>>the p-d seems to run slightly slower (2.8 vs. 3.6) but I don't game
>>that much and when I do it runs fine on the old 1.9 ghx machine, so
>>that really shouldn't be an issue. I do multi-task all the time, though.
>>overall, if you were buying the machine, what would you get?
>>don't see pentium 4 on the dell website, and the circuit city beat
>>most of their prices. the dual-core machine is a gateway for $850, fwiw.
>I'm hopelessly behind the bleeding edge these days, but I recall an article in
>PC Magazine where one of their columnists said the dual-core machine seemed to
>run faster than it should, over twice the speed of a comparable single core.
If you want a current x86-based system -
Much depends on what you need the system to do. If you're looking for
maximum multi-threaded (multiple processes running simultaneously)
performance, go with Pentium D (Intel's 8XX series of processors). If
you need good multi-threaded performance *and* good value, I'd look
towards the Pentium 4 HT (Intel's 6XX series of processors). Any of them
will give very good performance (2MB of L2 cache), though they'll run
pretty hot. If you need good performance, but multi-threading isn't an
issue, then I'd give serious thought to buying/building a system based
on the Pentium M processors (7XX series). The power used by the 8XX
series (>115W) is greater than that of the 6XX series (>90W) - but the
7XX series is significantly less (about 22W). Not only that, but the
fastest of these can keep up with many of the Pentium 4 HT processors
The P4HT is a good balance of value and performance. Given the newness
of the Pentium D - I'd go for the value of the P4 HT. It is a good
multi-tasker, and if you want to maximize performance for gaming, just
turn off hyperthreading.
Peter Murray (N3IXY)