
 
#25 ·
Bottom line,

If you are interested in building a PC yourself for less money and possibly better performance, look into the others posts.

If you have decided to buy your new PC from Dell, I'd say get the dual core 3.2, simply for the usefulness of it later on even if it doesn't affect the performance now.
 
#26 ·
For gaming the single core Pentium 4 3.8Ghz outperforms a dual core 3.2Ghz Pentium 4. Actually thats true for most applications and benchmarks, a processor thats clocked significantly faster will outperform slower clocked processor unless you are using one of the few professional applications design for symetrical processing.

See here: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html Just pick any two processors you want to compare and then select the benchmark.

The 3.8Ghz Intel processor would probably be the Pentium 4 570J or the 670.

As a side note, if you want to compare AMD's then be aware that Tom's Hardware is biased toward Intel. But the same results hold true for AMD, the higher clocked single core AMDs outperform the dual core slower clocked processors. Games are currently optimised for single core systems. The future will be dual core, so if you want too then get the dual core processor and be ready when that day comes, which isn't that far off.

You should also compare an Athlon 64 X2 3800+(low-end dual core from AMD) to the Pentium D 840(high-end dual from Intel), the AMD chip is roughly $200 dollars cheaper and outperforms the Intel chip in every gaming benchmark and holds its own in every other benchmark. Move up to the X2 4800+ and Intel has nothing on it. Then you have the AMD FX line, the FX-57 being the top one right now, which is geared for the extremed user, its nearly untoucheable in gaming benchmarks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top