Corespeed not importantly ?

Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Forum rules
Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Post Reply
Bradley Miller

Corespeed not importantly ?

Post by Bradley Miller »

Hi Guy,

i want buy a new Computer, but I am a totally noob about DualCore CPUs.
The E6700 C2Duo is better then the Pentium D 925, but the C2Duo had 2,66 GHz and the D925 3,0 GHz. Why ?

I am completely confused.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

The Core 2 CPUs are based on a totally new microarchitecture, and that is why they're more efficient than the old Pentium processors. And this is also the reason a Core 2 with a lower clock speed will outperform a Pentium D with a higher clock speed. So you can safely go for the Core 2 you were planning to buy.

Bradley Miller

Post by Bradley Miller »

The Problem is, i am a gamer and on the packing stand mostly only the to used CPU speed. How is one to count there? We take an example:
Gothic 3, A German RPG needs at Athlon XP 3000+ or comparable Pentium IV (2.8 Ghz).

pr0gram the pr0grammer
Donator
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Or-stray-liagh

Post by pr0gram the pr0grammer »

The Core 2 Duo at 2.66GHz is a lot faster (and a lot newer) than a Pentium 4 2.8GHz, you'll have no problems running Gothic 3 on the Core 2 Duo. Plus since it's a dual-core processor, you will find that the computer is faster when running many things at once, because the computer has two processor cores (ie windows will see two processors).

Of course if you decide to choose a low-end graphics card (or integrated graphics) in your new computer, you may find performance is worse than a Pentium 4 2.8GHz ... make sure you go for a good graphics card.
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Bradley Miller wrote:The Problem is, i am a gamer and on the packing stand mostly only the to used CPU speed. How is one to count there? We take an example:
Gothic 3, A German RPG needs at Athlon XP 3000+ or comparable Pentium IV (2.8 Ghz).
I'd say a Core 2 Duo with 2.13GHz should be more than enough here. Why do I think so? Well, an Athlon XP 3000+ runs at ~2.2GHz, and the C2D should be significantly faster than the Athlon XP at a similar clock. So, I bet even a 1.8GHz C2D would be enough. With your 2.66GHz, you should have nothing to worry about, as long as you go for an adequate graphics card. Clock speed is not everything that matters

For example, my notebook has a Core Duo at 1.83GHz. Even with only one core, this CPU is significantly faster than an Athlon 64 3000+ running at 2.0GHz.-

As for the dual-core, the previous poster is perfectly right, but today's games don't tend to take advantage of these yet, so you maybe won't notice the presence of a second core when playing games, but you certainly will when running "normal" applications.

stealth
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by stealth »

no its based on the architecture of the CPU not the core speed. for example a faster CPU (1.8ghz) could load up a game using less ghz then a slower one (3.4ghz) because GHZ isnt the only factor in speed

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

There are a lot more factors to consider aside from the clock speed. Sure, when you're comparing two CPUs from the same architecture (e.g. E6400 and E6600), it's very important. But when one compares a Core 2 and a Pentium D, the Core 2 will always be faster (I've seen benchmarks when the Core 2 just came out, and even the slowest Core 2 outperformed the fastest Pentium D by far). The most important thing to consider is the number of cores. The more the better. For each core, the pipeline length (you can see it explained here) is very important - the shorter it is, the better. The third thing to consider is the cache size. Most Core 2's (including the one you want) have a 4MB L2 cache, shared between the cores, which allows them to access important areas of the memory faster (as the RAM is significantly slower than the CPU). Athlon X2's have a separate, smaller cache for each core, which could be better or worse, depending what you do with them (in general, if you run two applications, each on its own core, it's better, but if you run a single, multi-threaded application, such as a game, the Core 2's shared cache is more suitable).
Currently, the E6700 is faster than anything AMD has to offer (unless you're building a Multi-CPU Opteron), and faster than any lesser (as in either an older generation, such as a Pentium D, or a slower Core 2) Intel CPU. The only reason one would buy a Pentium D is its price, but as it uses a lot more power than the Core 2, it might be more expensive in the long term.

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

frequency of a processor is not the only speed in a processor. It also depends on FSB, how are the processor design, heat affecting the processor, the numbers of core and etc. ehich is why you can't just l;ook at the speed.
an FX-72 @ 3.0 MHz is way faster than 3.8 GHz P4, even though when customers would first think 3.8GHz is faster.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

XDude wrote:even though when customers would first think 3.8GHz is faster.
That was the whole point of the NetBurst (Pentium 4) architecture: a platform that looks good on paper. It was designed to get to high clock speeds, no matter how fast it was in reality (in fact, the first Pentium 4, the 1.5 GHz Willamette, was outperformed by the then-fastest 1.1 GHz Tualatin Pentium 3 - that's why the Pentium M series was based on the Pentium 3 instead of the Pentium 4).

Now, that Intel started making efficient CPUs (the Core 2 series), they're having a taste of their own medicine.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

How much faster is, say a C2D 2.0 GHz than my P4HT 3.4 GHz then, just out of interest? Not that you'd actually need anything faster than the P4, given that it seems to be the Ram and video card that increase performance the most - I don't think a faster CPU would make a lot of difference to game performance or anything like that.
Image

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:How much faster is, say a C2D 2.0 GHz than my P4HT 3.4 GHz then, just out of interest? Not that you'd actually need anything faster than the P4, given that it seems to be the Ram and video card that increase performance the most - I don't think a faster CPU would make a lot of difference to game performance or anything like that.
I'd say at least 2.5-3 times faster, provided you run a multi-core aware application. A single Core 2 core (a high-end one, at least) is about twice as fast as a P4, clock-per-clock, and a Core 2 Duo has two of them.

A 2.0 GHz Core 2 (an E4400) is a low-end model, though (it has half the cache and a slower bus). An E6600 will perform at least 4 times faster than a Hyper-Threading P4 3.4 GHz (The Hyper-Threading feature only works if you run an application with two threads doing different kind of work - i.e. a graphics engine using SSE and an AI engine doing a lot of logic work, which, because of graphics accelerators, doesn't happen much).

A CPU faster than a 3 GHz P4 can be useful, though, especially if you're running Gentoo - There's a lot of difference between compiling an entire system on a 1.7 GHz Willamette and doing the same on a 3200+ Newcastle (I'd say 50 hours, compared to 12-15, although the latter has a faster hard drive as well). On an QX6800 (a quad-core, 2.93 GHz Core 2 Extreme) I believe it would take less time than installing some Vista builds.

Post Reply