[jsy982002]

Hey guys...really need your help here. i can't decide which CPU to buy. i was planning to buy a pentium 4 660 but i saw a pentium D 930 and its CHEAPER. i can't understand why it is so when the pentium D is newer than the P4.

so is it more advisable to buy the pentium D 930 than the Pentium 4 660???

[Zardon]

the D is dual core, but its clocked slower at 3ghz, whereas the P4 660 is single core clocked at 3.6ghz.

There are benefits from both processors, the 660 will be better for gaming and the HT will help with multitasking, whereas the D wont be hitting the same frame rates in games as its clocked 600mhz slower, however it will be a better performing processor with many pro multi threaded apps which will take advantage of the dual core, you will also probably find it is better with multitasking in the majority of instances however this may be ofset a little with the clock deficiency.

You need to base your purchase on your computer needs, meaning if the majority of your tasks is gaming then the 660 (now anyway) makes more sense (although the A64 would be a better bet for that anyway). Also remember if you go to the D you may end up needing a new motherboard.

[jsy982002]

thanks zardon, but what if the dual core i get is at the clocked at the same speed. like Pentium D 3.4 GHz and a pentium 4 3.4 GHz. will the pentium D perform in games same with the pentium 4?? becasue some articles that the dual core will really be slower because it only use 1 core in games. so only 1.7 GHz is actually being used. is that correct??? sorry, i really don't know the difference betwn the 2.

[Necrosis]

The thing is the cheaper dual cores as opposed to the EEs do not have HT for each core. Both cores operate at the same clock speed. So a 3.0GHz D is 2 3.0GHz cores.

[Zardon]

Originally Posted by jsy982002

thanks zardon, but what if the dual core i get is at the clocked at the same speed. like Pentium D 3.4 GHz and a pentium 4 3.4 GHz. will the pentium D perform in games same with the pentium 4?? becasue some articles that the dual core will really be slower because it only use 1 core in games. so only 1.7 GHz is actually being used. is that correct??? sorry, i really don't know the difference betwn the 2.

well necrosis answered the comments about HT and the extreme edition dual core CPU, however you seem to be getting a little mixed up with the way dual core works, both cores run at the advertised clock speed, they arent halved if the application or game doesnt support dual core. so in gaming if you had a 3.0ghz D it would run at 3ghz, not 1.5ghz.

[jsy982002]

oh so when i buy a 3.0 GHz dual core....i am actually buying 2 3.0GHz core combine in a single processor. COOL!!!

THANKS GUYS!!!

[H3X4D3C1M4L]

Originally Posted by jsy982002

oh so when i buy a 3.0 GHz dual core....i am actually buying 2 3.0GHz core combine in a single processor. COOL!!!

THANKS GUYS!!!

Yes but its only good if A) You multitask or B) You use alot of multithreaded apps

[Matth]

You MUST have a later motherboard chipset for a Dual Core - though the socket is still LGA775, the old 915/925 chipsets cannot support dual core, so verify that your motherboard is specified for dual core.

The choice (other than at the EE prices) generally ends up between a 6xx series CPU (which is two LOGICAL CPU's by hyperthreading), or an 8xx/9xx series, which is two PHYSICAL CPU cores in one package, without hyperthreading.

In both cases, it presents to the system as two processors, but the hyperthreading approach has a lot of comtention for some core elements.

In the 660 versus 930 example:

The 660 runs at 3.6GHz and can bring a little extra to multithreaded operation using hyperthreading - under my test app (7-zip benchmark), the gain is about 30%.

The 930 runs at 3.0GHz, but can bring a whole extra core to bear on multithreading, for a typical gain of 80% (the remainder is lost in bus contention, etc.).

Pure single threading, the 660 wins as the faster clocked CPU.
Multithreaded, the 930 is faster.

If you want to multitask two CPU heavy tasks together, such as playing a game while doing a MPEG or DivX video encode, the dual core wins hands down, and eventually, a lot of CPU heavy tasks will be tuned for dual core.

[jsy982002]

I see. BIG HELP GUYS!!! but 1 more question.....if the dual core has 2 3GHz then will it still be slower in single thread applications if it is compared to a P4 630???

by the way...here's the rig i'm planning to get:

Pentium 4 660 or Pentium D 950 (really CANT decide)
MSI 945P Neo Platinum
X1900XT
1GB Corsair XMS2
2x250GB SATAII Western Digital
Lian Li V1100
Enermax Noisetaker 550 Watts
Swiftech Apex Ultra.

[H3X4D3C1M4L]

Yes it will be slower in single thread apps (read: games) than a chip with a higher clockspeed

[jsy982002]

Originally Posted by H3X4D3C1M4L

Yes it will be slower in single thread apps (read: games) than a chip with a higher clockspeed

i think you have misread my question.... my question is if the pentium d clocked at 3 GHz still be slower at single thread applications like games compared to a pentium 4 clocked at 3 GHz.

[H3X4D3C1M4L]

Oh, in that case, no. They'd be identical

[jsy982002]

Originally Posted by H3X4D3C1M4L

Oh, in that case, no. They'd be identical

ok...THANKS!!! REALLY BIG HELP!

[Matth]

If your choice is between a 950 (3.4GHz dual) and a 660 (3.6 GHz hyperthreaded), then one other factor comes in...

X1900XT (ATI) graphics card - ATI drivers since 5.13 have included enhancements for dual core operation (and by implication, limited gains from hyperthreading as well), so the 950 would probably game better than a 660.

If they are in the same price league ... looks like the D940 may be closer to price comparable - and 3.2GHz dual versus 3.6GHz HT, then the ATI driver enhancements for dual core ought to be worth one step of speed, maybe even two.

[niceguyrichy]

Originally Posted by Matth

X1900XT (ATI) graphics card - ATI drivers since 5.13 have included enhancements for dual core operation (and by implication, limited gains from hyperthreading as well), so the 950 would probably game better than a 660.

If they are in the same price league ... looks like the D940 may be closer to price comparable - and 3.2GHz dual versus 3.6GHz HT, then the ATI driver enhancements for dual core ought to be worth one step of speed, maybe even two.

That's really interesting to know Matth

is that only applicable if you also use an X1900 gen card though, or does that still stand up for something like an x850??

in other words, is the dual core optimisation driver specific or card specific (or both?) ??

[jsy982002]

Originally Posted by Matth

If your choice is between a 950 (3.4GHz dual) and a 660 (3.6 GHz hyperthreaded), then one other factor comes in...

X1900XT (ATI) graphics card - ATI drivers since 5.13 have included enhancements for dual core operation (and by implication, limited gains from hyperthreading as well), so the 950 would probably game better than a 660.

If they are in the same price league ... looks like the D940 may be closer to price comparable - and 3.2GHz dual versus 3.6GHz HT, then the ATI driver enhancements for dual core ought to be worth one step of speed, maybe even two.

owwwww.....very interesting. i have to look up on that one hahah THANKS there MATTH

[H3X4D3C1M4L]

Originally Posted by niceguyrichy

in other words, is the dual core optimisation driver specific or card specific (or both?) ??

I believe its simply driver specific but its showing pretty limited gains at common resolutions/high resolutions, so I really doubt its something worth clammoring over right now, perhaps in the future when games get SMP support themselves we might remove the CPU bottleneck at ultra high resolutions

[Matth]

It's a feature that would help more with higher cards, as it really won't begin to bite unless you are CPU limited, rather than graphics card performance limited.

As I understand it, the formating and despatch to the card are handled by a second thread.

One review of 2005 drivers up to 5.13, on a dual core (AMD X2) platform
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/85...sis/index.html

The best illustration (and actually, I think the dualcore support may have come in with 5.12 and been tweaked in 5.13)
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/85...cry/index.html
Nothing exciting for the X550, though mild performance gains.
The X700 clearly opens out at the lower resolution, showing how the dual core tweaks address the bottleneck in a game that is known to be CPU limited.

And with the X850 (bottom of the page), the supremacy is clear.

That is the by far the strongest example - the pattern is repeated to a lesser degree on some other tests, and shows little difference on others. The dual core tweaks do not make the drivers "better" unless already into a afairly solid CPU limitation.

The issue is not an X1k card one, but a powerful card one, on an application that IS CPU limited - the X850XT (pre-X1k generation) is likely to show more effect from this than the lowest powered X1300, as the bottom end X1k model is unlikely to be CPU limited in performance.

[jsy982002]

hmm how do you overclock a D 930??? can someone post a step by step procedure?? hahaha. and what is the limit of the clock speed, disregarding the heat factor pleasE

[H3X4D3C1M4L]

THeoretically 10GHz is the limit but I doubt you want to push it that far.

OC'ing a dual core is the same as single core except there's two of them to test and make sure they're functioning OK