Comments

gdstaples wrote on 12/5/2005, 10:23 AM
I tested an 840DEE for a few days and was not impressed. It tested out slower than my single proc AMD 4000+ (Win XP Pro).

Duncan
GmElliott wrote on 12/5/2005, 10:45 AM
I have a 3.0 PentiumD and have been VERY happy with it. It's litterally twice as fast as my P4 3.0ghz w/HT. My render-test times were litterally cut in half. Plus this is a few notches down from the PendiumD 3.2EE.

From what I hear it's not quite up to snuff with the Ahtlon dualies but not too far behind (at least basing it on the old render test). I haven't got a chance to run the new rendertest on it. I'm in a crunch for the holidays with half a dozen dealines!

I say if you have the opportunity to go Athlon X2 go Athlon. If not and it's an inexpensive machine with the Pentium D it's not a bad choice. I spent $1,200 for my VAIO RC series desktop.
jaydeeee wrote on 12/5/2005, 2:15 PM
Well, I'm not sure if I want to go AMD just based on past system experience - but that's mainly in regards to the mobo/chipsets , not AMD procs themselves.

I build for longevity, and I've repaired more AMD systems then Intel...even up to this day. But, maybe this will be the time I try AMD with their x2.
Heck I have an OC'd P4 1.6a @ 2.4ghz that's been running solid since day one and offers better perf than a reg 2.4ghz.

The system is for A/V work (very light internet use, if at all - NO gaming) and I have mulitple apps open quite often such as Vegas and Forge, and varied soft-synths, etc., so I wanted to know if a dual-core will drastically help out with this, shorten render times, etc. Sounds like you're saying it does.
True?

*update: moving to the amd x2 4400 very soon (fingers crossed, but I hear these x2's are great, so here we go).