Intel Dual Core from £79 +VAT

Gibbo · 13 Mar 2006 at 14:32

Hi there

Just a heads up, check out the Intel section on the site.

Xplo · 13 Mar 2006 at 15:12

How do these compare to 3000 venice's? I know they would be faster in desktop and other stuff but what about in games? Presuming both are stock.

m3csl2004 · 13 Mar 2006 at 15:16

good man!

tbh i had a feeling it wouldnt be long before you got these in

tbh mate these really do need overclocking as you want at least a 200fsb

both at stock then its the venice by quite a way in games

Xplo · 13 Mar 2006 at 15:18

Ok thanks. The intel does run at 200mhz at stock though.

m3csl2004 · 13 Mar 2006 at 15:18

133 (gibbo you might wanna have a look at that as people could get confused, thos cpu is 133/533, and says that in main title, but says 800 in small print description)

Gibbo · 13 Mar 2006 at 16:35

Hi there

How does our pricing compare?

quadboi · 13 Mar 2006 at 16:40

Its a great price, too bad on Intel... You will see a massive rise in customers *He hopes*

Defcon5 · 13 Mar 2006 at 16:52

If one of these were coupled with a 6800GS would a venice 3000 be much quicker, seen as games would be gpu limited?

Rich · 13 Mar 2006 at 17:01

Gibbo said:
Hi there

How does our pricing compare?

Seen one place at £85 for the D805 but they were missing one thing....stock

Been keeping a close eye on the 805. The overclocking potential could make these chips a real bargain.

Bookime Wood · 13 Mar 2006 at 17:21

What board would get the best out of this cpu?

ajgoodfellow · 13 Mar 2006 at 18:29

Defcon5 said:
If one of these were coupled with a 6800GS would a venice 3000 be much quicker, seen as games would be gpu limited?

For games the Venice will be a huge amount faster

The Venice 3000+ outperforms even a 3.4GHz P4 in games let alone a 2.6GHz P4

Defcon5 · 13 Mar 2006 at 18:33

ajgoodfellow said:
For games the Venice will be a huge amount faster

The Venice 3000+ outperforms even a 3.4GHz P4 in games let alone a 2.6GHz P4

but would it be noticable with a low end (ish) gfx card? especially at high res as the fps will be limited by the gfx and not the cpu

ajgoodfellow · 13 Mar 2006 at 18:37

It would be noticeable but to not as great an extent as for a high end card

If you are heavily multi-tasking or using multi-threaded applications that benefit from a dual core CPU then I'd consider it but otherwise I'd go for the Venice chip

You've got to bare in mind that it's based on the Smithfiled core which isn't a patch on the Presler cores or the X2s

It's a fearsome clocker though which should help to make up the shortfall

maddness · 13 Mar 2006 at 18:38

CPU Chart

might help

ofcourse choose your own cpu's and compare

m3csl2004 · 13 Mar 2006 at 18:44

these cpus are all about clocking, they will easily do 3.4 and the gap isnt as massive as amd boys will have you believe once its clocked (obviously when you clock the venice it becomes faster and so on and so forth)

these cpus arnt for kepping at stock unless your just after the novelty of dc

Things change I've changed · 13 Mar 2006 at 18:58

m3csl2004 said:
these cpus are all about clocking, they will easily do 3.4 and the gap isnt as massive as amd boys will have you believe once its clocked (obviously when you clock the venice it becomes faster and so on and so forth)

these cpus arnt for kepping at stock unless your just after the novelty of dc

Thats very true, I recently orderd and built a AMD system for my mate which was a Sandiego 3700+ on a ASrock 939dual-SATA2 M/B with a gig dual channel ddr400, as I had the machine for a few days before he picked it up I decided I would to some bench tests on it

with my 7800GTX gfx card and to my suprise, compared to my intel 3.4 there was really very little difference, farcry, doom3 and bf2 all only scored about 10-15 fps higher than my intel setup on the same settings, tbh I was a little gutted, I was hoping it was going to "kick my systems performance in the bum" as some AMD fanboys would say, perhaps even the sandiego 3700+ was cpu limited.

farooqm · 13 Mar 2006 at 20:14

lowrider007 said:
Thats very true, I recently orderd and built a AMD system for my mate which was a Sandiego 3700+ on a ASrock 939dual-SATA2 M/B with a gig dual channel ddr400, as I had the machine for a few days before he picked it up I decided I would to some bench tests on it with my 7800GTX gfx card and to my suprise, compared to my intel 3.4 there was really very little difference, farcry, doom3 and bf2 all only scored about 10-15 fps higher than my intel setup on the same settings, tbh I was a little gutted, I was hoping it was going to "kick my systems performance in the bum" as some AMD fanboys would say, perhaps even the sandiego 3700+ was cpu limited.

Did you clock the 3700+ higher than the default? Don't know too much abut the intels... but was the intel clocked?
What was the comparison like with the 3700 clocked higher?

mrochester · 13 Mar 2006 at 20:19

Did you clock the 3700+ higher than the default? What was the comparison like with the 3700 clocked higher?

That'd be a bit of an unfair test really

You'd have to clock the P4 too to make it worthwhile and then compare again.

Raikiri · 13 Mar 2006 at 21:04

I am very tempted to build an SFF with one of these and overclock, dual core small form factor system for ~£330 with a decent (abit 945) motherboard

Edit: Lowrider considering they cost £50 less a 15fps lead is excellent, and it is kicking it's butt

Defcon5 · 13 Mar 2006 at 21:20

Raikiri said:
I am very tempted to build an SFF with one of these and overclock, dual core small form factor system for ~£330 with a decent (abit 945) motherboard

so am i! needs 955 chipset though