Pentium 820 D

[noko]

Now that is good information, thanks. So OCing X2 should not be a problem I take it, even if limited by ram speeds. Now why that is the case is worth some sort of investigation.

 

[P4Man]

>The multi-tasking benchmarks at AnAndTech, the ones I am
>interested in, shows a non OC Intel faster then AMD fastest
> X2

I showed you the X2 outperforms the 840 on EVERY test, except email import (sic!), and by as much as <b>48%</b> on 3D rendering + multitasking (which was your primary interest if memory serves), which means it will beat an 820 by ~60%, and might beat it running 64 bit code by as much as ~75%.....

>Timings? 2T! A very big negative

.. all while that "very big negative" has been shown to be a mere 0.7% drop ?

I think you have proven yourself beyond any reasonable doubt, to be an ordinary troll. I even wonder if you are not Fugger under a different nick, as you seem to be the only person alive to respect Fuggers opinion on anything else than extreme overclocking of intel setups. Maybe I should drop freddy an email and ask him to compare IPs.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[HansGruber]

>You also referred me to an AnAndTech article which for the
>benchmarks applicable to what I would be using my rig for
>showed Intel ahead

Oh you mean the 820 they didnt even test ? Or the 840 that costs as much as a 4200+ ? And what tests do you think it was faster ? Lets see:

Office XP : 6% slower
Mozilla : 26% slower
ACDSee: 11% slower
Nero: 12% slower
Winzip 9% slower
Winrar: 20% slower

But you said it was faster ? Oh, wait, you where interested in multitasking performance:

Content creation: 14% slower
3D content creation: 8% slower
2D content creation: 14% slower
Web publication: 9% slower

Then a really interesting one, since you explicitely complained about browsing performance while encoding :
Mozilla + Media Encoder : 24% slower (!)

But "intel" was faster for the things you cared about, hu ? Lets go on:

Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 : 10% slower
Adobe Premiere 6.5 (you did a lot editing, no ?) : 27% slower (!)
Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5: 1.5% slower
MusicMatch Jukebox 7.10: 6% slower

getting really confused.. you said it was *faster*, no ?

DivX 5.2.1 with AutoGK : 3% slower
XviD with AutoGK : 11% slower
Windows Media Encoder 9 :11% slower
Windows Media Encoder 9 HD: 13% slower

And then some gaming..

Doom3 : 14% slower
Splinter Cell : 5% slower (video card bottleneck)
Half Life2: 23% slower
Halo : 29% slower (!)
UT2004: 19% slower
ET: 19% slower

But you didnt care much for gaming, you did 3D rendering, right ?

3DSMax DX: 12% slower
3DSMax OGL: 9% slower
3DSMax Spec: 16% slower

Are you getting tired ? Cause I am. You said it was faster for the things you did ? What exactly is it you do ??

Multitasking Scenario 1: DVD Shrink : 17% slower
Multitasking Scenario 2: File Compression : 25% faster

Whooooot !!! finally, it is faster.. but at what ?:

In reply to:


1) Open Outlook.
2) Start importing 260MB PST.
3) Start WinRAR.
4) Archive Firefox source.

Maybe that is what you do all day ?

Multitasking Scenario 3: Web Browsing:10% slower
Multitasking Scenario 4: 3D Rendering: 48% slower
Wasnt that what you claimed to do so often ?
Gaming Multitasking Scenario : 33% slower

There you have, from all those tests, the 840 which is just as expensive/cheap as the 4200+ wins a SINGLE test, which concerns importing emails. It is beaten across the board on anything remotely relevant, and for the things you claimed to matter to you, often by a very significant margin.

Now if you claim "intel is on top" for the things you care about, how can someone seriously believe you are NOT trolling ?

OWNED ! :lol:

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>

 

[xall]

Hahaha. You're amusing to no end..

I am beginning to think AMD made a mistake in the design of the X2, unless they are magical in getting very good yields. Maybe not so much a mistake but a design decision that can haunt them. Intel version places two separate cores or dies onto a chip, in AMD's case the whole dual core design is made together. <b>Problem, if one of the cores from Intel fails it is never placed on a chip, thus they are not throwing away one good core and one bad. Now if one of the cores from AMD fails???? Throw away whole chip?</b>

AMD memory at 2gb is unknown as in speed and overclockability. I mean X2 core here. Yeah it graduated from DDR333 to DDR400 big wow at 2gb but how about going above that???? Timings? <b>2T! A very big negative.</b>

for the audio-video assync issue, i would suggest you visit this very interesting thread:

<A HREF="http://www.tv-cards.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=5207" target="_new">What Causes Audio / Video Sync Issues with captures?</A>

 

[Rugger]

The multi-tasking benchmarks at AnAndTech, the ones I am interested in, shows a non OC Intel faster then AMD fastest X2.

Can you provide a link to the benchmarks page that you are referencing for this statement?

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[apesoccer]

Doh sorry P. My fault, i didn't read closely enough.

(do i sound like a rapper?...just think of me say'n the above with a dew-rag, a 'nine' tucked in the front of my pants and my ass hang'n out)

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[apesoccer]

Thx Chip.

Btw, you had those 3 chips running in dual channel? How does that work? I thought they could only do 2, that if you used all 3 it dropped to single channel? (i never had a nforce 2 board =/)

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[Rugger]

Sets of two for dual channel is an A64 limitation - doesn't apply to nF2.

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[apesoccer]

I b learned good smart, thx rugger.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[Guest]

I really love your selected readign you remind me of SpaceDonkey. You seam to just skip the points that proves you wrong and pick on some lines to repeat the same stuff again and again...

Interesting to sayy the least!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0

 

[BePe86]

Lol, reminds me of our fiend porkster. "AMD denote low quality, old technology, so it's any wonder companies like DELL wont touch them. Waht production line would want to stock two lines of items, DDR2/DDR1, BTX/ATX, PCIeGFX/AGP ... etc ... etc. and the extra support for all those sub standards that AMD have due to multi chip makers making for their CPU's.

Also AMD is a bad taste in the mouths of so many professionals. Professionals buy based on reputation and existing support. AMD has little reputation other than from teenagers and gaming frame rates."

lol, always nagging on about old technology, and how AMD fans are teenagers who love Linux, Java, Firefox, and hates intel and Microsoft...

 

[endyen]

<A HREF="http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/20/intel_updates_dual-cores/" target="_new">hmmm</A> got to love those 52 bugs. Oh well, a few of them will be fixed in October. Better wait for that, if you want to use 64 bits. Of course the other unfixed bugs will be enough to make a major meal for you. (trolls do eat bugs right?)

 

[Zoron]

Have I made up my mind, hell no, except many here are actually pursuading me towards the 820D more and more

So what's the point of asking advice only to ignore it? Better performance / stability from AMD is pushing you towards Intel... nice logic. I'd have to agree with the others; you're nothing more than a troll.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Starfishy]

Or a moron...

 

[Rugger]

<A HREF="http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/dualcoreintel/index.htm" target="_new">This</A> was an intersting read. Quite surprised by the Photoshop results...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[dunklegend]

Or both!

<b><font color=blue>If you try to please everybody, nobody will like you<font color=blue></b>

 

[dunklegend]

Send the link to noko so he buys he 820 and stops posting.
All he wanted is for someone to tell him that CPU was better.

<b><font color=blue>If you try to please everybody, nobody will like you<font color=blue></b>

 

[Starfishy]

I am thinking better and better of this CPU everytime I read a review. I am well known as an AMD fanboy, but if I was buying a dual core rig and didn't care about gaming performance this is the obvious choice... especially when you read statements like this one found in that review:

It’s hard to believe that a company who have long been associated with high prices and lack of features have created a product which is by far the best value for money (in terms of performance and features) CPU on the market at this time. As dual core CPU’s become the standard more applications will make use of the technology and benefits gained from using the Pentium D will increase over the single core solutions.

 

[ChipDeath]

Btw, you had those 3 chips running in dual channel? How does that work? I thought they could only do 2, that if you used all 3 it dropped to single channel?

Nah, Use 1x512Mb in one channel, and 2x256 in the other.

the 512 was Corsair XMS 4000 which I bought mostly for preparation for an A64 at some point (although now I have one, but that stick turned out to be crap, so is used elsewhere).

The 256s were corsair LL PC3200. Excellent ram that stuff - would do 2-2-2-4 at 205Mhz.

Even so, to get Dual channel working they were in 2.5-6-6-10 together or something.

---
<font color=red>"Life is <i>not</i> like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your a<b></b>ss tommorrow."<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ChipDeath on 07/20/05 11:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[endyen]

Pentiums are multiplier locked... When they throttle, they drop the multiplier to 14... the multiplier of the 2.8 @ 800fsb is 14... nope, can't throttle.

Hi Mike.
Sorry I missed this earlier. Either core can still throttle, by missing, or skipping cycles. Xbit labs talked about it <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820_5.html" target="_new">here</A>. It's interesting that each core can throttle seperately

When we launched two independent copies of a single-threaded application (we used WinRAR archiving utility), we managed to reveal a very interesting effect: Pentium D cores can get into thermal throttling independently. In other words, the first core continued working at its normal speed, while the second core started missing clocks losing its speed tremendously.

 

[noko]

Thanks for the review there. Yes I use photoshop and some want to compare a $240 chip to a $1000. LOL. In this case it blows away the $1000 AMD chip 😱 . In anycase the 820D per dollar is much better value then what AMD has in the same price range and even higher. Now this is my thread!!! Tell me not to post hehehe. The 820D is an outstanding deal overall, no matter how much you worship AMD (that is if you do).

Havn't had a chance to review article on dividers yet. If single core then I would like to see a test for a dual core design since both cores will be contending for the same system ram, in this case the divider may cause a significant performance degradation.

The T1 or T2 memory issue, still a concern for me since tests conducted was done on a single core not a dual core where memory bandwidth between two cpu's are contending for the same memory. On the XP where the bandwidth is restricted to the data paths to and from the cpu at 64bits while on the Athlon64 it is dual channel 128bit, while dual channel memory supplied more bandwidth then the cpu can handle on the XP(hence if you up the FSB, bandwidth of cpu data path would go up etc..) T2 timings had a significant impact on performance due to the bandwidth restriction to and from the cpu. I would expect similar performance losses on the X2 in multitasking type situations due to each core contending for the same memory pool at 128bit but by two cores if CPC is dissabled, T2 timings.

My 3d program is multithreaded so benchmarks in rendering not using multitreading would be invalid, anyone who really cares to find out which one from AnAndTech would better reflect what I am looking at can figure it out. For me the 820D for the price is just outstanding.

The 820D holds it own and is a over clockers dream, with much faster ram available then is for the AMD systems. Plus if you have to go to slower memory timings and T2 or CPC off at 2gb and beyond with the X2, then add a divider on top of that to keep the system stable, remember I believe T2 timings on the X2 will hinder multitasking performance significantly not like the single core 64's where there is no ram contention, kinda points to a bleaker picture for me using the X2. I just think AMD once again failed with higher capacity memory over the norm. Stability wise Intel is almost a given, I am not sure with the X2 with 2gb and 4gbs of ram.

I am also see a higher potential for a better upgrade path with the 820D, much faster memory can be added if desired later, more memory can be added with stability without having to degrade performance. Faster cpu's will become available, if going by how Intel current prices their offereings compared to AMD, I could save bundles!

AMD wise, DDR is going to be phased out next year, so I would be stuck with an orphan board. DDR is not going to get much faster, it is at EOL (end of life). Increasing memory beyond 2gb seems shaky on the X2 and maintaining performance. The X2 price is not warranted for performance gained if any over what Intel offers.

For those who are quit, well stay out of my thread!!! 😡 Just kidding , post whatever you want seems like everyone else is. Good grief.

Thanks for all the feedback good or bad, it has either helped or has been very amusing so far. More later. Have a good night.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/21/05 07:08 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

LOL, does it matter?

 

[noko]

How so ?

 

[endyen]

There is one thing you keep missing about memory. The A64s have thier own memory bus, the D chips use a very busy fsb for memory. The big problem stems from the intel cores using that same bus for crosstalk. Intel chips have been memory starved since the williamette days. The higher (200mhz quad pumped)fsb has done quite a bit for them. Adding the core interconnect is a step in the wrong direction.
No matter how you look at it, the A64's memory system is the best ever. It really is head and sholders above the pentium D's.

 

[Guest]

pffft lets just give up

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0