When Intel introduced its first line of dual core desktop processors we were all shocked at how cheap you could buy them.  The Pentium D 820, running at 2.8GHz, was the first Intel processor we recommended since Intel's Northwood core.  It was no surprise to anyone that Prescott was too hot and offered no real performance advantage to justify its downside when compared to AMD's Athlon 64 CPUs.  With the Pentium D, Intel still had the heat problems and underwhelming performance, but for heavy multitaskers and users of multithreaded applications the performance could not be beat.  The Pentium D 820 debuted at $241, putting it at about the same price as a single core Athlon 64 3500+. 

AMD eventually responded by introducing an Athlon 64 X2 3800+, priced at $354.  While it was still more expensive than Intel's entry level dual core, it was a step in the right direction for AMD and the X2 3800+ quickly became a favorite among enthusiasts.  The X2 3800+ managed to outperform, in many cases, Intel's most expensive dual core processors while running a lot cooler and being offered at a much better price point. 

Intel's ability to undercut AMD's pricing on dual core processors is not too difficult to understand.  Until recently, AMD has only had a single plant producing 90nm processors on 200mm wafers, meaning that every dual core CPU they produce made a serious dent in the number of total CPUs they can produce.   Even though AMD's new Fab 36 just started shipping revenue generating product, dual core chips will continue to come out of Fab 30 for the time being.  Intel, by comparison, has a total of five 300mm fabs currently in production that crank out both 90nm and 65nm CPUs.  Being able to produce chips on 300mm wafers itself means that you can make more chips at a time, but also having many more fabs helps as well.  Intel estimates that its five 300mm fabs can produce as many chips as approximately eight of its older 200mm fabs.  What this all boils down to is that pricing its entry-level dual core processor in the $200 - $250 range is not too difficult for Intel, but with the introduction of the Pentium D 900 series the deal was about to get even sweeter. 

With the Pentium D 900 series, Intel took its dual core processors and started making them on a 65nm process.  Along with the die shrink Intel equipped their 65nm offerings with twice the L2 cache as their 90nm 800 series, thus making them even more desirable.  The icing on the cake was that the Pentium D 900 series was not much more expensive than the 800 series it was replacing; the Pentium D 920 can be found today for as low as $244. 

With Intel intent on moving all of its processors over to 65nm, the older 90nm Pentium D line got a nice price cut.  The once $240+ Pentium D 820 is now a $160 chip, making it around the price of a single core Athlon 64 3200+.   Although the single core AMD CPU will still do better in gaming, the Pentium D 820 will definitely hold its own in any multithreaded environments or encoding tasks.  To even further move the market to dual core, Intel quietly introduced yet another processor - the 90nm Pentium D 805.  Clocked at 2.66GHz with a meager 533MHz FSB (compared to 800MHz of the other Pentium D CPUs), the Pentium D 805 can be had for as little as $132. 

Sit back and think about that for a moment; for $133 you are getting a dual core processor that can run in any LGA-775 Intel 945 based motherboard.  It wasn't very long ago that a SMP system would cost you significantly more than a high end desktop setup, but thanks to the move to dual core CPUs and some very aggressive pricing on Intel's part, you can now have a dual core processor for about $20 more than a Celeron. 

Admittedly we've been a bit too high end focused lately here on AnandTech, as seemingly all that's been released these days is Extreme Edition this and FX that.  But if you have to upgrade today, now is truly a great time to buy something low end as you await the next-generation of CPUs and platforms from AMD and Intel.

The Contenders
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