Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

anyone have an idea which one CORE2 DUO E6300 or P4D 945???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 25, 2006 3:08:59 AM

i am getting a new PC, can anyone help me which one is faster? please.... :cry: 

CORE2 DUO E6300 (1833MHz / 2048KB)

or

P4D 945 (3400MHz / 4096KB)

i know that CORE2 DUO will use nearly half of power of the P4D945.

but what about the speed.

please help me.....thanks
November 25, 2006 3:30:14 AM

Quote:
i am getting a new PC, can anyone help me which one is faster? please.... :cry: 

CORE2 DUO E6300 (1833MHz / 2048KB)

or

P4D 945 (3400MHz / 4096KB)

i know that CORE2 DUO will use nearly half of power of the P4D945.

but what about the speed.

please help me.....thanks



any c2d versus any cpu. c2d wins.

buy your c2d and shut your mouth and stop rubbing it in. :) 

p.s. you didn't say anything about needing a extra space heater, cause even if you did, the c2d still wins by default.. Get the c2d and buy a space heater. It cant be beat. /shrug
November 25, 2006 3:44:41 AM

I have a P4 820 and as its 2800mhz dual core its not to bad only cost £66 new
but look at it like this your mobo will take the older p4 and if you can afford to buy the faster 945 and use the extra cash you have for a good video card.
As I and a lot of people have found. its ok having dual core, but not having a big range of multithread software to run on it. the outcome is only one cpu will be used.
So 3400mhz over 1833mhz beats it.
Until there is more dual core software out there i would stick with the 945.

And to be honest why is Intel banging on about dual cores when no one does software for them.
Its like games console's they only as good as the software for them.
Hope this helps
Related resources
November 25, 2006 4:00:59 AM

nahh, MHz isn't everything. The E6300 runs circles around the 945D (hell, it's as fast as the 965EE), and it's a super overclocker.
November 25, 2006 4:20:05 AM

Quote:
I have a P4 820 and as its 2800mhz dual core its not to bad only cost £66 new
but look at it like this your mobo will take the older p4 and if you can afford to buy the faster 945 and use the extra cash you have for a good video card.
As I and a lot of people have found. its ok having dual core, but not having a big range of multithread software to run on it. the outcome is only one cpu will be used.
So 3400mhz over 1833mhz beats it.
Until there is more dual core software out there i would stick with the 945.

And to be honest why is Intel banging on about dual cores when no one does software for them.


The D945 is also Dual core.

The Pentium 4 architecture is shite however. Think of it like a 100m sprinter, MHz is not a measurement of how fast each sprinter is, but how many steps they can take in a second.

Thats all fine and dandy when they both have the same stride, but the p4 shuffles forward with millions of little steps per minute, while the C2D takes about half as many massive strides per minute.

The C2D will cross the line first.

In summary, the D945 is WAY slower than the e6300.
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2006 5:03:57 AM

Quote:
i am getting a new PC, can anyone help me which one is faster? please.... :cry: 

CORE2 DUO E6300 (1833MHz / 2048KB)

or

P4D 945 (3400MHz / 4096KB)

i know that CORE2 DUO will use nearly half of power of the P4D945.

but what about the speed.

please help me.....thanks


YET AGAIN, WHERES AMD IN THIS?

god dam! forget P4, its AMD or C2D MINIMUM and then it comes down to cost. :roll:
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2006 5:07:48 AM

Check out the following link to THG CPU charts. Take yoyur time and review it carefully.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

Since the 6300 and 945 aren't included, I instead selected the 6400 and the 955. Regardless, there's still no competition. The 6300 is clearly your best choice.
November 25, 2006 12:42:48 PM

Quote:
I have a P4 820 and as its 2800mhz dual core its not to bad only cost £66 new
but look at it like this your mobo will take the older p4 and if you can afford to buy the faster 945 and use the extra cash you have for a good video card.
As I and a lot of people have found. its ok having dual core, but not having a big range of multithread software to run on it. the outcome is only one cpu will be used.
So 3400mhz over 1833mhz beats it.
Until there is more dual core software out there i would stick with the 945.

And to be honest why is Intel banging on about dual cores when no one does software for them.
Its like games console's they only as good as the software for them.
Hope this helps


Encoding videos take advantage of the c2d dual cores. It does it way quicker than the 945 hands down.
November 25, 2006 1:12:14 PM

Quote:
And to be honest why is Intel banging on about dual cores when no one does software for them.
Its like games console's they only as good as the software for them.
Hope this helps


What the hell! Two single threaded apps on a dual core will hold a sigdnificant peformance increse. Two multi-threaded apps on a dual core means your back where you started. For those you'll need quad core
November 25, 2006 1:59:27 PM

E6300.
November 25, 2006 2:40:25 PM

Quote:
Encoding videos take advantage of the c2d dual cores. It does it way quicker than the 945 hands down.


The C2D is NOT faster because it is dual core, the 945 is also dual core.

The C2D is faster as it is a far superior architecture
November 25, 2006 3:11:38 PM

Just buy C2D
November 25, 2006 3:12:48 PM

Eh? Beware of falling for the "Native" vs "Glued" propaganda. What made the Pentium D bad was the fact that the Pentium D was based on Netburst, not that it was glued. FSB thrashing is still a long way off.
November 25, 2006 3:19:47 PM

Didn't tests around C2D's release show that unless it was data in the shared cache they still communicate via the FSB anyway? After all, Smithfield is a monolithic die but its still basically "glued"

I remember reading an article about it, possibly by Anandtech.

C2D is way faster even in single threaded apps anyway.
November 25, 2006 3:24:38 PM

Yeah, I read that also, I think I have the link somewhere. the fact remains that Netburst was a significant step down from the PIII architecture and anyone who is in their right mind would agree.
The Core being a update and revision of the PIII, is 30% more efficient than the PIII, which is significantly more efficient than the Netburst. Only the Northwood's do anything to bolster the P4's reputation.
But its water under the bridge now.
November 25, 2006 3:58:27 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I read that also, I think I have the link somewhere. the fact remains that Netburst was a significant step down from the PIII architecture and anyone who is in their right mind would agree.
The Core being a update and revision of the PIII, is 30% more efficient than the PIII, which is significantly more efficient than the Netburst. Only the Northwood's do anything to bolster the P4's reputation.
But its water under the bridge now.
Yep...PIII was a great chip. Too bad Intel was so hesitant to switch over to DDR, until after it was too late. :? As far as i'm concerned, DDR played a huge role in K7's success over PIII.
November 25, 2006 4:49:43 PM

Quote:
Just buy C2D


Agreed.
November 26, 2006 8:43:46 PM

So far so correct.
November 26, 2006 9:01:46 PM

IMHO (and even though I run Intel these days due to the unquestionable price/performance and pure performance advantages I'm still an AMD fanboy at heart) HT is not superior to Intels FSB.

HT is at best a 16 bit link @ 1GHz full duplex (this is NOT 2GHz if anything it could be said to be 32 bits wide, but thats still incorrect as it is 16 bits in each direction, therefore it is 16bit 1GHz full duplex). Intels FSB is 64bits wide last I checked, and clocked at a similar 1.066GHz although this is half duplex I believe, it is often run at 1.6GHz and above in over clocked situations, and is of course 4x as wide.

HT has a much lower bandwidth than Intels FSB.

The advantage comes not from HT over FSB, but from the fact that much lower demands are placed on HT due to the fact that CPU->RAM access does not require anything to cross the HT link, and in multiple CPU configs the fact that there are multiple HT links.

This is a similar advantage to the one Pentium Pro had all those years ago by being able to directly access its L2 cache without FSB loading over Pentium MMX which used motherboard based L2 cache.

Add an IMC to C2D however, and use Dual Independent FSBs in Dual CPU systems, and the "Advantage" of HT evaporates. If HT were to be used without an IMC it would choke and bottleneck the whole system.

AMD has a platform advantage with the HT/IMC/Multiple pathing system it runs, but for marketing purposes it seems to try to attribute this all to Hypertransport, because, well, Its HYPER!!! and this is all us stupid consumers can understand: Buzzwords.

As for P3 (or is that P!!! ?) I agree it was far superior to Netburst. It always seemed to me that the reason for Netburst was simple: Intel took a massive publicity hit from the Athlon hitting 1GHz before the P3. Intel took a bigger one by pushing out very dodgy and unstable-without-the-right-microcode P3s that were clocked higher than they should have been and almost unavailable anyway just so that they could say they were matching Athlon in clock speeds around the 1.33GHz mark.

Its almost as if, some important guy at Intel who had no idea about how CPUs actually work said to the engineers "If AMD ever beat us in clock speeds again you are all fired" and forced the engineers to come out with the clockspeed-at-any-cost Netburst mArch. Its like they let the marketing department build their dream easy-to-sell chip without regard for anything (even performance). I really will never understand why they did it tbh.
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2006 9:39:48 PM

Quote:
I have a P4 820 and as its 2800mhz dual core its not to bad only cost £66 new
but look at it like this your mobo will take the older p4 and if you can afford to buy the faster 945 and use the extra cash you have for a good video card.
As I and a lot of people have found. its ok having dual core, but not having a big range of multithread software to run on it. the outcome is only one cpu will be used.
So 3400mhz over 1833mhz beats it.
Until there is more dual core software out there i would stick with the 945.

And to be honest why is Intel banging on about dual cores when no one does software for them.
Its like games console's they only as good as the software for them.
Hope this helps


Encoding videos take advantage of the c2d dual cores. It does it way quicker than the 945 hands down.

both are dual core ;)  and yeah the C2D's are the way to go
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2006 9:57:26 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I read that also, I think I have the link somewhere. the fact remains that Netburst was a significant step down from the PIII architecture and anyone who is in their right mind would agree.
The Core being a update and revision of the PIII, is 30% more efficient than the PIII, which is significantly more efficient than the Netburst. Only the Northwood's do anything to bolster the P4's reputation.
But its water under the bridge now.


P3 -> Pentium M :D  AKA P6

its been there waiting to return :D 
November 27, 2006 5:52:11 AM

Pentium D EE had a 1066 FSB :p 

Yes, Intels eventual plan for Xeon and indeed Itanium is to switch to CSI, it is inevitable that this will eventually filter down to desktops.
November 27, 2006 12:18:26 PM

CORE 2 DUO!!! (lucky sod :(  )
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2006 7:57:18 PM

Quote:
Correct the EE does have 1066 fsb, but even the, the fx-60 beat it due to the bad core architecture

Either way, the ee didn't seem to have the fsb correct yet due to overheating problems, and that is why I believe that hypertransport was superior and will be again superior with hypertransport 3 (4-4.4 ghz speed)


netburst made the QDR FSB look bad, ee's were just netburst cpus with more cache or a higher fsb, and the same crud fsb

all P6 cpu's didnt have any issues with FSB - a lowly P3 Tualatin 1400 with FSB133 (sdr) easily took out a P4 1800 with fsb 400 (qdr), and now we see conroe with the same fsb and twice (or more) performance.

AMD gained performance with HT cause there fsb was tiny at the time (K7 with DDR fsb) - 400mhz tops with intels fsb being twice as fast in theory (3.2gb/s vs 6.4gb/s).

We have already seen the pathetic performance gains with AMD's HT - 1600 to 2000 didnt do anything and that was a 25% gain! along with DDR2 doing nothing with twice the bandwidth, there cpu arcitecture is letting them down atm ;) 
!