Intel Pentium 820 D 2.8GHz 90nm Dual Core

[PAGETITLE=Introduction] [Top Ad] It wasn't too long ago that we were all asking the question, "Should I go dual core?" Times have proven that dual core is the future and has clear benefits, which turned that question into, "Which dual core should I get?" Even if you are buying the lowest dual core on the scale, you are essentially getting twice the computing power than from a single chip. As more and more applications take advantage of dual cores, it makes the buying decision easier. Of course, the ability to multi-task without slowing your OS down is another huge benefit. Intel and AMD both have a great selection of dual core chips, for all wallet sizes. Intel dual cores almost always cost less than AMD's, which makes them look more attractive. Generally speaking though, tests have proven AMD dual cores better for gaming on high-end systems. But, if you are looking for a cheap solution to get yourself a dual core rig built, then Intels offerings are worth looking at. Today's processor in question is the 820 D. It was the bottom of the barrel when it came to Intel DC's, until the lower clocked 805 D came out. But before we get into specifics and feature comparisons, let's delve a bit deeper into why dual cores are beneficial to you. Features PCs that have two CPU cores are not necessarily new, although it is for the consumer market. A few years ago, you would need two separate CPU's in the same machine. You can now have the same benefit but with only one CPU. There was a lot of speculation when dual cores came to be, but there's no denying just how beneficial they can be. Because you essentially have two CPU cores under the same IHS, multitasking proves less groggy with larger applications. As you open new instances of applications, the CPU will decide which core to use. The goal is to allow you to do more on your PC than with a single core, without having a sluggish experience. Even though you have a dual core, things can still slow down your PC, but that primarily only happens with multiple intensive applications that are stressing the same components at once, such as ram or your hard drive. As a great example though, you could play a game and convert a video file at the same time and feel virtually no lag or slowdown. Try doing that on a single core and it will not be a fun experience. Because of these possibilities, it's no wonder why dual cores are growing in popularity. If we compare our 820 D to Intels other dual cores, we immediately see it's missing a few key features. Considering this is a budget processor, it does not include EIST, or Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology. Also missing is the Intel Virtualization Technology. That specific feature is not available on any of the 8** series however, rather only the 9**. At this point in time, when compared to Intels other dual cores, the 820 D seems like an unwise choice. If you were to consider the 805 D instead of the 820 D, there are a few things to consider. Most notably, the 805 D only has a 533FSB and is clocked 140MHz slower than the 820 D. Though the clock speed won't necessarily make a huge difference, the FSB speed will. The 920 D though, and the 9** series in general, has some larger differences. While the 820 D has only a 2*1MB level 2 cache, the 920 D has 2*2MB. This would not likely make a huge difference in most everyday tasks, but it should be evident through synthetic benchmarks. The largest different though, is the process the cpu is based on. The 820 D is built on the 'last-gen' 90nm while the 920 D is based on 65nm. What this generally results in is better overclocking ability, and cooler temperatures. Besides these points though, both the 820 D and 920 D share the same clock speed and FSB. Below is a quick sum-up of all the Intel Pentium D's currently on the market. Celeron D and EE Dual Cores are also available, but we won't be getting into comparisons with them today. Intel Dual Cores 805, 90nm, 2x1M L2, NA L3, 2.66 GHz, 533 MHz FSB - $120US~ 820, 90nm, 2x1M L2, NA L3, 2.80 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $175US~ 920, 65nm, 2x2M L2, NA L3, 2.80 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $215US~ 830, 90nm, 2x1M L2, NA L3, 3.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $255US~ 930, 65nm, 2x2M L2, NA L3, 3.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $200US~ 840, 90nm, 2x1M L2, NA L3, 3.20 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $350US~ 940, 65nm, 2x2M L2, NA L3, 3.20 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $250US~ 950, 65nm, 2x2M L2, NA L3, 3.40 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $360US~ 960, 65nm, 2x2M L2, NA L3, 3.60 GHz, 800 MHz FSB - $550US~ I grabbed the prices from a popular e-tailer to get a grasp of the pricing on the cpu's as a whole. The 820 D currently retails for $175US. At that price point, it would be well worth it to throw in another $25 to upgrade to the 930 D which offers a 65nm process, 2*2MB cache and 200MHz on top of what the 820 D offers. Oddly enough, the 930 D is more cost effective than the 920 D. You don't see that happen too often. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Overclocking Ability] [Top Ad] Because the 820 D carries a 'budget' moniker, overclocking was going to be interesting. If you buy a high-end chip, you already know to expect good overclocking ability. When you take the low road though, it's always hit or miss. My goal originally was to achieve a 4.0GHz, as unlikely as that may seem. Up until last month, the CPU was cooled using Corsairs Nautilus 500. That setup is how I acquired all my found overclocks. However, I have since moved the N500 into another PC, so the Zalman 9500AT is the current cooling in place. I chose to skip overclocking using the stock cooler, because temps were far too high. Of course if you do plan on doing any overclocking, you should almost always upgrade to an aftermarket cooler. Using the water cooling, the max overclock I have achieved was 4.2GHz. Though this was rather unstable, and put me in an odd predicament. After some troubleshooting, I had found that one of the cores was not as overclocking friendly as the other. I came to this conclusion because Windows would not boot at 4.2GHz, but if I changed it to 4.2GHz when Windows was already loaded I would have no problems. While in Windows at 4.2GHz, the CPU proved 10 hours Prime95 stable. Here's another oddity. When I ran that 10 hour prime run, it was only on the single core. The second core was left completely alone, because I wanted to first see if 4.2GHz was stable using the CPU as a single core. Once that passed fine, I opened up another instance to run on the second core, to which I immediately had errors. Stranger still, is that if I chose either core to stress test, one at a time, I would run into no errors. It was only when I stressed them both at the same time that the second core would error. The first core has never failed in any of my overclocking tests. After some more investigation, I came to the conclusion that the main problem had to do with the 64-bit part of the second core. At 4.0GHz, Windows x32 booted no problem, over and over. But, trying to boot into Windows x64 at the same clock would fail everytime. It would either give an abrupt BSOD or restart during the Windows boot screen. 3.92GHZ seemed to be the ultimate stable overclock, for both versions of Windows. I will consider that my top overclock, although yours may vary if you get a CPU with two friendly cores. Regardless of the 4.0GHz+ problems, I will gladly take 3.92GHz on a sub $200 dual core any day. Here are the overclocked settings I will be benching with. All of these have proved 100% stable. Of course this could have been eight separate overclocks, but there was no need. 3.36GHz was completely stable using the stock cooler, however I didn't go beyond that until I had the better cooling solution. Using the Zalman 9500AT, the CPU was completely stable up to 3.74GHz. 3.92GHz is hit and miss though, in a couple regards. First, at that clock speed, Rosetta had run for 44 straight hours without a single issue. That was with the CPU at 73°C for almost two days straight. However, when it came to a couple benchmarks, we will see that the increasing heat on the CPU held back from some great scores. 200FSB, 2.8GHz, 1.3v, 400MHz (4-4-4-8) 240FSB, 3.36GHz, 1.3v, 400MHz (4-4-4-8) 267FSB, 3.74GHz, 1.4v, 445MHz (4-4-4-8) 280FSB, 3.93GHz, 1.5v, 480MHz (4-4-4-8) The primary reason that the CPU could reach 73°C to begin with is due to my rooms ambient heat. Even on a cool day, the room hovers between 80°F and 90°F. It doesn't prove to be the ideal testing environment, but it could not be helped. That said, if you have a computer room that's kept at comfortable temperatures, your results may prove better than mine. Testing Procedures Throughout all of our benchmarks, regardless of what we are reviewing, testing is done in a clean, stand-alone version of Windows XP Professional with SP2. Prior to testing, these conditions are met: Desktop and scrap files are cleaned up, including emptying of recycle bin. No virus scanner or firewall is installed in the stand-alone installation. The stand-alone installation drive is completely defragged using Diskeeper 10 Pro Premier. All unnecessary programs are closed, so that Windows should have no more than 15 active processes running. Computer has proper airflow. If you are interested in using the same benchmarks as us, feel free to visit the developers website: 3D Mark 2001 3D Mark 2006 Battlefield 2 Cinebench 9.5 Everest Ultimate 2.8 Half-Life 2 PC Mark 2005 Sandra 2007 Sciencemark 2 Super Pi 1.5 Mod The testing rig used for today's benchmarking is as follows: CPU: Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz - 3.92GHz) Motherboard: ASUS P5WD2-E Premium w/ 401 BIOS. Memory: Corsair 2GB PC2-6400PRO. Video: BFG 6800GT OC 256MB PCI-E. Sound: Realtek HD Audio. Storage: WD 200GB 7200 8MB. Odds and Ends: D-Link WiFi PCI Card. Etcetera: Windows XP Professional w/ SP2, NVIDIA 81.98 Drivers. Since this is the first Intel chip that we've reviewed, we don't have any means to compare to other similar CPU's. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Sandra, Everest] Sandra is an extensive benchmarking tool used to...

Intel Pentium 820 D 2.8GHz 90nm Dual Core

Page 173 –

Rob Williams