Pentium 820 D

[noko]

I hope AMD goes straight to DDR3, they will need it with the dual core processors at faster speeds. Have no idea what Intel plans on doing or when they will shift to DDR3. Doesn't matter to much at present for building a new system.

If AMD downpriced the 3800+ at $240 then that would be interesting. Now will the X2 3800+ run 4gb of memory at fast speeds and OC? Seems like only AMD would know that one since no one else as far as I can tell has tested that kind of configuration on any X2 processor.

 

[noko]

You tell me

Stick to the facts jack. u don't need to be coy roy, just drop of the key lee and set yourself free.

But then you tell me:

point might be today but it was definatley not the day intel told u it was better. or lead u to believe it was supierior.

How about you sticking to facts instead of trying to make facts , Intel has nothing to do with it.

In anycase you admitted that DDR2 will be better some day, right? Then why would someone buy today into DDR then?

For what I do, the rather inexpensive 820D can only be touched by AMD (for what I want) with their $500 and $1000 chips, nothing in the 820D price range and up to the X2 4200+ does AMD have that can compair. Now that is my viewpoint for what I do and want. That is all and no big deal.

Plus I've beem burned too many times by each AMD plateform I've tried, each with their own memory limitation, short changing the usefulness out of every AMD machine I've ever owned. Unless I consider poorer performance acceptable, so in the long run I don't think I really saved that much at all by going with AMD through the years. This I do have a beef with. Hopefully Intel will be better in that department, I think so.

 

[darko21]

Then why would someone buy today into DDR then?

cause it is still better over all, never mind cheaper, u will most likly need a new intel chipset motherboard to move to ddr3 and u can only hope your mb will support advances in ddr2.

Plus I've beem burned too many times by each AMD plateform I've tried, each with their own memory limitation, short changing the usefulness out of every AMD machine I've ever owned.

Intel changes specs platforms more than I change my ginch, what is your point?

so in the long run I don't think I really saved that much at all by going with AMD through the years.

a penny saved is a penny earned

This I do have a beef with. Hopefully Intel will be better in that department, I think so.

I don't, but that's me.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Atolsammeek]

Well Noko you proven your a Intel fanboy. But you also proven you lack Facts.

1 Amd Runs Cooler and runs on par with Intel in Most programs.
2 Amd might be $10 to $80 More then intel. After Intel users get there eletric bill. It Become more like Intel cost More then Amd. $150 to $200.

And before you and others go I m a amd fan. I run two computers.

Amd 64 3000+ desktop 2gb of ram Radeon 9600 256 mb 5 hard drive total of 720gb of hard drive space. No problem with the memory. Windows 64 bata windows xp Pro.

And Intel Laptop
3.4 ee L3 2mb cache 1 gb ram Radeon 9700 256 mb 2 80 gb hard drives.

I do over clock my desktop in the winter time. 10% But it only runs around 100f 35c. Summer time 117f 42c.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AtolSammeek on 07/26/05 03:52 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[HansGruber]

1 Amd Runs Cooler and runs on par with Intel in Most programs.

AMD runs cooler and AMD is FASTER in at least 90% of the programs.




<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>

 

[Starfishy]

Everyone knows that I am an AMD fanboy right? Right. Even I know that I prefer 99% of AMDs CPUs over Intels. But I think many of the guys supporting AMD in this thread are not looking at all the facts.

1) AMD has better performance in 90% of apps (TRUE)
2) DDR is cheaper (TRUE)
3) DDR2 is better (Debatable, advantages will be seen, but everyone knows in computer building land you never wait for techs to develop you have to invest in "the now")
3) AMD runs cooler (TRUE)
4) AMD consumes less power (TRUE)

Even with all of these truths the AMD fans miss the point.

The 820 D does not have a competitor at its price range. For people looking to buy dual at this price range it cannot be beaten. Even with the extra costs of DDR2, and the extra energy consumption you will likely be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

The only way in which I could be convinced that AMD has a competitor would be for someone to show me a price comparison of a X2 4200 build and a 820D build and then show me a power consumption chart for both and show me the costs assosiated with that. It might get close, but the AMD system would probably take years of running at lower power to save enough money to justify the initial costs.

 

[HansGruber]

I was just correcting some false information that said: Intel is equal in performace when comparing to AMD.
I mentioned the FACT that AMD CPU is much faster than Intel CPU.
That is NOT fanboyism.

The 820 D does not have a competitor at its price range.

You are not talking about OVERALL SYSTEM PRICE.
Also remember the COST OF USING THE [-peep-].

Happy landings.

: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>

 

[HansGruber]

Subject is not Pentium M, so me bashing Intel is just common sense.

ps. was your landing safe ?

<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>

 

[endyen]

The 820 D does not have a competitor at its price range.

Once you factor in the cost of extreme cooling, and extra wear on other components, an 820D would come in slightly more expensive than an X2 4800
If you are looking at an "economy system", the # of apps that take benefit from dual cores does not make much practical sense. You would probably get better perf by networking your old system to a new A64 system.
Do not undervalue the cost of electricity. The difference between an A64 x2 and an 820 might be only 60 watts, at the chip, but that is over 100 watts at the meter. Then remember to allow 2X as much power for cooling during the summer months.

 

[noko]

endyen,

60w more at the computer end will virtually be 60w from the power company, conservation of energy, some energy will be lost in the wiring in your home, very slight, I^2R losses or energy loss due to heating. You might want to tell the SLI bunch that their computers are not worth it if they put in a second 7800GTX due to about 100w more power usage and extreme cooling needed. It is not a concern for me. Large memory, reliability and Overclockability with excellent performance. The 820D from my viewpoint is one of the best CPU's/performance that has been released. It is a good buy, just because someone buys Intel doesn't necessarily make them an Intel fanboy. I am neither an AMD fanboy nor Intel fanboy. Besides if I just use built in graphics, while someone else is using dual Nvidia 7800GTX's under the hood on their High Energy Absorbing DDR ram jacked up to 3.4v , who do you think will save more money on the electric bill?

 

[endyen]

Why I bother, you are such a stupid troll.
The chip gets it's power from the v-regs. They are the mosfets next to it. They get quite hot. That is pure watts. Where do the mosfets get thier power from? They get it from the psu. The psu is not a very efficient device. They were one of the first things to get fans. Most of them run at about 62% efficientcy. To supply the 70 watts that the v-core uses, they use about 113 watts of power. Get it.
Yea, Sli doesn't seem worth it for some of the games I play. For others though you do get a lot of extra frames/AA AF. At least you are seeing something for a whole lot of heat, and power.

 

[noko]

60w + line losses, is conservation of energy wrong??? what part wussy? Isn't your power meter connected to your home? As in the energy loss form power meter to your computer any loss due to I^2R losses are virtually zero? I said computer not processor plus the tests I've seen came from the line side not the cpu side. So once again ignorant people making assumptions, not necessarily you.

Now when I am wrong I will thank you for correcting my error, not try to find something else on your behalf wrong.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/27/05 07:28 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

If you telling me that the 820D is 60w more then the X2 4200+, prove it, show me the test, otherwise do what you said, DON'T bother, why don't you listen to yourself? Go date P4man or something, bye.

 

[Guest]

How can you say something like that with a straight face!!! 😱


Rugger has been asking you this:

BTW, I'm still awaiting a response to two of my earlier posts:
1.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------
(Noko quote) The multi-tasking benchmarks at AnAndTech, the ones I am interested in, shows a non OC Intel faster then AMD fastest X2.
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Rugger quote): Can you provide a link to the benchmarks page that you are referencing for this statement?

2. (Rugger quote) You probably missed my earlier post. You've read the reviews and have specific benchmarks on which you are basing your 820D preference. Can you send me a link to the specific benchmarks page that are influencing you.

And you never responded.

In my opinion, what makes a real trol, is his ability to answer specific question that he can spin the way he wants but to totally overlook other question that he cant possibly answer.

Now I dont know why im posting you'll probly overlook it/dont answer it!

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

 

[BePe86]

First, pull your head out of your anus.

"If you telling me that the 820D is 60w more then the X2 4200+, prove it, show me the test, otherwise do what you said, DON'T bother, why don't you listen to yourself?"

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=145&type=expert&pid=17

That's a 53W difference for the 4400+ (may be more for the 4200+, i dunno how much more power that extra cache needs).

"Go date P4man or something, bye."

I would, but he's already married ;P

 

[Guest]

<A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3442" target="_new">3800+</A>

Thats getting close to your 820D price, if you take into accoutn chipset and DDR2 heaftier price, the 150$ or so difference will dissapear pretty fast!

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

 

[Starfishy]

I have been waiting a long time to find a quote worthy of putting it in my sig. And I think all my waiting has finally paid off.

Go date P4man or something, bye!

 

[BePe86]

lol, it's a damn good quote <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by BePe86 on 07/27/05 01:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

Chipset wise about the same price, DDR2 is actually cheaper then DDR in the 1gb size, at least as far as what I would buy for each.

I thought we settle the benchmark thingy, when I have more time this weekend I will get down and dirty over what I view as important in benchmarks. This is specific for what I want to get out of my next machine so if it doesn't agree to your ideas of what is important then you are probably right for yourself but not for me. HINT HINT, if you compairing a $1000 chip then you should compair the $1000 chip from the competitor, that is how I look at it. LET IT ALL HANG OUT and if AMD yelps away, well then don't hang around the big boys then.

Now is that the only reasonable question I havn't answer so far? As for some of the more unreasonable questions, stuff it.

The 3800+ competition would be the 830D from Intel and not the 820D which is over a hundred dollars cheaper. AMD doesn't have any chips that compete with the 820D nor does it look like they will in the near future.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/29/05 00:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

Yes 1gb sticks, so that the ram can be increased to 4gb later. As a side note, what I would consider heavy multitasking would take a minimum of 2gb.

Playing a game as in FarCry and rendering in the background a 3d animation, depending on what I am rendering it could very well exceed 1gb by itself but usually more like 800mb is the norm. If I compile into an animation vice saving images to disk to post process later the ram requirements goes up a little. This scenario would be pushing around 1.5gb, now add a few other items into the mix or BF2 then 2gb starts to run out rather fast.

The tests and benchmarks I've seen all used 1gb of ram and their multitasking tests revolved around that limitation more then anything else, thus limiting their usefulness. Plus the Intel systems where always given slower ram settings then readily available faster ram while the AMD systems where with fast ram settings and even using DDR500. What I would be interested in is a 4gb (at least 2gb) of ram with the fastest ram settings possible for both and load the programs up until the ram is virtually gone, then benchmark away.

Now for those who first priority is games I would recommend an AMD system in general but more on that later. Got to go.

 

[noko]

Thank God, the thread has died down and I can post periodically until I get utterly board or have something useful like a 820D system with 2gb+ of ram and OCing results.

For one I will be running 2gb-4gb on my next rig. Memory has a large influence over performance of a computer system. So compairing a 1gb machine to a 2gb machine with rather significant difference in memory bandwidth due to memory speed and timings is thus very limited. This can also carry over to OCing results where the larger memory capacities may limit ram speed and thus performance overall as well.

Still overall, multitasking performance was most important. I am an avid gamer but now that has taken a back seat. In addition upgradability with a faster CPU and more ram and not slowing down the rig without having to reinvent the wheel again as in another new rig also comes into play. The most I've ever paid for a processor was $280 and that was an Intel 486 Dx2 66 or something like that, probably the main reason why I ended up with AMD for years, not because AMD had better performance but much better price per performance. That looks like it will change now. I am not about to pay $1000 or even $500 for little extra performance over an $250 cpu, at least not yet, especially when the $250 cpu OC's like a bat out of hell .

AnAndTech:

The single threaded benchs showed AMD doing rather well, except even my XP2500 rig does single things nicely, so who cares???

Now considering being limited to a measly 1gb of ram on these test rigs, Intel plateform ram timings on the slow side, the multitasking benchs showed me the light from the darkness :

Scenario 1 showes Intel completed the tasks in 11.2 seconds while AMD's best was 12.1 seconds, meaning Intel was able to do those several tasks almost 1 second or 9% faster. More importantly it just blew out of the water the single core AMD chip being over 300% faster (AMD multistumbling technology at work). In other words, start doing more then one task on AMD single core chips and they actually stumble rather well I might add.
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=9" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=9</A>

Alright alright, scenario 2 now. This time around Intel dual beats AMD's best by completing tasks in 5.02s while AMD slower 6.2s X2 score was even slower then AMD's single core. Intel was 23% faster there. Now I won't mention the imported E-mails (what kind of benchmark is that????
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=10" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=10</A>

Scenario 3, well Intel is on top again but all very close except for AMD's single core, it is, well somewhere back there. Does anyone see a trend here now?
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=11" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=11</A>

Scenario 4, well you guessed it, Intel ahead again with about a 6% lead. More importantly all where significantly ahead of AMD's single core, way over 200%. Most important of all the bencmarks done as far as I was concerned.
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=12" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=12</A>

Scenario 5, about fricking time AMD did something . AMD games well except if you are single core. In that case the Intel will plow over the AMD single core breed nicely. Once again AMD's mutistumbling technology at work on those tests. So if I am a multitasking gamer, Intel does better then an AMD single core system. Now with 2gb of ram, rendering 3d and gaming I wonder which would do better?
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=13" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=13</A>

Now in the end I hope you see now why I came away from that review shaking my head at some of the resoning here, I am going dual core to multitask. AMD leads on single tasks at times by far margines but when you start piling up the tasks AMD stumbles and Intel goes ahead. What if real world situations where tested? How much more would AMD stumble? Start encoding single frams into an animations, maybe even post process prior to encoding, render 3d in the background and play a game at the same time, I think Intel would be even further ahead then the results shown at AnAndTech.

The multitasking benchmarks where kinda ridiculus for the most part probably because the small amounts of ram that was used. Now who is going to get a dual core cpu and only have 1gb of ram? That is utterly stupid. Why even use that configuration for testing is even more stupid.

So if you are looking to multitask, it is hard to beat Intel. The tests prove it
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/31/05 08:32 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

Actually it is my gain going Intel this time. More to come and why.

 

[BePe86]

what test are you talking about here? Can you please hand out links, or else, I consider it FUD.

 

[noko]

Sorry, edited privious post to show links and a few other corrections.

 

[HansGruber]

what test are you talking about here? Can you please hand out links, or else, <b>I consider it FUD</b>.

I would consider it FFF because noko is talking so much about memory, just like...



<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>