duoII vs pentium 4

[Mtlman]

I have a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 - 560 w/HT technology 1 mb cache - 800 FSB, which Intel Core 2 Duo processor would be the equal?

E6300 - 2MB L2 Cache,1.86GHz,1066 FSB
E6400 - 2MB L2 Cache,2.13GHz,1066 FSB
E6600 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB
E6700 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB

Thanks in advance!

 

[shinigamiX]

Every single one of those processors would perform much better, consume much less power, and run much cooler. The lower clock speeds may make the Core 2 Duos seem slower on paper but the microarchitecture on which they are based is extremely efficient and powerful - PLUS they are all dual-core. Check out the THG CPU charts for more detailed comparisons.

 

[turboflame]

Yeah thats pretty much it, none of them are the equal since the P4 would get wasted by the e6300. Dual core > HT, 1.86 core 2 duo ghz > 3.6 P4 ghz, 1066 fsb > 800fsb, you get the picture

 

[Heyyou27]

I have a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 - 560 w/HT technology 1 mb cache - 800 FSB, which Intel Core 2 Duo processor would be the equal?

E6300 - 2MB L2 Cache,1.86GHz,1066 FSB
E6400 - 2MB L2 Cache,2.13GHz,1066 FSB
E6600 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB
E6700 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB

Thanks in advance!

None, all of the other processors you listed are faster than the Pentium 4. The E6300 is generally faster than the Pentium X 965EE, the fastest netburst dual core released.

 

[Mtlman]

Check out the THG CPU charts for more detailed comparisons.

I don't see the E6300 listed.

E6400 = 2.17
P4 (prescott) = 2:24

 

[sirheck]

like everyone else has said the c2d,s are the way to go.

 

[Mtlman]

I have a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 - 560 w/HT technology 1 mb cache - 800 FSB, which Intel Core 2 Duo processor would be the equal?

E6300 - 2MB L2 Cache,1.86GHz,1066 FSB
E6400 - 2MB L2 Cache,2.13GHz,1066 FSB
E6600 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB
E6700 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB

Thanks in advance!

Ok, I got the computer with a 1.86 GHz CPU and 2GB memory and I have a program that use to take 1 second to open now takes 6...I know it's not that much time but it seems like the program just hangs.

Everything just about is disabled at startup, I'm just thinking my P4 had more nuts than the 1.86.

thanks

 

[evilr00t]

that's not a CPU issue then

 

[Mtlman]

I have less software on this machine then I did with the original.

 

[georgelawton]

I have a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 - 560 w/HT technology 1 mb cache - 800 FSB, which Intel Core 2 Duo processor would be the equal?

E6300 - 2MB L2 Cache,1.86GHz,1066 FSB
E6400 - 2MB L2 Cache,2.13GHz,1066 FSB
E6600 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB
E6700 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB

Thanks in advance!

there is no c2d equal to a p4 560 dude. the lowest e6300 would smash it into pieces, put it in a box, mail the box to it-self, then smash the box into more pieces, without looking inside.

 

[georgelawton]

I have a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 - 560 w/HT technology 1 mb cache - 800 FSB, which Intel Core 2 Duo processor would be the equal?

E6300 - 2MB L2 Cache,1.86GHz,1066 FSB
E6400 - 2MB L2 Cache,2.13GHz,1066 FSB
E6600 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB
E6700 - 4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB

Thanks in advance!

Ok, I got the computer with a 1.86 GHz CPU and 2GB memory and I have a program that use to take 1 second to open now takes 6...I know it's not that much time but it seems like the program just hangs.

Everything just about is disabled at startup, I'm just thinking my P4 had more nuts than the 1.86.

thanks

lose the dell, all the pre installed software from where ever you bought it from is killin it softly.

 

[Mtlman]

Ok, then any suggestions on why certain programs take longer to load and why IE 6.0 takes a month longer to unload the history cache?

 

[Mtlman]

I don't have hardly any preloaded software on here...Could it be the original system had the Intel MB and Chipset and this one has the nVidia chipset?

 

[Heyyou27]

Ok, I got the computer with a 1.86 GHz CPU and 2GB memory and I have a program that use to take 1 second to open now takes 6...I know it's not that much time but it seems like the program just hangs.

Everything just about is disabled at startup, I'm just thinking my P4 had more nuts than the 1.86.

thanks

You mean you bought the E6300 and it's slower than your Pentium 4? Did you also get a slower hard drive as well because the E6300 even outperforms the Pentium X 965EE in most applications.

 

[Mtlman]

You mean you bought the E6300 and it's slower than your Pentium 4?

It seems that way when I load certain software.

Did you also get a slower hard drive as well because the E6300 even outperforms the Pentium X 965EE in most applications.

Both systems have 10,000 RPM drives in a RAID 0 configuration.

 

[lltfdaniel]

your p4 would blow dual core out the water on programs that don't support dual core(or be equal in a way against the top end dual core..or a bit slower or faster anyways),plus this dual core stuff is new, and programs will eventually come out to support dual core.

 

[darkhorror]

your p4 would blow dual core out the water on programs that don't support dual core(or be equal in a way against the top end dual core..or a bit slower or faster anyways),plus this dual core stuff is new, and programs will eventually come out to support dual core.

Don't listen to this, he has no clue what he is talking about.

It's something else in your system causing the slow down, the CPU is faster than the P4.

 

[lltfdaniel]

no i don't know what im talking about, its like a p4 processer with ht, and a program with out ht programing,to take advantage of it.

 

[lltfdaniel]

you know ...dual core benchmarks, useing programs that support dual core o so it takes advantage of 2 cores,noo not like oblivion, since it was ported from the console,it was not programed for dual core,simply put,

now like a game like quake, it got a patch so the PROGRAM Can take advantage of dual core,

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/




,

nah man i don't know what im talking about,

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=216&page=1

now you see, what im talking is a single core vs a dual core processer (on a program with out dual core programing,)

 

[BustedSony]

I don't have hardly any preloaded software on here...Could it be the original system had the Intel MB and Chipset and this one has the nVidia chipset?

Yes, the Intel chipset had native support in XP (more or less, once the Intel .inf utility is run) whereas there are no drivers for the Nvidia chipset in XP. It will RUN, but badly. Install all the chipset drivers from the Motherboard CD.

I should add that you should make sure there are no exclamation marks in Device Manager, showing a device without its drivers installed. The C2D will blow away any Pentium, but having a brand new motherboard chipset presents its own problems when installing the now very old XP operating system.

 

[skud]

is that question a joke?

 

[darkhorror]

you know ...dual core benchmarks, useing programs that support dual core o so it takes advantage of 2 cores,noo not like oblivion, since it was ported from the console,it was not programed for dual core,simply put,

now like a game like quake, it got a patch so the PROGRAM Can take advantage of dual core,

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/




,

nah man i don't know what im talking about,

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=216&page=1

now you see, what im talking is a single core vs a dual core processer (on a program with out dual core programing,)

He isn't compairing a P4 to a dual core P4, but to a Core 2 Duo. Even on single core performance the Core 2 duo at 1.86ghz is faster than his P4 at 3.6ghz.

 

[Heyyou27]

your p4 would blow dual core out the water on programs that don't support dual core(or be equal in a way against the top end dual core..or a bit slower or faster anyways),plus this dual core stuff is new, and programs will eventually come out to support dual core.

That's not at all accurate. Even a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 would get beaten by an E6300 in just about EVERY benchmark you'll ever find. Heating your home is the only thing the Pentium 4 is better in than the Core 2 Duo.

 

[redwing]

In your case, it wouldn't make sense to me to upgrade to anything less than an E6600. Unless you really want to go dual-core, or have a system that can run much quieter (due to less cooling needed), you will not see that mind-blowing increase in your single threaded apps (most games).

A core2duo is no doubt a worthy upgrade, but you have to remember that most people here don't necessarily upgrade because they have to, but mostly because they can/want to.

I honestly think your system has enough juice left to serve you for another year or two, unless you are making use of professional editing apps that are coded to take advantage of multithreading. That said, if you've decided to upgrade now, go for the 4mb cache models of the core2s, unless you plan on heavy OC'ing.

Just my 2c,

cheers.

 

[randomizer]

And besides, even if aa program cant use both cores, windows can. So windows will use one core and the program will use the other, so you dont have window's useless background processes hurting your performance. Also, have you ever compared alt-tabbing out of a game on a single vs dual core?