5 Comments

  • As replied on Twitter earlier, this blog post came really handy. My dusty old GeForce 6200TC video card died (that bitch! Couldn’t even handle 4 years of usage, working -almost- 24/7) and I was really upset I would have to buy a new one.
    Turns out the cheapest of the cheapest video cards available around here (an ATI Radeon HD4350) scores significantly better. And as I don’t really need a fancy video card (my “heaviest” usage is the 2 or 3 hours/week of photo editing on Photoshop), I guess it will serve me just fine.

    I just refuse to see how my old Pentium D performs against the Core i7 I’m planning to buy next year. Oh well… Every hardware equipment has its own time of glory, and they are getting shorter and shorter.

  • @Seelenwahnsinn

    Yeah, it is really good for that kind of stuff. Especially for processors, old models can have deceptively high clock values (Pentium D sucked in major way btw, I spent that period on Athlons).

    I was wondering about very slow server at work on Xeon 2.4 GHz (it’s server and clock is high, must be nice) until I went to check it on site and realized that it is very outdated model, barely comparable in performance to modern budget Celerons. :)

  • I used Athlon XP for quite some time before buying the Pentium D. My Athlon was rather noisy (I used a Thermaltake Volcano 11+ Xaser Ed, 2 80mm fans and a blower) and still got really hot. No doubts performance was better on AMD processors, but my home has really thin walls and the noisy cooler was slowly driving my family mad. My Pentium D clocks 3.2Ghz by default, but I always used it at 3.4Ghz and it hardly gets too hot (and I’m even using the in-a-box cooler, and only one extra 80mm fan).

    About the Xeon, I wouldn’t guess it was comparable to Celerons, but I do know Core2Duo/Quad have better performance.

  • @Seelenwahnsinn

    XPs were indeed bit hot, but they set foundation for performance that rivaled Pentiums at lower clock. They were followed by Athlon64 that were very fast and low temp. I think (not sure) they were first to get dynamic clock feature (Cool’n’Quiet).

    Core architecture was a miracle for Intel, they barely got out of P4 trap. :)

  • When I got my Pentium D the Athlon 64 was fairly new and costly. On top of that, the OS’ and softwares in general for x64 platform was really on their initial stages, and I wasn’t an early adopter back then. For good or for bad, I ended up buying the Pentium D, and it served me well (actually, is still serving, though an upgrade would be greatly accepted).

    If it wasn’t for the invention of the Core architecture, Intel would be sunk by now. AMD was really powerful and growing strong on market share, and the 64 bits architecture was really promising. The way I see it, now AMD is much more for overclock enthusiasts (the newer chips are awesome for that) than the regular user (“average” doesn’t quite fit here and I can’t explain why).

Comments are closed.