Pentium Vs Core 2 Duo

[Hays1530]

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering which of these would be better in general and for gaming.

INTEL PENTIUM 4 3.8 GHz, 4MB Cache, FSB: 800

OR

INTEL CORE 2 DUO 1.66 GHz, 2MB Cache

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Grimmy]

I'm surprised people still ask about what performance with the old and new.

To add what mpilch is saying, another easier way to understand why C2D does better, is by thinking about shovel digging machines.

Lets say a P4 has a shovel this big:
[code:1:5b972a0fa9]
|| ||
||______||
VVVVVV
[/code:1:5b972a0fa9]
But the C2D has this shovel:
[code:1:5b972a0fa9]
|| ||
||_______________||
V V V V V V V V V
[/code:1:5b972a0fa9]
The C2D is going to be able to do more in one scoop then the P4, so speed is pretty much irrelevant to match its performance.

 

[Hays1530]

Thanks guys, i appreciate the quick reply. That helped alot. Thanks again.

 

[m25]

The Core 2 will always beat out the P4. It's not about clock speed anymore. Look at it this way. Lets say the P4 is like a 4 lane highway. Just one of the cores of the Core 2 Duo is like a 6 lane highway. While the P4 may have a higher clock the Core 2 can handle more per clock then the P4 can. And while the P4s may have all it's lanes packed there are still free lanes on the Core 2.

That 'sn't an exact compairison but it gives you an idea of why one is better then the other.

If the P4 is a 4-lane highway, a core2 is almost an 8-lane, because roughly, you need a 3.60GHz PentiumD to match a 1.80GHz E4300 or a 1.86GHz E6300

 

[1Tanker]

The Core 2 will always beat out the P4. It's not about clock speed anymore. Look at it this way. Lets say the P4 is like a 4 lane highway. Just one of the cores of the Core 2 Duo is like a 6 lane highway. While the P4 may have a higher clock the Core 2 can handle more per clock then the P4 can. And while the P4s may have all it's lanes packed there are still free lanes on the Core 2.

That 'sn't an exact compairison but it gives you an idea of why one is better then the other.

If the P4 is a 4-lane highway, a core2 is almost an 8-lane, because roughly, you need a 3.60GHz PentiumD to match a 1.80GHz E4300 or a 1.86GHz E6300 Oh well. It seems the OP got the jist of it anyways.

 

[qcmadness]

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering which of these would be better in general and for gaming.

INTEL PENTIUM 4 3.8 GHz, 4MB Cache, FSB: 800
OR
INTEL CORE 2 DUO 1.66 GHz, 2MB Cache

Any help would be appreciated.

If the Pentium chip is a Pentium D 3.8GHz (actually does not exist)
I will suggest that P-D 3.8GHz will beat Core 2 Duo at 1.66GHz at some scenario.

 

[jeff_2087]

Hey, I wanna add a real-life analogy too! Straws. Try sucking a beverage through a standard drinking straw, then switch to one of those little brown coffee stirrers. Even if you pull the desired beverage through the coffee stirrer at much higher speed, in the end the drinking straw will get you more beverage faster.

Although, he did say a 3.8GHz P4 vs a 1.66GHz Core 2, so if the approximate double efficiency of the Core 2 holds, the P4 may be faster for single threads. Still, Core 2 is better.

 

[enewmen]

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering which of these would be better in general and for gaming.

INTEL PENTIUM 4 3.8 GHz, 4MB Cache, FSB: 800

OR

INTEL CORE 2 DUO 1.66 GHz, 2MB Cache

Any help would be appreciated.

Which can make a car go faster - a chain-saw engine running at 10,000 RPM or a Corvette engine running at 2,000 RPM?
An extreme example, but you get the idea.

Of course you can overclock the corvette engine to 10,000 and get some real whiplash speed!

 

[jeff_2087]

Also, it's like shoveling snow. You can shovel snow as fast as you like with a garden spade, but your neighbour trudging along with one of those massive push-shovels will get his driveway cleared a lot faster.

 

[1Tanker]

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering which of these would be better in general and for gaming.

INTEL PENTIUM 4 3.8 GHz, 4MB Cache, FSB: 800

OR

INTEL CORE 2 DUO 1.66 GHz, 2MB Cache

Any help would be appreciated.

Which can make a car go faster - a chain-saw engine running at 10,000 RPM or a Corvette engine running at 2,000 RPM?
An extreme example, but you get the idea.

Of course you can overclock the corvette engine to 10,000 and get some real whiplash speed!That would create some glorious sound....until it throws a rod......right through the block. :x

Sorta like this:

 

[NightlySputnik]

In older single-threaded applications, the P4 will be faster in most case.

Where the C2D become a much better performer is with newer multithreaded (applications that can use more than one core at a time) or if you multitask a lot. Think about encoding a video while playing a video game. That would be impossible on a P4 @ 3.8GHz, but would, most probably, run fine on a C2D. That of course depend on a lot of variable, but that what it comes down to in most case.

Also, on a side note, a C2D at such low frequency would easily overclock to 2.4+ GHZ without any danger, as long as you have modest cooling for your CPU/Case. The P4 is at it's upper limit, and reaching only 4GHz would be hard. So that adds to the value of C2D if you don't mind going this way.

 

[whrzmud]

I'm surprised people still ask about what performance with the old and new.

The C2D is going to be able to do more in one scoop then the P4, so speed is pretty much irrelevant to match its performance.

so if the speed is Irrelevant now a days, why do they even put it on there?

as the person above me stated for a single program the P4 would be better. like myself i use my computer ONLY for games and i don't multi task when i am playing so in my situation i would think that the P4 would be better. heck my 1.8Ghz i bought for $300 back in 2004, i think i got my 300$ worth out of it. and i think i will be getting a new Pentium D 915 with Dual Core Technology (2.8GHz, 800FSB)

To the OP here ya go man a Product chart:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm

*edit*
/bonk i need to lern2read
i transposed the 3 with a 2 so i read 2.8 instead of the real number 3.8

 

[jeff_2087]

so if the speed is Irrelevant now a days, why do they even put it on there?

Speed is relevant when comparing CPUs of the same architecture- Core 2 vs Core 2, P4 vs P4. Not Core 2 vs P4.

as the person above me stated for a single program the P4 would be better. like myself i use my computer ONLY for games and i don't multi task when i am playing so in my situation i would think that the P4 would be better. heck my 1.8Ghz i bought for $300 back in 2004, i think i got my 300$ worth out of it. and i think i will be getting a new Pentium D 915 with Dual Core Technology (2.8GHz, 800FSB)

Even the cheapest Core 2 Duo will stomp on the Pentium D 915.

If the Pentium chip is a Pentium D 3.8GHz (actually does not exist)

sure it does i have seen it with me own eyes and held it in my own hands

I'm afraid not. What you saw was a P4, not a PD. Big difference, P4 is single core while PD is dual core.

 

[jeff_2087]

fine click here:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/pentium_d.htm
then tell me it does not exist according to qcmadness he stated Pentium D 3.8GHz (actually does not exist)

Okay.


It does not exist.


That was pretty easy. The fastest CPU on the chart is 3.6GHz.

 

[whrzmud]

see the post 2 above, that i edited before you posted this one.

 

[Grimmy]

THG CPU Charts

Not sure how many apps they have in those tests they provide are just single threaded apps. As far as the charts show performance pretty much convinces me that the C2D is doing allot more, and doesn't have to run at a clock rate as the older generation, with the memory speed boost. Though I couldn't find 915 to compare the E6400, but the PD 920, I thought it would be more fair to compare a P4 dual core to a C2D.

Those tests reflect:

C2D @ 2.130/266
vs
920 @ 2.8/200

I pretty much think Jeff pretty much summed it all up with the simple phrase:

"Speed is relevant when comparing CPUs of the same architecture- Core 2 vs Core 2, P4 vs P4. Not Core 2 vs P4."

Couldn't say it better myself.. Nicely said.