Pentium D830 or Pentium at 3Ghz+? (1 Viewer)

[Rolando]

Hi guys,

I just got a Pentium D 830 PC which has 2 processors at 2.8 Ghz (theoretically).

However I keep hearing around a few places that it might not perform as nice as a fast single processor PC. Some say a Pentium 630 at 3Ghz might out perform it for games or some HT applications (like faster compression etc). is this true?

I mean, it makes sense. Sure there are 2 processors, great for multi tasking but for a single task it cannot perform it faster than at 2.8 right?

My primary use will be HT more than gaming. Also some small editing and compression of video. Mostly watching HD trailers and watching DVDs upscaled. Am I better off with a really fast single processor with Hyperthreading?

Also I went from a super old Pentium 3 500 to this and to be honest I cannot say I see a HUGE difference in speed. old one had 128Mb RAM Vs 1Gb on this one. Shouldn't the difference be night and day?

How can I test the PC to make sure it is not defective or something?

 

[Dennis*G]

Dual core is usually 10-15% faster then its single core mate, so the 2.8 duo should perform as well as a 3-3.2ghz single.

And you should see a difference in speed if you use items that actually require speed. Video encoding/editing should see tremendous speed improvement, so should opening large files/pictures. Windows should start faster, and although you probably can't tell, applications probably start faster, but those don't require a lot, so hard to tell a difference.

 

[SethH]

If I were buying now I would get dual-core. This is mainly because I think Windows Vista will probably take advantage of dual-core better than XP. Also, with the prevalence of multi-threading and multi-core, more and more companies are going to start producing code that will take advantage of multicore processors.

 

[Bryan X]

I bought a couple months ago and went dual core (2 3.2Ghz).

If you are running one application, the single processor with the faster speed *should* be faster. But how many PCs really are only running one application at a time. You most likely have many small programs running in the background all the time.

I don't regret going to dual core at all. I have no problem rendering and burning home video while running other apps and surfing the net at the same time.

BTW, get yourself 2GB of RAM too.

 

[DaveF]

A solitary, single-threaded program, like most current games, will run on only one core. In that case it will run like a normal 2.8 GHz CPU, and the 3 GHz CPU will outperform it.

If the program is multi-threaded, then two threads can execute simultaneously on both cores, running at 2.8 GHz. In this case, it could up to about 30% faster than a single-core 3 GHz processor. Likewise for running two, single-threaded programs at the same time.

For any normal computer use a dual-core system is should perform as well or better than a modestly faster single-core system. If you're surfing the web, ripping a CD and have other miscellaneous programs active in the background, the dual-core is likely a better processor.

Future games are expected to be multi-threaded to support dual-core processors, and should perform better.

For your HT programs, it will depend on the specific programs you're running. But with a view towards normal PC usage and future uses, a dual-core CPU is a good choice.

If you google on dual-core CPU benchmarks, you can find more detailed data on the relative performance.

 

[Ken Chan]

Try watching some HD trailers:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/

The "1080p" ones should play OK on your dual (if just barely). It should be a slideshow on the PIII-500. If it's not obvious, with QuickTime, you can open the Movie Info window to watch the Playing FPS.

Unless you're planning on buying another new computer next year, dual-core is the way to go.

 

[Kyle McKnight]

I'd keep the dual core. I just purchased an AMDX2-3800 64bit, which is a dual core. I'm happy with the speed of it but am hoping when I use a program that uses both cores that I will see some improvement.

 

[Rolando]

thanks so much for the info guys. I feel much better about my purchase. I am still unhappy that due to budget restraints I had to go the pre-packaged route (got a gateway). I have never done that, always custom built and well am nervous about it.

It came with XP and when I was installing the printer I noticed it had drivers for XP 64bit. What is this? there is a newer version of XP that takes advantage of the 64 bit processors?