OK, so while I'm pretty good at computer software ^_^ - hardware has never been a strong point of mine. So I' asking this here . Which is better - Intel Pentium D, or Pentium 4. I know that 4 is theoretically faster until you start multitasking etc. but other than that, I've never been clear on what is better for an 'average' user. What should I get - a D or a 4? I spend my time on the computer doing about what you'd probably expect - gaming, browsing the internet, word processing. Obviously I won't be writing a word document while playing Battlefield, so does that make 4 more useful? Edit: And if anyone tells me to go AMD, I will eat them... Thanks! -Ale_Jrb-
More is always better, both P4 and PD are old, if you wan't a new processor/system, go for the new Core 2 Duo series.
c2d is about 90% more powerful at a given clock speed. which means that a 2.1GHz c2d e6400 is on par with a 4.0GHz pentium D. and Pentium Ds/PXEs are not only faster in theory but faster in practice(PXE 965 has increased FSB which puts it over a 3.8GHz P4 in most scenarios) also AMD is better than P4s/PDs for things like multi tasking(), business, general use, are more responcive and with the exception of the fx63, use about half the energy. Coming from a 2.6GHz dual core opteron to a 3.066GHz c2d(overclocked) i've noted that the c2d is slightly less responcive(chipset is too immature i guesse)
Neither, although C2D's are much faster quad core is out early next year (or so I've heard) so you should really wait until then.
If you plan on getting either a P4 or PD I'd say.... get an AMD of equal price but as everyone probly is saying, Conroe ftw!
Quad is like what 4 processors ?, who could use all of them, if it came to a desktop ?? i don't think anyone could use all of them
actually most current 965 adn newer 975X boards do support kentsfield. for full support a BIOS flash is recomended but not necessary. the only negative aspect of it is that it is only to be released as an XE at first and will be priceed accordingly. IMO quad core is pointless at this time sincedual core is just barely begginning to be utilized at the moment, just leave quadcore open as an upgrade for a while from now...
Well when I build my PC I want it to be as Futureproof as possible (probably not even possible, every 6 months there's always a new thing to have) so I'm going to jump ahead and get quad-core, why not?
It'll be very expensive - that's one reason. But as for not utilising all four processors, I say you probably would. A lot more programs will have multi-processor support in the future anyway so that won't be a problem and some, eg Photoshop already do. You don't have to be doing four things at once to benefit from quad-core.
future proofing is a myth. I have said it time and time again. You're better off spending half as much twice as often vs. dumping a ton of cash at an instant in time. and the quads will be released in the $1000 categorie. I'd wait for quadcore to b released and then buy a standard c2d after prices fall. as it isn't dual core CPUs aren't even being taken full advantage of as of yet.
