Pentium 4 or Pentium D barebones system

[snydley]

I'm going to build a system from either a Pentium 4 or a Pentium D barebones
kit. Which would be the better processor if all other components are the
same? I'll be playing some games, and running Internet apps mostly.
Thanks,
Snyde

 

[Paul]

I'm going to build a system from either a Pentium 4 or a Pentium D barebones
kit. Which would be the better processor if all other components are the
same? I'll be playing some games, and running Internet apps mostly.
Thanks,
Snyde

If I compare a Pentium D 935 3.2GHz dual core, to a Pentium 4 641 3.2GHz
single core with hyperthreading, the 935 draws 95W and the 641 is 86W.
The 935 costs about $135 USD and the 641 is $75 USD.

Pentium D 935 3.2GHz 95 watts dual core
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9QR

Pentium 4 641 3.2GHz 86 watts
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL8WH

If you want to compare overclockability, you can look here.
But at the clock rates shown, you might expect some extra
cooling to be necessary (the stock cooler might not be
too good at 5.5GHz).

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59753

If you were playing a game with the 935, the game could run
on one core, while all other background tasks could run on the
other core. The 641, with hyperthreading, presents two "virtual"
cores to the system, but in terms of actual performance,
you only get an extra 5 or 10% from hyperthreading, in the
best case. In some usage scenarios, it is actually better
to turn hyperthreading off.

And if this is a gaming machine, I might be tempted to go AMD.
After April 9, the AMD X2 4800+ is listed as being available
for $129 (about the same as the Intel 935). You may find
the game benchmarks are a bit better, for the same dollars.
I suppose it all depends on whether you can find a competitive
barebones kit or not, as to whether you will get the same price.
I see the TigerDirect kits don't look too good for AMD right
now. Still a little too rich.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup.html

Paul

 

[TheBigfut]

Why not go with a Core Duo, I know rightnow you can get most of those
chips for pretty cheap AND they are alot faster than most of what is
on the market right now. The release of the core duo's and the new
quad core processor put Intel in front of AMD for now, but the cip was
is hottly contested right now so give ti time and Intel will be passed
up again.

 

[frodo]

Why not go with a Core Duo, I know rightnow you can get most of those
chips for pretty cheap AND they are alot faster than most of what is
on the market right now.

Core Duo, cheap? Hardly...

AMD X2 is HALF the price of core duo, and high-end single-core Athlon 64's
are now less than $75. Combine that w/ DDR memory, which is again HALF
the price of the DDR2 required for a core duo setup, and you've got bang
for the buck.

Newegg's price, today (just for reference, not spamming), for an X2 4200+
is $99. Beat that w/ an intel stick...

Now, if cash is no problem, then you bet, go w/ core duo, it is the best
available. But you could spend that extra $200 on a nice keyboard, AND
a nice mouse, AND some (kinda) nice speakers, or even a nice 19" LCD.

 

[Mike Walsh]

If you compare processors of the same clock speed the Pentium D will run faster and use less power than the Pentium 4.

 

[DaveW]

Pentium D's run VERY HOT in use!

 

[kony]

I'm going to build a system from either a Pentium 4 or a Pentium D barebones
kit.

Why?

IMO, spend enough to get a Core2Duo or otherwise go Athon
64.

Which would be the better processor if all other components are the
same? I'll be playing some games, and running Internet apps mostly.

What's an internet app? You mean browser?
Being a budget build, the video card will be the larger
bottleneck. Buy the cheapest modern CPU you can find and
put the saving$ towards the video card as gaming is the more
demanding use. If the system won't be fitted with at least
1GB memory, put more money towards that as well for
semi-modern gaming.