Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

1.8GHz c2d V's 3.2GHz P4

  • 12-06-2007 2:55pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭


    So...for SINGLE THREADED applications, which is faster?

    I have googled but could not find any definitive answer tbh.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭youcancallmeal


    I don't know the answer but I'm going to throw an educated guess at the 1.8GHz c2d. Its an overall better designed chip and not just in term of throughput but also power consumption and thermal regulation. Would be interested to have a definitive answer to this question though :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Yeah, definitely a far far superior architecture.....the P4 is nearly 80% faster in raw clock cycles though. I think they'd be pretty close myself. I'm thinking the P4 would edge it.

    In terms of raw compute power, the c2d obviously wipes the floor. I nearly exclusively use single threaded apps in work though.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    I would probably go with the core 2 as well but you never know.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,505 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Although I am loathe to recommend the site, tomshardware do that nice CPU comparison chart.

    Just have a look at a few single thread CPU apps.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭chump


    DirkVoodoo wrote:
    Although I am loathe to recommend the site, tomshardware do that nice CPU comparison chart.

    Just have a look at a few single thread CPU apps.

    what do you dislike about tomshardware - just out of interest? :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    I had a look on thg actually, but couldn't find any comparisson for the 4300 or 6300. Nearest was 6400.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I would say the C2D easily, at least, based on gaming alone, my 3.4Ghz P4 couldn't touch my E6400 even at stock, and thats comparing 3.4Ghz to 2.1....close enough to 1.8 and 3.2..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,158 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Well it's probably a case of looking at the 6400 scores and extrapolating from there then :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    guys it all about the cache and front side bus, cmon!
    most core duos have 4mb cache and 1066fsb
    the pentium four just waits (bottlenecks) itself into meltdown so you never got the 3.2 ghz clock or whatever power from it...
    so the answer btw is the 1.8 ghz core duo although there is a small possibility that in some single thraeded apps where the cpu is free to concentrate on that app exclusively it's possible that the 3.2ghz might be close.......


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Ok, you may use only single threaded applications in work, that's fair enough.

    But do you run more than 1 application at a time? To be honest, i think you'd be insane to not go with the C2D. Unfortunately i can't give hard numbers on why it's better.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement