Cheap D Cores would work well . .

There is a very interesting review of the the new Intel D805 Dual Core CPU on Anandtech.com. At a price of around $135 this would make a great basis for a value SL system, for someone wanting to build a PC for themselves. As I have found with my AMD x2 3800, SL does very well with Dual Cores.

Add to that a 6600GT/256MB for roughly the same price:

XFX PV-T43G-UDL6 Geforce 6600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail - $125 with a $15 mail-in rebate

and a motherboard like this one:

ASRock 775XFire-eSATA2 Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 945PL Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail - $74.99

Throw in a Gig of ram:

pqi POWER Series 1GB (2 x 512MB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM Unbuffered DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) Dual Channel Kit System Memory - Retail - $71.99

And a SATA 3GB/s Drive:

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3808110AS 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM - $51

Case with 450W Powersupply, DVD and Burner, etc, etc.

All this for around $550 is pretty good . . .

Seeing as the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ is selling for $120 and beats this CPU in just about everything that is single threaded (which SL is) in my opinion I would suggest that for a SL PC. If you like to multitask a lot, then I would suggest the PC listed above.

I have experience with the AMD 64 3000 and now with an AMD 64 x2 3800, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that SL works better with two cores. Whereas when using the 64/3000, the CPU was allways pegged at 100%, with the x2, it seldom if ever goes above 75% no matter how you set the affinity. Now, the x2 also overclocks beautifully, so that also helps.

I went from an A64 3500+ to a 4400+ X2 which I overclocked to a 4800+, I never saw any difference in SL, at all. Howerver loading up firefox and other applications was like SL wasn't even running. SL only uses 1 core no matter what, and 100% of it, makes perfect sense that a good single core would run SL better than 2 weaker ones since SL cant use the other one... Check the single thread benchmarks on Anandtech.com which you saw the results from. The 3000+ beats this processor in all of them.

I quote:

"SL only uses 1 core no matter what, and 100% of it"

<http://baartman.us/General/SL_Task_Manager_1.doc>

I do tend to have more than one application running with SL, but I do not see evidence of either core running at 100% . . .

Current dualcore drivers will pass load approx. 50%/50% onto your cores if you don't set affinity.

That said, sometimes it goes to 54%/51% on mine, so I know having an X2 gives me an advantage.

Don't waste money on the Core Duo though. If you're going to go DualCore, do it right and get the AMD version for a little more. The Core Duo has been bad at....everything, from what my Intel-loving m8s say.

Still, I do wonder if the D805, at $135 would not do better at SL than the 64/3000, $120 today from the ubiquitious - they do have 1MB L2 Caches . . . And I would not be surprised if it overclocks well. According to Anandtech, they will be testing that aspect soon. Has AMD said anything about dual core semprons?

That said, my x2 3800, clocked to 2.55 MHz, with stock cooling, at 1.35V, running at 56C is superb.

The 4400 x2 is what i am looking at that the moment. I have the 3200 and i very happy with it I don`t like those "D" cpu because they really need to be kept cool. More so then other CPU models. Problem is why would people spend money on a "D" CPU where 64 bit amd are strnger and take more abuse. Prive is a factor but i dont want to spend 200.00 on a cooling system that the cpu only cost 120.00 Does not make sence.

Not when I can comfortably get 4800++ performance from a $295 x2 3800 CPU . . . .

64 cpu prices will drop more. and when they do I will upgrade. But why do i need this since SL does not need more then a 3500 anyways.

this is completely untrue. Yu are refering to the Pentium-D and all netburst (P4) cores. Intel does not use the term "Core Duo" to mean dual cores. Its written in capitals because its an actual name, just like Pentium was a name. The Core Duo chips out right now are an early laptop version and they are very very good chips. In the next 6 months or so intel is releasing all new 'Core' (captial C) chips to replace allt heir laptop, desktop, and server designs. they are much more efficient chips and run lower clock speed and use less power. Early test chips have even pretty much smoked AMD chips at even less of a clock speed.


Please do not assume that just because its some chip intel made and has dual cores that its a Core Duo chip... the differences is the captial C on Core

im still personally an amd fan, ive used (basicly) the same stuff since 1999 and i didnt have to go out and shell out 100 bucks for a main board cause my celeron model A wasnt the same as my celeron model B, eventho my model A motherboard supported the clock speed (but not the pins)

i dont like intel for that reason, its money sucking

going back to my celeron example, i have a computer (probally rotting in the garage thats how much i care about it )

original specs

533mhz celeron
512 pc133 (non ddr) ram
crappy "state of the art" intel video card from 2 years ago (with an 4x agp slot on it)

the mainboard specs says it can handle upto a 1.2ghz chip (joy a decent machine for light duty nowdays)

but when i throw a 1.2ghz celeron in it, BOING no go, do some research intel decided to switch the pin config from model whatever to whatever the SAME DAMN SOCKET version 2 is

major BUMMER

funny i can take my 6 year old athalon machine (providing the motherboard supports the clock spped, which my old asus A7V supports up to 150 mhz fsb which is faster than the fastest 32 bit AMD chip made +ddr)

i dont like that, esp when i got the computer for a xmass present from the company
its locked at a MAX of 566mhz eventho the board supports upto 1.2 ghz WTF intel, thanks alot

and this is quite common place, in 6 years ive updraged my AMD cpu 3 times and have NO need for a new mainboard (which is about the same cost of a chip) just clip and go no big deal .... altho ive upgraded mainboards just to be on the top end and pass parts down the line

in a company setting i wont recomend intel chips becuase of this reason ... 3 years down the line when someone needs a 500mhz boost in the art dep i have to make a whole new machine, vs jus dropping in a chip (which usually is HALF the cost)

they do this every 6 months "grats you bought a state of the art intel machine, it cant be upgraded becuase we changed something minor" is quite stupid, it never used to be like this ... intel has some poor marketing

anyways before i write a 6 page report on why i dont like intel, thats my 2 cents

yes, intel switched the socket, you have to have the newer version that suppots FCPGA chips. Amd used the socket A a long time and it worked with many chips, but there are oldr socket A boards that cant use newer socket A chips... and before that was Slot A...

then AMD used socket 754, then 940 and 939, and they are switching soon to socket AM2...

lately AMD has changed their socket designs a lot more than intel has.. and there are revisions of certain chips that can fit in sockets and not work...

only stick with the same motherboard for minor speed increases... most of the time upgrading i always gotta buy a new motherboard.. sometimes new memory... and a new processor...

and i only build AMD machines... last intel i built was an old P3 core based celeron. When the new Core desktop chips are out.. will be the first time in a long time ill be using an intel for the desktop again.

Just curious, Missy, do you agree with common sentiment that the D805 would perform worse than a 64 3000+ for SL?

As regards waiting for the new cores, I assume you are talking about Conroe?

for the record i can use any XP chip on my socket A mainboard (if i set the dip switches) that i bought in 2000

Where would I get these drivers? I don’t see what Delta has on mine, my SL uses 100% of 1 core no matter what, and thank you for the pic Delta, now I want my computer to do that! Either way its still using a total of 1 core and not both but that load balancing is great.

As for the review that you looked at from Anandtech take a look at the final conclusion, even they say its not better than the 3000+ for gaming, and I quote this:


"Just as you'd expect, the Pentium D 805 is a very good value if you are either: 1) multitasking, or 2) running multithreaded applications"

"Gamers looking for a temporary upgrade should honestly look to the Athlon 64 3000+ instead, as very few games have boarded the dual train as of now. "


***EDIT***

I found the drivers and a bunch of info at:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81429

hopefully this will get that nifty load balancing working


***EDIT X2***

Yup followed the instructions and my computer is balancing the load between cores now

Hi Striker,

You are most Welcome!

The only reason I am still wondering is that although SL is a single threaded app, when one takes into account that the OS can load share, perhaps the D805 and its brethren would be worth looking at.

I am not, to my best knowledge, using any drivers that did not come with my OS (W2KPro SP4) and the mother board (ASROCK 939Dual - SATA3) Bios V1.60.

Prior to the x2 3800, I was using a 64 3000+ clocked to 2.4GHz, thus approximating a PR3600, and did find it somewhat wanting. Considering I paid $295 for the x2, it occurred to me that at $135, the D805 could be superb value, especially for people such as myself, who typically do run other apps besides SL simultaneously.

The Anandtech tests certainly tell and interesting story, and they do favor the 64 3000+, but untill someone does a definitive SL test with the D805, in its normal and overclocked configurations, I most likely will remain curious.

***EDIT X2***

Yup, this did it, I am now using both my cores, still 50% overall but atleast its balanced.

From a friend . . . .

System config is a little sketchy, and I will try to find out more specifics:

Pentium 4 3 Ghz (I figure it must be a D830 or a D930)
2 GB of RAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 (this surprised me)
Windows XP professional
1.0 MB DSL


http://baartman.us/General/Sazzy_SL_Taskmanager.doc