Intel Pentium D, 2.80G 2MB SL8, 64bit : $268.

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by cr2sh, Jun 20, 2005.

  1. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #1
  2. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #2
    Well, a dual processor PowerMac G5 would slaughter a PC or Mac with this chip.

    A dual-core pentium m Mac would be much better than one with this chip(s). Still, not a bad price for a Pentium D. I'll stick to my dual PowerPC G5s :D
     
  3. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #3
    Eh, I'd stick to AMD's X2 chips. Better performance, cooler.

    Now, the Pentium D's don't necessarily suck, but they are Prescott and essentially P4 based, so I doubt Apple wants something like that for their workstation-class line of boxes.

    Computing power per watt? Pentium D's are horrible.
     
  4. efoto macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Cloud 9 (-6)
    #4
    It is quite the impressive box however :rolleyes:

    AMD would be my choice solely because they were/are the underdog, and it is more fun to say you use AMD :p

    Although you might prefer AMD X2 chips, that ain't going to happen since Apple didn't partner with AMD sadly. So as far as Apple desktop offerings, I still think we are more likely to see a dual-core P-M based chip at clock than something like this, but who really knows.
     
  5. cr2sh thread starter macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #5
    I'm not sure why you guys keeping saying "I'd use an AMD." I guess I posted this thread, bearing in mind, that these chips are plentiful and cheap 64bit, dual core chips from Intel.

    I don't know what the power per wattage is... I don't know how hot they run, but coming from an Apple user point of view... I'd love to see how chips that are this cheap factor into powerbmacs/books.

    Christ... even dual core eMAcs with bargain basement chips would be a step in the right direction.

    AMD, however, is not an option for Apple at this point. :confused:
     
  6. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #6
    Yes, they are cheap (hehe, thanks to AMD's influence in the CPU market back in '99), but they are also just as hot as your J or 6xx series Prescott:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820_3.html
    http://www.cpluse.com/Module/Show.aspx?ID=2119

    So, yeah, no surprises that they are still hotter than hell. G5's undoubtedly are cooler in performance/watt. So no, the Pentium D's will NOT be a factor in PBooks. The upcoming 65nm CPU, which supposedly has no more of the craptacular P4 Netburst bs, should be much cooler.
     
  7. javabear90 macrumors 6502a

    javabear90

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
    was this the chip that had build in DRM at a hardware level? :eek: :mad:
     
  8. efoto macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Cloud 9 (-6)
    #8
    I realize AMD is not an option for Apple anymore (post partnership w/ Intel) however without knowing all the details you could blindly assume it WAS an option before, although I don't think it was a viable one.

    The only reason like AMD is because they are the underdog and produce some pretty cool products IMO. I am not anti-Intel, but for all the years I made computers for myself, family, and friends, AMD was not only a cheaper choice (usually by a lot) but also a ''cooloer'' choice among the gaming crowd. I am only saying AMD because it is quite obvious it isn't happening. If Apple had partnered with AMD and not Intel, perhaps I would be saying it the other way around....just because I don't like to accept change :p

    The only partnership Apple has left to complete is w/ Nextel, then they will have all the great-shi**y technologies lined up :D :rolleyes:
     
  9. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #9
    Yeah, you said:
    They don't suck, but their performance is nowhere near the level of the X2 in a regular (read: without insane multitasking) environment.

    Since you can't get Intel Macs right now, the PC buyer is better advised to buy an X2. Simple.
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    I hope this never happens in the Mac world despite the technology being a collaboration with Microsoft, but to play nice with the entertainment industry, I think Apple might join in as well.
     
  11. Platform macrumors 68030

    Platform

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    #11
    I thought I had seen those go for about 1000++ bucks :eek: :eek: Like the AMD X2 chips :confused:

    Well not bad but.........think the current G5 beats it :p ;)
     
  12. cr2sh thread starter macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #12
    So you're telling me that the $650 X2 chip beats the $270 D chip?

    Huh.

    Better advised by anyone except your wallet, I guess. Which brings me back to the cheap dual-core chips = cheap dual-core macs, idea of this thread.
     
  13. efoto macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Cloud 9 (-6)
    #13
    Well based on that logic it's hard to tell him he is wrong :p I didn't realize the price of the X2 and only saw this chip because cr2sh started the thread about it. Based on his reasoning I would agree that using this chip would lead to cheaper and probably faster Macs, and probably sooner too if the chip is already in production and testing is all done.
     
  14. 7on macrumors 601

    7on

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2003
    Location:
    Dress Rosa
    #14
    Well, Hardware DRM wouldn't affect anyone too bad. They could bind software restore disks to a certain computer that way. Or prevent OSX to be installed on computers without DRM.

    I just hope it never gets to the point where you have to connected to the internet when you install your OS, like MS.

    I believe Apple may go with Yonah procs though, they are souped up Penitum Ms aren't they? I've always favored Penitum M's - esp. since they are somewhat based on the P3.
     
  15. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #15
    This is the Pentium D 820. This gets owned by the "Extreme edition" Pentium 4 @ 3.73GHz - which, in turn, is the nemesis of the FX55. Both single core CPUs. Granted, there is still the price difference, but there seems to be a lag in effect whereby the last generation of chips are still holding their value. That'll change.

    I've been unable to find any direct comparisons between this, and the X2 -- because it's not in the same league. So, the real question; what's the use in having cheap (huh?) dual core Macs, if they can't even hit the performance of a single core?

    Oh, wait. We buy into marketing bull***t these days.
     
  16. cr2sh thread starter macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #16
    I'm guessing you're right... the $270 chip would get owned by a $1200 chip.

    I'm not sure if it's ******** marketing or simple economics that I could buy four chips for the price of your one chip.

    I'm interested in the systems costing less... and you seem to be arguing for dual extreme edition powermacs (at a cost of $2400 for just the chips!).

    What's the current price of a single core g5? Would a dual pentuim D offer me an advantage... christ, even in an iMac?

    I think that this is a great sign of the future of intel and an insight into Apple's choice... the price point of this chip was an eye-opener for me...

    Will 4 of these chips stack up to a extreme edition... I dunno. :rolleyes: I'm not sure you can name another chip that's faster and more expensive though.
     
  17. efoto macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Cloud 9 (-6)
    #17
    It seems everyone, myself included at one point, completely missed your point on this thread. I see it now after the murky waters have cleared and I too am excited for things to come from Intel. I think this chip at this pricepoint shows we can have good things in cheap packages, which is good news for upcoming Macintels.
     
  18. jiggie2g macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #18

    People here don't know CPU's cr2sh. All they see is 2.8ghz and say man these suck I want AMD...well guss what boys and girls the freakin X2 4400+ cost $650 ...meaning I can buy 2 of these chips and still have money left over for a decent case. No to mention In the PC Relm the smart guys buy the Lower end models like this and OC'd it to hell. 2.8ghz can easily jump to 3.6 on P4 architcture. I've seen the 3.2ghz Pentium D 840's hit 4.0ghz. Some Vendors even sell them in boxes at that Speed for Gaming. P4's are easy enough even for Noobs to try all you have to do is Push the FSB and watch the mhz soar , it's not Like the Divider , HTT crap i got through with my Athlon 64...witch by the way kicks ass.

    these chips will soon hit thier MSRP of $240 the price has been dropping all week as stock volume increases. They were selling at $310 just 2 weeks ago.

    I personally have been considering Selling my DFI NF4 , and Athlon 64 3000+ Venice CPU for this exact set-up. I'll wait and see what happens by Sept if AMD comes out with a Lower End X2 or if the Pentum D drops even more.

    Went to newegg to add it up here's what I got.

    Pentium D 820
    ASUS P5LD2 Socket T MB
    Corsiar Value Select DDR2 667 1GB(512x2)
    Total $534.31 w/ shipping

    Still Less than the X2 , AMD really shot them selves in the foot with the X2 being so damn pricey . people went the AMD in the 1st place cuz there were supposed to be the cheaper alterative.
     
  19. _pb_boi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    #19
    There's a reason they're the 'cooler' choice among gaming crowds; it's generally accepted Intel beats AMD for productivity - office apps, etc. - and AMD kicks Intel in gaming. Don't bother flaming me, I'm only repeating the stereotype.

    andy.
     
  20. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #20
    Its not a stereotype, its bank. Check the benchmarks ever since the advent of Athlon 64, and Prescotts have never been able to catch up.

    It is with a certain irony that Intel is not only hotter, but also cheaper. In a way, the same position AMD was with the Thunderbird 6 years ago.
     
  21. efoto macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Cloud 9 (-6)
    #21
    Spot on.

    It seems to me, the way I justify my AMD purchase, is that even though the Intel chips may be better at apps and media, since the AMD chips are better and the latest games I figure that if my system can run the latest games well it will have no problem running common apps and the windows enviroment (no hardware problems running Windows that is :p). Whether this is true or not, it is a great personal-justifier for not ''giving in'' and buying the same chip everyone else is using.

    AMD is the not-cool cool chip now (not temperature), everyone who is in the know uses them, which is not cool as you know :rolleyes:

    jiggie2g, that price breakdown off Newegg looks pretty sweet, at that price I could afford to update my system without hitch. On the chip of discussion however, would there be significant performance increases from an AthlonXP running at 3200+ speeds? I just don't know because I have been out of the hardware loop for a long time. I have had no reason to get back in because my system ran everything fine, but with a few of the latest games and even some high-level productivity apps, I can see it beginning to slow down.
     

Share This Page