• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Difference between Conroe + pentium D?

beast

beast

beast

Associate
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
909
I can buy a Pentium Dual core 3.4 processor for £100, yet the core2duo is £120 for 2x1.8 - So why is the latter more expensive for less? and which would perform better at games? I'm confused :o
 
Conroe is a completely new core architecture, so basically it gets more done per clock than the Pentiums. (Cue shovel anology, big shovel means less digs, small shovel means more digs. Well, something like that).

Long story short, conroe will be better at games by a very, very long way. Save that 20 quid and you will regret it. Spend the 20 quid and very much fortune you will have.

Of course, the conroe needs a very specific chipset so you'll have to check if your mobo can support it.
 
Yes, it will. Have a look at the DUAL-VSTA thread in the motherboards section - plenty of people using C2D on it.

Jonathan
 
ive had both, currently a e6600
sometimes the stats can muddy the waters
in real terms the e6600 uses half the power, runs cooler, and playing games like farcry is where i saw a big diff, with the same graphics card and ram, also i feel encoding and copying dvds is a lot quicker
 
Aargh help I'm torn between the two!

for £115 you can get the 2x1.86 conroe chip, or £99 gets you a 3.4 x2 pentium D chip. My brain is telling me "it's just 1.86 for more money"


Is it really more like 3.6 performance when playing games? as I've read that games aren't wrote for dual core thus it's only running at 1.86.
Is this right or wrong? Quick! I have my credit card in my hand.... :p
 
beast said:
Aargh help I'm torn between the two!

for £115 you can get the 2x1.86 conroe chip, or £99 gets you a 3.4 x2 pentium D chip. My brain is telling me "it's just 1.86 for more money"


Is it really more like 3.6 performance when playing games? as I've read that games aren't wrote for dual core thus it's only running at 1.86.
Is this right or wrong? Quick! I have my credit card in my hand.... :p
Click to expand...


If the game is not coded for dual core it will perform worse on the Pentium D than a game coded for dual core would, so ignore that.

As I said earlier... they are cheaper (In most cases, value for money wise), faster, cooler, use less power and overclock better.

At stock my 6300 was as fast as my 805 @ 3.7-3.8ghz, I have a 1ghz overclock on it and it is faster than anything else available bar the highest C2D and the C2Q
 
Take it from the horses mouth , i have a Pentium D930 and i am considering going to Core 2 soon.. i have used a Core 2 1.86Ghz and i will tell you from a users point of view it is a lot quicker. The pentium D 65Nm version is a very nice chip of its time , and its more than powerful enough ... BUT the Core 2 is still a lot better for the same price.

Go core 2 , you wont regret it !

Regards,

Nomisf
 
I have a Pentium D950 OC'd to 3.8GHz - had it running at 4GHz for a while but decided that it didn't make an apreciable difference. Does me quite happy right now and I play most of the higher end games without issues.

Right now the C2D chips dont make a massive difference in games at the higher resolutions unless you have a really decent SLI setup, at lower resolutions they do.

In as far as future proofing goes - C2D all the way - totally worth the ping - go for gold. If you are going to spend the money then you may as well not cut corners, go for the hardware that is going to cover your future needs for a while - a Pentium D won't do that as well.
 
Last edited:
Yep Pentium D is slower and hotter, Core 2 Duo is the way to go.

The clock speed is an out-dated method of comparing performance that hasn't been accurate for a really long time (even then it wasn't 100% and still app dependant), the only way to know for sure is to check out (lots of) benchmarks (covering whatever you use your PC for, so games, encoding, whatever) and make a decision from that.

As already explained Core 2 Duo is WAAAY faster than a Pentium D at the same clock speed and even at half the clock speed it remains faster than a PD for the same money.
 
Well, I ignored all the advice :rolleyes: :p Got a D 945 for £95. I'll just keep it for a year, then the faster conroe chips will have come down in price and of course AMD will have well and truly waded in with their version. :)

Oh - what's the 950? I have a 945 with the 800fsb, what's the difference or are they the same thing?
 
beast said:
Well, I ignored all the advice :rolleyes: :p Got a D 945 for £95. I'll just keep it for a year, then the faster conroe chips will have come down in price and of course AMD will have well and truly waded in with their version. :)

Oh - what's the 950? I have a 945 with the 800fsb, what's the difference or are they the same thing?
Click to expand...
can we all point and laugh at you?
you say its 1.8 I've two core duo E6300s here, both are at 3.2 (ninja coolers) at stock volts.
so its 2x 3.2(2) for £110. :p
 
i made the mistake of listning to my tard friend Jonny_L who told me to get a PentiumD 805, its good and it clocks stupidly and i do like it but at the end of the day £15 more could have got me a LOT more performance, what was the point in even posting on these forums if your not going to listen to anyone!!!!11!!1 youve got 138 post you should be learned
 
i love all these debates about processors, since non make a single bit of difference, im running 4400+ at 2.8Ghz and my best mate runs smithfield at 3.2Ghz, and theres absolutely NO difference at all in gameplay in any game we've played on, yeah sure maybe a few FPS here and there, but you don't notice it! core, K8, netburst, who really notices any difference in games, or is it just 'i got the fastest PC' rights :p
 
I noticed a difference between my 805 @ 3.7 and 6300 @ 2.8... a fairly large one in fact.

For example while at the start of a CSS game with 32 players it would drop to 35 fps with the 805 but with the 6300 the lowest I have seen is 85 fps. The same goes for actually playing, the FPS has practically doubled at the same settings. RTS games run much faster etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom