Pentium D9XX vs E4300

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by mopiko, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. mopiko

    mopiko Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    465
    Can someone tell me the difference in these two CPUs that justifies the price hike of the E4300 over the Pentium Ds?

    From what I can see they both have the same architecture, and cache etc. Am I missing something?
     
  2. scarecrow420

    scarecrow420 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,744
    Location:
    Brisbane
    The pentium D are based on netburst architecture (basically the last generation of netburst processors)... yes they are on a 65nm process and run cooler than previous d8xx series and other netburst P4's. But the E4300 is on the new CORE architecture, less power consumption for more performance... Its not all about clockspeed anymore... any core 2 duo processor will run rings around the same speed pentium or AMD chip.

    So basically e4300 is one of the first generations of the new technology, whereas pentium d 900 series are the last generation of the older technology.

    My opinion - stretch for the e4300 ;)
     
  3. OP
    OP
    mopiko

    mopiko Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    465
    Well I have an eye to upgradeability, but the system is for internet, word processing etc, for my sister so I don't see it needing too much power. I don't think I can justify $240 odd over $140 for the Pentium D.

    So let me get this straight though, from reading your post, the Core 2 has lower power consumption for a SIMILAR level of performance? I also read that it overclocks a heck of a lot better, but not too concerned with that either.
     
  4. skootyloops

    skootyloops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,693
    Well here is a comparison.

    An E6300 can only be contested by netburst in the form of the PD965XE Edition. Thats a 3.73ghz cpu vs a 1.86ghz C2D.

    The C2D is already much lower in power then the netburst already, since those netburst required a ton of power.

    Even the X6800 takes a lot less power to run then a 965XE. The 965XE power consumption can be roughly compared to that of a QX6700 which is a quad core.

    Also as you said the C2D's overclock much more then the netbursts do on air.

    An E6300 can make 3ghz easy, which is basically a 1.2ghz overclock even with stock cooling.

    A 965XE can make about 4ghz before needing some good cooling, no stock cooler will hold that kind of heat.
     
  5. g3monster

    g3monster Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    732
    Location:
    Melbourne
    If it is only a web browsing system then a Pentium 4 631 or PEntium D 915 will do fine.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    mopiko

    mopiko Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    465
    Yeah what is better for my applications - Pentium 4 or the Pentium D?

    Is the Pentium 4 still socket 775?

    From what I can see, and from my admittedly limited knowledge, I'd rather get the pentium D and get an extra gig of RAM (total 2GB) over 1 GB RAM and E4300. I know the E6XXX kick butt but they also take the budget out of a budget system. When the price of Core 2 Duo drops much more I can upgrade, but I can see this system last for a good 5 years at least surely with maybe a graphics card upgrade, faster/more RAM.

    But as per my original question, is the E4300 that much quicker? Sure it uses less power which doesn't really concern me too much, but where will I see the differences if I get that over the Pentium D if I will never overclock it?

    System is:
    Gigabyte GA-9VM900M - onboard sound/graphics, PCI-E, SATA, DDR2
    Pentium D915
    2GB 667 GSkill RAM
     
  7. sonyx

    sonyx Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,232
    you will be paying for it in noise and electricity bills :)
     
  8. SLi_dog

    SLi_dog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,283
    Location:
    NT
    In my opinion not getting the Core2Duo is wasting money. You may save a few dollars initially but will lose out in the overall lifespan of the system.

    The core2duo is not only faster at stock speeds but it has a rediculas amount of head room (often greater than 1GHz) which will allow it to keep up with applications in the long-term.

    Saving 20% to lose %50 in potential performance is a false economy imho.



    Check out the cpu charts from Tom's Hardware.

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

    Unfortunately the E4300, E6300 and Pentium D 915 are not listed but you should still get an idea of the chips performance as both CPUs will OC to at least the speeds of their faster counterparts.

    I won't use a single core system ever again after using dual core.
     
  9. ruffy01

    ruffy01 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    Geelong
    My opinion, for a budget:
    Will you multitask? Most people do. Downloading, burning, copying, printing, browsing? If you like to do 2 at a time, it has to be a dual core!
    Sorry SLi_dog, but your link was to a single core app. To be a bit more realistic try a multitasking comparison, at least it doesn't put a D930 in the same relative position as a P4 630:
    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=437&model2=433&chart=193

    Unfortunately still no E4300 & D915 comparison, but an E6400 ~$320 & D950 (=D945) ~$240 gives an idea.

    Yes, the core2 architecture is definitely superior but for your purposes & budget I'd be inclined to lean toward the D series. Definitely buy a mobo that supports core2 for upgradability

    2GB RAM? Why?
    Unless you're 'high-end' gaming or 3D rendering (which you're obviously not) you won't use anymore than 1GB.

    There are always arguments for going bigger & better but if you're building to a budget with only specific requirements then only buy what you need, BUT always allow for upgradability so when you suddenly decide 'bigger & better' is better you can acommodate it:rolleyes:

    Ruffy.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    mopiko

    mopiko Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    465
    thats what I thought I am doing though. I figure because I'm going with onboard graphics, 2GB RAM may be a nicer idea, especially when it all loads up.

    That and also (correct me if I am wrong here) that most motherboards prefer matched pairs of RAM. Since I only have 2 slots, I'd rather match them now than sourcing it again later. RAM is reasonably cheap anyway, and an increase in RAM I thought would be felt more than an increase in the processor in the application, especially with onboard graphics taking up a chunk.

    I have a PCI-E slot handy should my sister suddenly require graphics intensive stuff, I can upgrade to Core 2 Duo if need be or if prices drop significantly, and I can even get faster clock speed RAM or 2GB sticks again when the prices drop or as required.

    So basically with all of the stuff I need, and to keep it to a reasonable budget, think I will need a lot of misc crap like mouse, keyboard, wireless card, which does add up, I don't have a lot to spend on a processor. Hence why I chose the D915. Anything more, and I might as well go Core 2 Duo, anything less... well there isn't anything less, except the single cores which everyone has established as pretty pointless now. Also I'm pretty picky with my parts, so despite saying generic, I still have gone for decent PSU, no cheapo ugly case, etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2007
  11. ruffy01

    ruffy01 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    Geelong
    G'day there mopiko.
    Like most people, you obviously believe lots of RAM is good but unless you're running app's that need it, it gains you nothing at all.
    Onboard graphics may use up to 128MB (leaves ~880MB available out of 1GB) & because you have onboard graphics means you won't be running any apps that will use more than that anyway.

    Yes, Intel do benefit from a matched pair of RAM running in dual channel but if your budget extends to 2GB of RAM then go the E4300 & 1GB RAM (or D945 & 1GB RAM). If you doubt me about required RAM, go to 'task manager' on a PC after running the app's you'd normally use & have a look at the 'Performance' tab. It'll tell you the peak memory used.
    Unless you plan on running Vista:eek: (or app's I mentioned above), you'll not often need >1GB RAM.
    You can always sell your 1GB to buy 2GB if you upgrade.

    You also mentioned DDR2 667 & also said you won't overclock.
    Intel & CPU:RAM @ 1:1 is fine. Hence DDR2 533 is all thats needed even for core2.

    Hope that helps,
    Ruffy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2007
  12. OP
    OP
    mopiko

    mopiko Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    465
    hey ruffy.

    Thanks for the advice. Interesting. Is there any situation without overclocking where DDR2 667 is better/required at this stage? I would have thought the faster items stored in RAM can be returned and written to, the faster the system would be? Or I guess its still limited by the time the CPU takes to fetch and write to it. Damn should have paid more attention in lectures. I should probably mention that my sister has started architecture. If she does continue it, then there may be some rendering involved, so I had in mind the possibility of needing a better system.

    I guess I am planning to go to Vista at some point. I figure it *has* to be done at some point, rather than sticking with XP, which is great, but as with all software will gradually be phased out. I think that I have broken my own budget limits unfortunately for me (fortunately for my sister), and have gone overkill with a few things, case included. Haven't got all the bits yet but the mATX board will slightly ridiculous in the iCute case.

    On a similar point though, would the onboard graphics be powerful enough for me to use it as a HTPC?
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2007
  13. General_Cartman

    General_Cartman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,720
    Location:
    The Confedaracah!
    Don't get a Pentium D man. Slow, and hot. If you only want to spend 150 on a CPU, you would be way way better off with an Athlon X2 3600/3800 (preferably a 65nm one) than a Pentium D. Runs cooler, uses less power and is faster at everything except for Video Encoding. However I would suggest stretching to a Core2; for the same reasons.
     
  14. ruffy01

    ruffy01 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    Geelong
    Faster than DDR2 533 is only required if you plan on overclocking (core2 runs fsb=266 default).
    I incurred the wrath of Chainbolt (cheers mate) last year debating CPU:RAM ratios >1:1. Sure enough, if you run 2:3 you may gain a little performance in certain benchmarks but in real life, not noticable.
    If your Sis' does architecture then you'll definitely be up for an upgrade.
    I've only played with Vista a little but it certainly appreciates lot's of RAM (XP couldn't care:lol: ) & will utilise it.
    Onboard graphics & HTPC?
    I haven't looked up the spec's on your mobo' but some of the newer boards are fairly competent, depends on what you expect of it.

    Ruffy
     
  15. OP
    OP
    mopiko

    mopiko Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    465
    Hrm. Well I don't think I have made too much of a bad decision. I can see now I don't need 2GB (thanks ruffy) but will still go with the 667, because I think I have a good deal with some good quality RAM.

    Sure the Core 2 was always going to be a better CPU, no question, but slow is a relative term. This computer will be easily the fastest computer in the house (I personally have a 2800XP atm), and more importantly, a heck of a lot faster than the current PIII she is using and will handle all the word processing, email, MSN, etc with ease. If she does continue architecture, and somehow gets a licence to use the expensive as software at home, then another stick of RAM + video card should suffice to meet those needs.

    Its also around $100+ more expensive, and since I need the computer soon and can't really wait for the price drop, I'll cope with the cheaper CPU for now, and possibly if required get an E6XXX if required. Getting the D915 + not getting RAM is around $200 less, which is a fair % of my original $500 budget. Atm I come in at around $600 which isn't bad for the following (in my opinion). I held off from getting any of the faster Pentium Ds too, as I already realised it was pointless spending anymore. AM2 wouldn't be a bad plan, except I can't seem to find an SA supplier of a board with onboard video to at least attempt to meet my budget. I personally think this board is a great deal, especially if its only for basic duties. Also as I keep saying, the CPU can easily be upgraded as needed, which will easily be a year or more when prices should have dropped. In the worst case scenario, my folks could easily do with a faster net surfing machine, which again the Pentium D will handle with ease, so I don't see very much wastage.

    Pentium D915 - $145 (know I can get cheaper in SA, but easier to get from same place on way home from work when you work full time)
    Gigabyte GA-9VM900M $99
    1GB G-Skill DDR2 667 RAM $90
    SATA DVD DL $55
    iCute Case (splurged a bit) - $95
    CoolerMaster PSU - $60
    250GB SATA WD HDD - $80

    Unfortunately I still need a wireless card, keyboard + mouse, which will take me probably to around $700. So a fair % over budget, but I guess its not too bad in monetary terms. And budget upgrades always struggle (to me anyway) when all the smaller things like DVD drives, peripherals are needed.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2007
  16. R3xx

    R3xx (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,453
    Location:
    Melbourne
    For that kinda use a Celeron 347 is plenty. Get more RAM than processor power, it will give you more gains.
     
  17. SLi_dog

    SLi_dog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,283
    Location:
    NT
    The link wasn't to any application, it was deliberately linked to the default chart URL to allow the OP to test different apps himself :confused:
     
  18. ruffy01

    ruffy01 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    Geelong
    That particular chart compares CPU's based upon a single threaded app. (iTunes).
    I thought a multi-tasking comparison more appropriate that's all.
    Cheers mate.
     
  19. SLi_dog

    SLi_dog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,283
    Location:
    NT
    Uh, that may be the default chart, but my intention was to link the source URL which has 38 different applications available for comparison.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page