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

  • Nick5324 - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Agree, good stuff! I'm looking forward to the overclocking write up.
  • whitelight - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    i liked how you included a large variety of cpu's. thanks!
  • lifeblood - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Having read all the reviews of EE this and XF that, I was starting to think my poor little +3000 was ready for the garbage heap. After reading this article I was very happy to see my +3000 still does quite well in office productivity and games which is it's primary use. I guess I will keep it around another year before upgrading to an X2.
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Superb article Anand, this is the kind of article I like; a test that includes all of the likely alternative chips that might be considered and where something useful is said under each graph instead of just presenting page after page of graphs with no comments. Okay so I look at the graphs first and make my own mind up, but it's always good to see what someone else thinks in each test to see if I missed something important. I look forward to more articles like this; hopefully the Pentium D 805 overclocking article will also look at overclocking the other chips, not just the 805.

    The one error I refer to is that although the Celeron D processor is correctly identified as having 256KB L2 cache in pages 2 and 3 of the article, on all of the graphs (page 4 onwards) it says 512KB. Shouldn't take long to fix.
  • Dfere - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    I liked the article- not for the graphs. I rad the beginning, some of the set up and the conclusions, and the comments. I am not a tech head! I agree it is nice to get a broad based analysis/market comparison, especially on the "value" segment orbusiness stuff. (CPA here).
  • JarredWalton - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Fixed, thanks! (Not as easy to correct as you might suspect... graphs require a bit more effort, but at least it was only one change per graph.)
  • YellowWing - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    No mention of 64 bit support in the 805, is 64 bit possible?
  • Viditor - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    quote:

    No mention of 64 bit support in the 805, is 64 bit possible?

    Yes...
    FSB = 533 MHz
    Cache = 2x1MB
    Clockspeed = 2.66 GHz
    Virtualization = No
    Enhanced Speed Step = No
    EM64T = Yes

  • YellowWing - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Thanks
  • JackPack - Friday, April 7, 2006 - link

    Yes, of course.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now