duel core v p4 /

redfan

2.0 htz duel core
what would that be in say pentium speeds?
i got a cheap dell on the dell codes thread and opted not to get the basic 1.6
got the 2.0 instead for the extra 25 euro.

going to throw a good graphics card in it next week

Capt'n Midnight

depends on the app and OS, since they aren't named it's like asking how long is a piece of string.

Rule of thumb dual core gives you up to 70% boost if the OS and applications support dual core. Otherwise it you won't see any benefit. also depends on the core too you may get another 70% if it's not the original P4

moving to HW since no mention of windows

tuxy

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Rule of thumb dual core gives you up to 70% boost if the OS and applications support dual core. Otherwise it you won't see any benefit.

That's incorrect, for example in games my 2.6ghz c2d gives me almost twice the fps of a 3 ghz p4. This is in games that only support 1 core.
The c2d can do a lot more work per cycle.

zilog_jones

Yeah what he said. Even a Core 2 Solo will be better than most P4s.

Anti

Agreed.

Khannie

I'd say a single core on a 2.0GHz c2d is worth around a 3.4GHz P4. Of course...the c2d has two delicious cores. YUMMY!

edit: I'm gonna run a test now. I have a p4 at 3.1GHz and a c2d at 2.66 GHz. I'll run a single threaded compression test on them and see what the time it takes is.

Anti

Yeah, ive noticed a huge performance increase from my c2d@ 3.6 over my opty@ 3.2ghz. Css now run 1680*1050 full aa and af and it sticks around the 300fps mark compared to dropping to 60/70fps

Khannie

Khannie wrote:

I'm gonna run a test now. I have a p4 at 3.1GHz and a c2d at 2.66 GHz. I'll run a single threaded compression test on them and see what the time it takes is.

Results are in:

The P4 is sh*te.

Ah no, seriously, compression test:

core 2 duo E6700 at stock (2.66GHz) took: 1m7.065s

P4 running at 3.075GHz (tiny overclock from 3GHz stock) took: 1m56.201s

3.075 is (2.66 * 1.156)...i.e. the P4 has a raw clock advantage of around 16%, so we multiply its time by 1.156 giving 134 seconds.

The final result is that (per single core clock cycle) the P4 is about half as efficient as the core 2 duo. :eek:

Of course, this is a half assed test, but it does give a reasonable indication.

Anti

Khannie wrote:

Results are in:

The P4 is sh*te.

Ah no, seriously, compression test:

core 2 duo E6700 at stock (2.66GHz) took: 1m7.065s

P4 running at 3.075GHz (tiny overclock from 3GHz stock) took: 1m56.201s

3.075 is (2.66 * 1.156)...i.e. the P4 has a raw clock advantage of around 16%, so we multiply its time by 1.156 giving 134 seconds.

The final result is that (per single core clock cycle) the P4 is about half as efficient as the core 2 duo. :eek:

Of course, this is a half assed test, but it does give a reasonable indication.

You just made all that up didnt you

Khannie

Anti wrote:

You just made all that up didnt you

ROFL

feck off. No, seriously, I did:

time tar -zcvf test.tar.gz *

in a directory that had a virtual machine image in it.

I was actually wondering something similar recently when I temporarily got lumbered with a 1.8GHz core 2 duo (i.e. was it any better than my P4). Then I negotiated a nice E6700 with 4G and raid 1 loveliness. *purr*. Great machine for work.

Anti

pfft linux speak, now i know you made it up

TerrorFirmer

My 2160 at stock 1.8Ghz gets about 70% better score in 3d mark then my old P4 3.2Ghz.....and thats technically inferior to any core 2 branded chip to boot