The Contenders

We chose a wide variety of CPUs to include in this comparison mostly based on price, after all we are interested primarily in value here. The list of CPUs and our reasoning behind including them follows below:

Intel Pentium D 920 (2.8GHz, dual core, 2MB L2 per core), Current Price: $244

The Pentium D 920 is the most expensive Intel CPU we've got in this comparison, and its role here is simply as a reference point. It is a cooler running 65nm chip, but it is priced around $100 more than its Pentium D 820 predecessor.

Intel Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz, dual core, 1MB L2 per core), Current Price: $160

You simply can't do a value dual core comparison without including the Pentium D 820. It was the first value dual core processor and to this day continues to be a great value. Other than its higher clock speed, the Pentium D 820 offers an 800MHz FSB which should come in handy in bandwidth intensive multithreaded applications.

Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz, dual core, 1MB L2 per core), Current Price: $133

And of course the reason we're all here today is the Pentium D 805; $27 cheaper than the Pentium D 820, we're simply interested in finding out whether the slower 533MHz FSB and lower clock speed translate into significantly worse performance than its more expensive brother.

Intel Pentium 4 631 (3.0GHz, single core, 2MB L2), Current Price: $185

If you're intent on going Intel but want the fastest single core they offer at the same price as the Pentium D 805, the Pentium 4 631 is what you'll end up with. We included the 631 to answer the age-old (read: 2 years old) question: do you go with one fast core or two slower cores?

Intel Celeron D 351 (3.2GHz, single core, 256KB L2), Current Price: $110

We haven't looked at the Celeron D in a while, but at 3.2GHz it could be a fairly decent contender. In Intel's usual style, the Celeron D is crippled by having no Hyper-Threading support, a 533MHz FSB and only 256KB of L2 cache.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz, dual core, 512KB L2 per core), Current Price: $295

AMD's entry-level dual core is the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. While its $295 entry fee is significantly more than the Pentium D 805, it's still worth including because it is such a formidable opponent. But for those interested in the absolute lowest cost, just like the Pentium D 920, it's here mostly as a reference point.

AMD Opteron 165 (1.8GHz, dual core, 1MB L2 per core), Current Price: $316

The Opteron 100 series are all Socket-939 parts, meaning they will work on desktop 939 motherboards with the latest BIOS. The 165 is particularly interesting because it is clocked slightly lower than the entry level desktop dual core part. However, being equipped with a 1MB cache per core means that the cost to manufacture isn't actually lower than the X2 3800+. We included it here, once again, mostly as a reference point as we've never done a formal Opteron 165 vs. X2 3800+ comparison.

AMD Opteron 144 (1.8GHz, single core, 1MB L2), Current Price: $177

Another Socket-939 Opteron, the 144 is simply a single core version of the dual core 165. It is the cheapest Socket-939 CPU you can get with a 1MB L2 cache, offering performance somewhere in-between the Athlon 64 3000+ and the 3200+.

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8GHz, single core, 512KB L2), Current Price: $120

Finally we have AMD's cost-competitor to the Pentium D 805, it's the single core Socket-939 Athlon 64 3000+. You get the lowest clocked Socket-939 Athlon 64, with a small 512KB L2 and only a single core. But what a fierce core it is; can it stand up to two of Intel's not-so-greatest cores in the Pentium D 805? Let's find out.

Index The Test
Comments Locked

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • poohbear - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    amazing how a dualcore opteron @ the same speeds as a non dual core can have a 30fps increase in quake4! :0 (aside from the extra 1mb cache) hope that's a sign of things to come.
  • Sunrise089 - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Coming after the Black and White article, it's easy to see the high and low in AT writing. This artcle was fantastic, especially page 2, where Anand comments on all the possible chips in the low-middle marketplace. It's nice to see my Opteron 144 still able to win a benchmark. How important this info will be with Conroe around the corner is anyone's guess, but it's nice to see all the information put out there so effectively.

    Now if you will, write up an overclocking story on the Opteron 144, X2 3800+, Pentium D 805, and Pentium 4 3.2ghz.
  • Calin - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    And power use for the overclocked 805 is a must :D
    there goes the idea of having a small, silent, somewhat high performance computer with an 805 :(...
  • Pete84 - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Why wasn't the chip overclocked? They supposedly have very good headroom.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Read the last page. That article is in the works.
  • Viditor - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    As this is the low end, could you guys throw in an overclocked Sempron as well?
    Just askin...:)
  • stephenbrooks - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link

    Agree on the Sempron. Also wondering about the new Celeron 355 at 3.33GHz as the poor 351 gets left behind in all those graphs (though it is cheaper - I almost want the $ figure written on the graphs so I can tell if it's a fair competition or not).

    I wonder why Intel is making no 512KB L2 cache chips?
  • Questar - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Why?

    This thing would mop the floor with a Sempron.
  • Viditor - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    quote:

    This thing would mop the floor with a Sempron.

    Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh? :)

    Seriously guys, since Semprons are in this same and slightly lower price range, it would be of great benefit to see a comparison so that we can make some buying decisions.

    Cheers!
  • mino - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Actually Sempron 3100+ has about the same performance as A64 3000+.

    even 2800+ would be faster than 805 in singlethread scenario.

    Not saying 805 is bad (actually it is now the best value for money).

    Jus your comment is OFF.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now