Intel Pentium D 805 - Dual Core on a Budget
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 7, 2006 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
JakeBlade - Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - link
I love how this site does a power consumption test with like the only two dual core P4s that don't have ESST. Don't be afraid to run a P4D 950 with ESST and see how it's power consumption compares to the X2/Opteron.ashr7870 - Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - link
Old comment, I know, but it would be the same as the D-820, since the Prescott/Smithsfield/Presler implementation of SpeedStep only reduces speeds to 2.8GHz, or x14 - minimum multiplier on the D's. All Anand would get out of running a 950 is higher load power.jballs - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link
Dang i haven't even hooked up my 144 yet and I see that quake 4 benchmark. It got beat pretty badly by dual cores. Im guess the numbers are the average frame rate, do the minimum frame rates tell any diffent of a story? Were the single core CPU's tested on the using the patch for dual cores? Anybody know of a possibility that that patch would lower single core perf.? Man if this is a sign of things to come i might have wnated to go with a dual core even though I only care about game performance.poohbear - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link
well i dont think dual cores will go mainstream until the UT2007 engine is released, as it's built from the ground up to be a multithreaded application. quake4 is an exception, although oblivion states it supports multithreading but have'nt seen any testing done on it.phillock - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link
this might help you https://visual.ly/community/Infographics/entertain...peternelson - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link
At the moment the 805 is a good deal and has been heavily discounted.
However, from the recent anandtech story about intel pricing, the price of 9xx chips is due to REDUCE quite a bit on 23 and/or 30 April.
And further big reductions on say 950 are due when Conroe launches (even if it is in small volumes then).
My point is that the RELATIVE BARGAIN of the 805 now will be rivalled by 9xx on a price/performance/cost/benefit basis. ie it has Hardware virtualisation, is COOLER for the given amount of work, and with the new 9xx steppings, will be further improved in April. Thus the 805 will still be good value but not as far ahead of 9xx as it is now.
You are right that as a budget "stop-gap" until Conroe it is tempting, which makes it all the more useful if 975X "conroe-ready" boards could be made NOW with "conroe ready" stickers slapped on the boxes.
Once the price drops, 930 should be more attractive than they are today. Also intels roadmap still shows 950 quite a while into the future so (again after the price drop) that could be good to go for.
If I can't locate a Conroe ready 975X board to put some current intel processor into soon, I may have to spend money as soon as AMD have AM2 chips out (15 May to system builders) and a corresponding AM2 motherboard.
JarredWalton - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link
I have to say, though, that getting a 975X motherboard and slapping in a PD 805 is a bit of a mismatch. Most 975X boards cost in the neighborhood of $200 or more, so I'd be looking more at a cheap 775 motherboard with a cheap 805 CPU to hold you over. That's what I've got right now (as one PC - runs Folding@Home quite well for the price!)xtremejack - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link
As of April, all 975XBX mobos are Conroe-readypeternelson - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link
From April.... All 975X motherboards are Conroe ready
Interesting....
I can buy a 975XBX Intel board from a local reseller.
Actually we are Intel resellers/processor integrators ourselves!
But HOW CAN I TELL the difference between an early 975XBX that was NOT Conroe ready without component and wire mods, from the NEW 975XBX which is conroe ready already?
Is it some board revision number marked on the board?
Is it some "conroe ready" sticker on the box and/or board?
If I can't find rival vendors offering 975X board for conroe I may have to buy the own brand intel one (although this was not anand's first choice when reviewed), but even then I need a CLEAR way to differentiate between a conroe-ready version of it and a not ready.
Is there a link to Intel information about the differences?
"From April" is pretty useless as there is a timelag between USA availability and stock reaching distribution channels in the UK so we can buy it off them. Also the problem of distributors holding stock and selling it after the changeover date. I need a way to tell the difference.
JackPack - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link
As you're aware, "April" alone is meaningless. In fact, it's misleading.There is a PCN (106056-00) on Intel's website describing the updated D975XBX. The newer D975XBX (non-system integrator version) carries an altered assembly number ending with -304.