How does the P4 660 3.6g Costa Rica stack up against the Q6600

[epxterra]

Folks,

I have read multiple threads on here about how any multiple core CPU is better tha any of the late generation P4's, my question is, with a P4 660 Costa Rica, 3.6g, is it really that much worse than the Q6600? I have both CPU's and am considering sticking the P4 in place of the Q6600. Please keep the flaming down, I am an admitted noob to such things, I just know that the P4 was a monster when i was still using it. The Q6600 is not such a monster. Thanks.

 

[knotknut]

P4 660
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657681,00.html

Q6600
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic.php?imagenum=2&carnum=422

You decide.

 

[epxterra]

P4 660
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657681,00.html

Q6600
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic.php?imagenum=2&carnum=422

You decide.

Sir,

That is quite possibly the best answer ive ever gotten to a public question. So it really is that much slower for a CPU intensive program (Flight Simulator X)? I can understand the multimedia thing, was just curious as to the difference, which you so eloquently pointed out, thank you.

 

[knotknut]

I found this basic and simple explanation:

IPC = instructions per clock.
Performance = Clock x IPC x Cores
Pentium 1-3 had 3 IPC.
AMD has always had 3 IPC.
Pentium 4 had 2 IPC (Reason why an Athlon XP clocked much lower than a Pentium 4 could beat a Pentium 4.)
Pentium M had 3 IPC.
Core 2 has 4 IPC (Reason why a Core 2 clocked much lower than a Phenom can beat that Phenom.)

Similar thing goes on with GPU's, though I don't know the IPC off hand. I do know nVidia's is higher than AMD's and the GT200 increased it 50% over the G92/G80.

AMD was real big about advertising IPC when Intel tried to pull "clock speed is all that matters" when they launched P4.