Core 2 Duo vs. Pentium D ~ Help
I currently have the Pentium D dual core 920 (2 x 2. 8GHz 4MB cache, 65nm, 800MHz BUS). I am about to receive a Core 2 Duo E6300 (2 x 1. 8GHz 2MB cache, 65nm, 1066MHz BUS). I wondering which is going to be faster as I can just pop either chip in my board.
I currently have the Pentium D dual core 920 (2 x 2.8GHz 4MB cache, 65nm, 800MHz BUS). I am about to receive a Core 2 Duo E6300 (2 x 1.8GHz 2MB cache, 65nm, 1066MHz BUS).
I wondering which is going to be faster as I can just pop either chip in my board. You'd think the 920 would be faster because of more cache and 1GHz more in speed. BUT the E6300 is on a 1066MHz BUS. Does anyone know of a comparison out there between the two? I use the chips mainly for video editing. I want the fastest chip, obviously, to be in my primary machine.
I wondering which is going to be faster as I can just pop either chip in my board. You'd think the 920 would be faster because of more cache and 1GHz more in speed. BUT the E6300 is on a 1066MHz BUS. Does anyone know of a comparison out there between the two? I use the chips mainly for video editing. I want the fastest chip, obviously, to be in my primary machine.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Most of the reviews I've read compare the Core 2 Duo to the AMD 64 variety for bragging rights. AnandTech has this comparison in which your processor is compared along with others: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=10
(this is only the winstone tests which look at video)
The bottom line is that your E6300 at first blush holds its own very well. When overclocked, it should outclass the Pentium D.
(this is only the winstone tests which look at video)
The bottom line is that your E6300 at first blush holds its own very well. When overclocked, it should outclass the Pentium D.
This article at LostCircuits might also help: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/encode/
Well not really because AMD has been doing this for years now, basically designing more efficient CPU's that do more work per clock cycle and hence do not really need to be clocked faster to get things done
Intel finally seems to have gotten that same message with their Core 2 Duo CPU's so this doesn't surprise me how they've come up with some pretty good new designs.
Now with the advent of multi-core CPU's coming down the pipe, including some news about QUAD core silicon, this should be good news for those that are heavy into multi-threaded apps like 3D Rendering and the like
Intel finally seems to have gotten that same message with their Core 2 Duo CPU's so this doesn't surprise me how they've come up with some pretty good new designs.
Now with the advent of multi-core CPU's coming down the pipe, including some news about QUAD core silicon, this should be good news for those that are heavy into multi-threaded apps like 3D Rendering and the like
