• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

3.2 (840 Pentium D discussion)

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
The early verdict is that they actually perform slower in many apps than single CPUs. They're also generally slower than the AMD x2s. But so far they've been overclocking like a mother, consistent 4 ghz overclocks. But I'm not really informed enough to give you a hard and fast reccomendation.
 
For single threaded apps a regular P4 will give you better performance. Unless you are a consistent multitasker (and i'm not talking music/msn/cd burning but really heavy apps) then you may find an advantage in them.

As said, they overclock great so if you are willing to spend a little more on cooling and planning the rest of the components you can get a whole lotta more out of it.
 
so would photoshop benefit from these cpu's? i think that photoshop can take advantage of multiple processors.

or...

what about video rendering? i know having a render farm is the quickest way to get something rendered, so would having "4" cpu's in one box provide the same type of performance?
 
I'd say it would definately help with high end video rendering and CG imaging. I'm not sure about photoshop, would it really use that many threads? It doesn't seem to be as harsh on cpus as a high end video or graphics renderer.
 
alinosa said:
so would photoshop benefit from these cpu's? i think that photoshop can take advantage of multiple processors.
Click to expand...

You should see a boost in heavy Photoshop applications, especially if you get the model with Hyperthreading enabled. Photoshops performance is more contingent on memory though. I have 2 gigs of DDR2 running at 600mhz. That's where I see Photoshop happy. :cool:
 
Not unless the game is designed to use about 4 threads :p
 
Last edited:
Keep in Mind though that ONLY the Extreme-Edition chips have HT enabling 4 threads. The regular Pentium-D's have no HT so handle dual threads like the Athlon X2's do. I'm a veteran Intel fanboy but I must admit there's a HUGE performance difference with Athlon X2's even kicking Pentium-D Extreme Editions *** easily in various reviews...
 
Lancelot said:
Keep in Mind though that ONLY the Extreme-Edition chips have HT enabling 4 threads. The regular Pentium-D's have no HT so handle dual threads like the Athlon X2's do. I'm a veteran Intel fanboy but I must admit there's a HUGE performance difference with Athlon X2's even kicking Pentium-D Extreme Editions *** easily in various reviews...
Click to expand...

well not quite like the X2 does. the X2s cpus can communicate directly with one another the intel on the other hand has to go from one cpu to the chipset back to the other cpu even though theyre right next to one another. im not an intel fanboy so much but i do tend to prefer intel over amd (ive owned multiple a64 systems from a 2800 newcastle up to fx-55 and quite a few in between but still rock the intel) but the x2 looks alot more appealing to me when compared to the intel dual core offerings.
 
I agree. The A64X2's seem to have better performance than the Pentium D's, however their prices make it almost unrealistic unless you are just swimming in cash. I think the Pentium D is more practical than the AMD just because it is that much cheaper. Also, unless you do some extreme computing with multi-threaded apps, or DC's, or whatever, a dual core CPU may not be the best option for you. They do, however, overclock quite well since they are the cream of the crop anyway to lower thermal output.
 
In the end, price makes or breaks a product. It made the whole company AMD and now it's killing their early dual core release. They'll get over it.
 
Why does everyone keep saying dual cores will perform worse than their single core counterparts? A dual core will perform like a single core at the same clock speed if its running a process not optimized for multithreading.
 
DanIdentity said:
Why does everyone keep saying dual cores will perform worse than their single core counterparts? A dual core will perform like a single core at the same clock speed if its running a process not optimized for multithreading.
Click to expand...


Well the highest clocked dual core right now is 3.2. while the non dual cores go all the way to 3.8. And then there's the fact that the dual cores only have 1 MB of cache per core, while the 6xx series has 2MB.
 
DanIdentity said:
Why does everyone keep saying dual cores will perform worse than their single core counterparts? A dual core will perform like a single core at the same clock speed if its running a process not optimized for multithreading.
Click to expand...


i think there is overhead to contend with as well... something has to keep these two cores synched up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magellan
Low core count Rome gen. AMD EPYC CPU's: some questions
Replies
9
Views
1K
EarthDog
EarthDog
c627627
newegg ADATA USB Flash Drives 3.2 Gen 1 32GB for $3.50 and 128GB for $8.50 when bought as combos
Replies
14
Views
938
c627627
c627627
don256us
Educate me and maybe sell me to Intel?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
EarthDog
EarthDog
W
Small review on Unionsine and HIKSEMI and JEYI ssd enclosure's.
Replies
0
Views
697
wade7575
W
S
CMT32GX5M2X6200C36 *4 Sticks Z790-E GAMING WIFI i9-13900K XMP Unstable
Replies
4
Views
673
Woomack
W
Back