PDA

View Full Version : Pentium D or Athlon 64?


ya3
07-24-2005, 10:26 AM
"I've narrowed the two suspects down to two suspects..."

Pentium D 2.8GHz - A$395
Athlon 64 3400 - A$289

I do graphics, video, 3D and webdesign stuff (Adobe CS, Corel, StudioMX, After Effects, C4D). I've heard Athlons are a lot faster than Pentiums, so I'm unsure as to whether this low-end Pentium D will be better than a high-end Athlon. I've always used Pentium... so I wouldn't know the difference.

Thanks in advance :)

Srek
07-24-2005, 10:39 AM
If you only have those two to choose from i would take the Pentium 4 D. If you take a Athlon 64 2 into calculation it's the other way around.
Cheers
Björn

catamount
07-24-2005, 10:59 AM
P4 D

Article:

ya3
07-24-2005, 11:04 AM
Oh, ok. It's just that I want a high-end CPU.
The 2.8GHz Pentium D is the only dual-core within my budget, but it's only 2.8GHz, so I was kinda doubting its performance aganst single-core CPUs of the same price (particularly Athlons).

But you're telling me the PentiumD is still better, so I guess I'll go with it :)

Thanks.

Srek
07-24-2005, 11:57 AM
For simple painting, modelling and dynamic calculations the single Athlon will be faster, but for anything but dynamics etc. the difference is not important, 2.8 GHz are ok by far most of the time. When it comes to rendering the dual core P4 will be a good deal faster.
Maybe take a look here http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php for comparisons.
Cheers
Björn

ya3
07-24-2005, 02:37 PM
Ok, you seem knowledgable :scream:
Which of the two will give me a larger performance boost in 2D apps? Namely Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDRAW, After Effects.

Srek
07-24-2005, 03:05 PM
Ok, you seem knowledgable :scream:
Which of the two will give me a larger performance boost in 2D apps? Namely Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDRAW, After Effects.
The faster single, in this case the Athlon.
Cheers
Björn

MadMax
07-24-2005, 08:39 PM
"I've narrowed the two suspects down to two suspects..."

Pentium D 2.8GHz - A$395
Athlon 64 3400 - A$289

I do graphics, video, 3D and webdesign stuff (Adobe CS, Corel, StudioMX, After Effects, C4D). I've heard Athlons are a lot faster than Pentiums, so I'm unsure as to whether this low-end Pentium D will be better than a high-end Athlon. I've always used Pentium... so I wouldn't know the difference.

Thanks in advance :)

You might want to wait just a bit longer then if you are looking at getting performance at a budget price.

The big problem with that Pentium D is that it is not a true dual core solution.

Intel has taken 2 Prescott cores and "glued" them together. The cores are not integrated in any manner and must send communication to the other core out over the FSB, and then back into the CPU to process. Athlon X2 processors are completely integrated, communication between cores is on the SRQ and never leaves the CPU.

AMD released the higher end X2's first because the bottom line is that they make the most money, and a lot of people jumped on the new stuff. However they announced a couple of weeks back that they were releasing a 345.00 Dual core X2 in August, actually it was 2 releases I think, as I recall they are releasing the 3800+ and 4000+ dual cores.

from a strictly technologicial point of view, it is a vastly superior product to the Pentium D.

Integrated cores

integrated memory controller

SSE2 and 3

cores run MUCH cooler than Intel cores.

Just to name a few.

lots
07-24-2005, 09:09 PM
AMD released the higher end X2's first because the bottom line is that they make the most money, and a lot of people jumped on the new stuff.
Hmm you think so? I believe AMD would release on the high end first, not because they make the most money (thats probably quite the opposite), but because they didnt have the production capability to push out many chips (the core does need to mature, manufacturing wise, first). So in order to prevent back orders, and chips being out of stock, they release the expencive high end, to lock most people out of the new chips until manufacturing can mature and volume can go up. And then there's the new fabs coming online thus increasing the output even further...

Most companies make thier money off the volume sales, cuz lets face it, its much easier to sell cheap stuff in high volume :)

It's like when you realize that the biggest graphics chip maker in the world is Intel :P They sure do sell alot of onboard video solutions ;)

MadMax
07-24-2005, 10:18 PM
AMD tested the hell out of this stuff before it shipped, so I am doubtful that it is because they wanted to lock out the low end. In fact it was originally speculated that extreme low end parts would be what was shipped due to the fact that it would be the higher frequency parts that would be the problem.

If you go back and check, it was anticpated that they would ship 1.6-2.0ghz parts, tops. No one suspected that the processors would start as high as they did. Right now they have high demand, high price.

they are making bucks on it.

in just a couple of weeks they are kicking out the low end parts. Volume.

Regardless of why the high end came first, it's doing quite well and AMD is making money.

And it's still better than the PD CPU's. :)

lots
07-24-2005, 10:26 PM
Oh well i didnt mean that the core needed to mature at all. I more or less was refering to actual manufacturing. Maybe AMD was playing it safe just in case anything big came up.. who knows :) its all speculation :P

No disagreement there. .about the AMD tech being superior though ;)

BillB
07-24-2005, 10:41 PM
The faster single, in this case the Athlon.
Cheers
Björn

That's not strictly (or even vaguely actually) true. Both AfterFX and Photoshop are multithreaded. Most filters etc get a very nice kick from a dual.

MadMax
07-24-2005, 10:45 PM
I more or less was refering to actual manufacturing. Maybe AMD was playing it safe just in case anything big came up.. who knows :) its all speculation :P



It's possible, I suppose. AMD did start on the dual core design years ago though, and Opteron and A64's have had the layout for dual core since day one.

They didn't come out with the HIGH end Opteron first then go in and release the low end once they were sure it worked ok. I'd be very doubtful if that was the reason for the current releases, but as you say, it's just speculation and they are selling well and people seem to find the money to buy them.

They were released MUCh sooner than anticipated, I still recall seeing ANALysts claiming yuou wouldn't see many of AMD's dual cores before Q1 2006. I know all kinds of people who have them now.

And now they are prepping to ship a budget version as well? LOL!!!

Never listen to ANALysts. They are rarely accurate, and almost never know what they are talking about.

lots
07-24-2005, 11:07 PM
haha indeed :)

I hope that with the release of this new volume part from AMD, means the new fabs are up and running. I sure would like to get my hands on a Opteron 270 or two ;)

On that note.. Does anyone know how a system would behave with a Single core Opteron paired with a Dual Core of the same clock speed? My first guess is it wont work, but hey here's to hope :P

imashination
07-25-2005, 12:00 AM
That's not strictly (or even vaguely actually) true. Both AfterFX and Photoshop are multithreaded. Most filters etc get a very nice kick from a dual.

The faster single threaded cpu is the athlon, by a significant margin, re-read what has been written.

ya3
07-25-2005, 12:54 AM
The faster single, in this case the Athlon.
Cheers
Björn
Right then. My work is primarily 2D, so I think I'll go with the Athlon. I really do want an all-over speed increase, rather than just rendering, filters or other 'specially-made' multi-threaded things.

One more question: What about a single Opteron 242 or 244?
What would be the advantages of it over the Athlon 64 3500? I've been told Opterons are only good for dual-CPU setups...?

Thanks for the help so far :)

MadMax
07-25-2005, 01:09 AM
Right then. My work is primarily 2D, so I think I'll go with the Athlon. I really do want an all-over speed increase, rather than just rendering, filters or other 'specially-made' multi-threaded things.

One more question: What about a single Opteron 242 or 244?
What would be the advantages of it over the Athlon 64 3500? I've been told Opterons are only good for dual-CPU setups...?


A single Opteron 2xx series isn't really going to give you much benefit over an A64. bottom line it is meant for dual CPU systems. It isn't ONLY good for dual CPU setups, it's just what it is designed for. You can use it in a single CPU configuration, but you are paying more for it than an equivalent A64 and getting no extra benefit.

BillB
07-25-2005, 01:28 AM
The faster single threaded cpu is the athlon, by a significant margin, re-read what has been written.

The implication was that he wouldn't see a performace boost from a dual in those apps, which isn't true. Now that he's clarified that he doesn't care about filters etc, then yes, the Athlon is the way to go. If you're talking single threaded things like moving layers, interface, brushwork etc, then you're not going to notice much difference between the two anyway, disk thruput etc is going to be more relevant there for things like AfterFX (what else do you do in AfterFX that doesn't use filters, scaling etc!?) And the dual will give your interface a lot more responsiveness too.

That said, the Athlon is probably the way to go, on a socket 939 board so you can go dual core later. That's what I just did, and I'm dead keen to go dual. Those PentiumD's are a sucky design.

mlmiller1983
07-25-2005, 03:33 AM
If you can somehow come up with an extra $160 for the processor go with an AMD 64 X2 4200+. It is alot faster and runs cooler than the Pentium 4 D 2.8GHz.

novadude
07-25-2005, 04:03 AM
If you can somehow come up with an extra $160 for the processor go with an AMD 64 X2 4200+. It is alot faster and runs cooler than the Pentium 4 D 2.8GHz.

Or he could hold off for the X2 4000+

mlmiller1983
07-25-2005, 04:16 AM
Or he could hold off for the X2 4000+

Didn't know they were making one. If so then that would work too :).

For the price of a AMD 64 X2 4800+ you could get two 4200+ cpus which will render faster than one 4800+.

Srek
07-25-2005, 09:34 AM
That's not strictly (or even vaguely actually) true. Both AfterFX and Photoshop are multithreaded. Most filters etc get a very nice kick from a dual.
In both cases the over all impact of multithreading is much smaller then the advantage of the higher single speed.
When it comes to single threading speed the Athlon is about a factor of 1.3 faster then the 2.8 Ghz P4 D. Since neither AE or PS are completely multithreaded (different to rendering in CINEMA) the advantage of the P4 D is offset.
Maybe think things through a bit more before accusing someone of of not telling the truth.
Cheers
Björn

ya3
07-25-2005, 02:19 PM
Right then. I guess Athlon's the way to go :)

Thanks for all the input, everyone!

BillB
07-26-2005, 04:04 AM
In both cases the over all impact of multithreading is much smaller then the advantage of the higher single speed.Both in interface response and filters/scaling etc, the dual would do well. I've been using photoshop and after effects for years, on dual and non dual. I know. He asked a vague question and you gave a specific answer.
3.5/2.8 is +25% - do you really think a single CPU that's a mere 25% faster will out do the dual, that threading isn't going to add more than 25% in processing and interface snappiness in photoshop and after effects? I've used them with dual CPU's, and I know which would win. The P4, in addition, handles media apps better generally speaking. Typically dual will give 50-80% boost vs single.

I'm not questioning the choice of an Athlon, but ONLY for upgrade reasons. If he wanted what was fastest now, and wasn't likely to upgrade at any stage, I'd advise the P4, and would put money on it being faster.

However, I shouldn't have said it wasn't even "vaguely true" and I apologise for that, it was uncalled for and incorrect. I guess we're both right and both wrong :)

BillB
07-26-2005, 04:16 AM
Sounds like AMD X2 3800 and 4000 are being announced today, if you can hold off a bit, do so!

CGTalk Moderation
07-26-2005, 04:16 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.