The machine you have should be plenty good for general use
and I'd say not to build a new machine unless you really need to.
OTOH: If you are running some CPU intensive applications such as Photoshop,
then don't even think of some equivalent machine...
by all means go with a dual core.
As to Intel vs AMD...just go for what gives you the best specs for the
money.
The machine you have should be plenty good for general use
and I'd say not to build a new machine unless you really need to.
OTOH: If you are running some CPU intensive applications such as
Photoshop,
then don't even think of some equivalent machine...
by all means go with a dual core.
As to Intel vs AMD...just go for what gives you the best specs for the
money.
Which dual core matches the P4 3Ghz? This will give me a starting
point for a backup and I can go higher from there if I go the
replacement route replacement.
Am I missing something? What is the point of building a new machine that
will match the old one? Just use the old one!
Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I
can choose one that is faster?
<<snip>>Ken said:Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I
can choose one that is faster?
Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I
can choose one that is faster?
----------------
The only Intel CPU that "Matches" the P4 3Ghz, is the
P4 3Ghz. How could it be otherwise?
There is no reason for Intel to make a "new" CPU that
"matches" one of their old CPUs.
Do you mean a "new" CPU that costs about the same as
the P4 3Ghz? Do you mean the cheapest one that has
similar performance? (There are new features that the
P4 never had and some of them replaced features of the
P4, so there is no direct way to match the new to the old.)
For some types of processing a "slower" speed multi-
core CPU will out perform a faster single core CPU. The
opposite is true for some others. Most newer multi-
threaded programs and especially those that have been
written to take advantage of multi-core CPUs, can show
significant improvements.
Most people approach this from a different angle, by
establishing not only their minimum performance
requirements; but also some idea of the amount of
money they are looking to spend on the upgrade as a
whole. It is a sad fact that one upgrade will often require
a number of others to arrive at a working system.
Changing a CPU will often mean a new Motherboard (MB)
and often a new type of memory. Many feel that if they
are upgrading their old AGP graphics equipped MB, it is a
good idea to replace it with a new PCI-e equipped MB, so
a new Videocard may be needed, as well. Sometimes
such a new system will require a new, likely bigger power
supply, to meet the requirements of these additions.
So, like most GoogleGroups posters, you seem to be
frustrated because your "simple" question doesn't get
you an instant response. And you can't understand why
we keep asking you to clarify what it is you really want.
At some point we get tired of playing "twenty questions"
to get to the factors that are really in play.
Luck;
Ken
This chart will give you some idea of how CPUs rank:
<http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html>
<http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php>
<<snip>>
Ken, what he is trying to determine, is what products
are faster than his 3GHz P4. So, to answer the question,
if someone tells him what Core2 processor or Athlon64 X2
is the minimum that meets the criterion, then he can
shop for something better than that, for his new system.
For example, a Core2 processor running at 2GHz or an
Athlon64 X2 running at 2GHz, would be roughly equivalent
to a P4 at 3GHz. The reason they should be dual core
or better, is to give the same "smoothness" that a
P4 with Hyperthreading has. (I've been experimenting
with this the last couple days, and I still haven't
been able to keep a single core Athlon from hesitating,
so going dual core is important. My P4 doesn't make
the same hesitations that the Athlon one does.)
I wanted to post an answer earlier, and offer the
charts on Tomshardware as a way to make a selection,
except they ruined the only remaining single threaded
benchmark. Now, there is no way to make a fair
comparison between a P4 and the latest processors.
So I gave up on answering the question. My 1.5x number
above is based on previous (conservative) estimates
of how much more IPC the new processors offer. The
Athlon64 X2 is about 1.5x, while the Core2 ranges
somewhere between 1.5x, 1.8x or 2.0x, depending on
the benchmark being used.
I think the Athlon64 X2 3800+ runs at 2GHz, and
thus it is the closest thing that won't disappoint
the owner of a P4 3GHz previous computer.
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=64
Anything above the E4400 in this chart, would match
or exceed the P4 3GHz.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2558
This E8400 is $170, and would be a significant upgrade.
It runs at 3GHz, and multiplying by 1.5x gives "4.5GHz+"
as the minimum performance level.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037
For comparison, this Athlon64 X2 6400+ is $119 on sale. It
isn't nearly as good as the E8400, and also uses more
power (125W). It runs at 3.2GHz, so on paper at least,
is in the same class as the E8400. But the pricing
tells you its relative worth. This particular product is
an OEM (tray) processor, so you need to purchase a heatsink
separately. And at 125W, depending on your aversion to
noise, you can probably spend another $50 on your favorite
brand of after-market cooling solution.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103290
For some comparisons,
Pentium 4 3.0Ghz Northwood @ 3000mhz, SuperPI 32M takes 52min 17.57secondshttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=616571
Core 2 E8400 (3.0Ghz @ 3000mhz), SuperPI 32M takes 32min 26secondshttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=768991
Athlon 64 6400+ X2 @ 3215mhz, SuperPI 32M takes 24min 21.34seconds
(And I haven't a clue as to why it is so fast. SuperPI is single threaded..
But it would take me too long to find a better benchmark than this,
one that is "pure" and doesn't rely on a graphics card or disk.)
http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702991
Rather than me try any more data mining on the hwbot site (as
I'm pretty bad at it), this page and accompanying chart tells
the story pretty well.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-shootout_9.html
Here, the E8400 thrashes the 6400+. This is a price / performance chart.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/dualcore-shootout/additional/price...
Paul
There's a reason why most people don't pick a CPU like this
- because there is no universal translator, it depends quite
a lot on the jobs you run, the versions of the applications,
how heavily you multitask, whether you entertain any notions
of overclocking, etc.
Generally the better way to approach the topic is to look at
the total budget for the new system and within that budget,
determining what is an appropriate CPU such that it is
reasonably matched to the rest of the parts. For example,
higher end CPU and 2GB memory isn't such a great match.
Lower end CPU and high end video card wouldn't be either.
A general recommendation that is a good value might be
something like a Q9400 @ $270, or an E8400 @ $170, E7200 @
$120. To see a rough comparison of the tiering so you can
pick relatively, see this chart:http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-06/9a.png
Your P4/3GHz would fall (depending on the task/benchmark
used to compare) roughly into the "Value 1" segment.
Andy said:This chart will give you some idea of how CPUs rank:
<http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html>
<http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php>
Off of that chart I was thinking of something that was around 3 to 4The problem I have with those Passmark charts, is they
combine the performance advantage of multiple cores.
To avoid disappointment in a new purchase, what you
want is a single thread benchmark - that is indicative
of how old software will perform on a new processor.
To give an example, another poster recently upgraded from an AthlonXP
3200+ overclocked to 3500+ level. Then, they purchase a
Phenom quad core, each core around 2200MHz or so. Which means
one core on the Phenom is the equivalent to the AthlonXP.
When they tried their software, the new processor felt
"no faster" than the old one. The thing is, unlike virtually
all the benchmarks on Tomshardware, or that Passmark result
page, the old software only uses one core. So in terms of
"desktop experience", the charts won't be good at predicting
the results.
That is why I propose a processor with a bit higher clock
rate as a selection, in case the software being used isn't
multithreaded like all the crap on Tomshardware. I know
my softwsre collection has stabilized over the years,
and the only thing that really uses multiple cores at
once, is Photoshop, or the odd game. The Tomshardware
chart would have you believe, that when you upgrade the
processor, you change all the software to the latest
and greatest.
Paul
Built a P4 several years ago and was thinking about building a
replacment or backup unit. What is equivalent in todays Intel and AMD
processor that would equal a P4 478 socket 3Ghz machine?
<<snip>>
Ken, what he is trying to determine, is what products
are faster than his 3GHz P4. So, to answer the question,
if someone tells him what Core2 processor or Athlon64 X2
is the minimum that meets the criterion, then he can
shop for something better than that, for his new system.
For example, a Core2 processor running at 2GHz or an
Athlon64 X2 running at 2GHz, would be roughly equivalent
to a P4 at 3GHz. The reason they should be dual core
or better, is to give the same "smoothness" that a
P4 with Hyperthreading has. (I've been experimenting
with this the last couple days, and I still haven't
been able to keep a single core Athlon from hesitating,
so going dual core is important. My P4 doesn't make
the same hesitations that the Athlon one does.)
I wanted to post an answer earlier, and offer the
charts on Tomshardware as a way to make a selection,
except they ruined the only remaining single threaded
benchmark. Now, there is no way to make a fair
comparison between a P4 and the latest processors.
So I gave up on answering the question. My 1.5x number
above is based on previous (conservative) estimates
of how much more IPC the new processors offer. The
Athlon64 X2 is about 1.5x, while the Core2 ranges
somewhere between 1.5x, 1.8x or 2.0x, depending on
the benchmark being used.
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed:<<snip>>
Ken, what he is trying to determine, is what products
are faster than his 3GHz P4. So, to answer the question,
if someone tells him what Core2 processor or Athlon64 X2
is the minimum that meets the criterion, then he can
shop for something better than that, for his new system.
For example, a Core2 processor running at 2GHz or an
Athlon64 X2 running at 2GHz, would be roughly equivalent
to a P4 at 3GHz. The reason they should be dual core
or better, is to give the same "smoothness" that a
P4 with Hyperthreading has. (I've been experimenting
with this the last couple days, and I still haven't
been able to keep a single core Athlon from hesitating,
so going dual core is important. My P4 doesn't make
the same hesitations that the Athlon one does.)
I wanted to post an answer earlier, and offer the
charts on Tomshardware as a way to make a selection,
except they ruined the only remaining single threaded
benchmark. Now, there is no way to make a fair
comparison between a P4 and the latest processors.
So I gave up on answering the question. My 1.5x number
above is based on previous (conservative) estimates
of how much more IPC the new processors offer. The
Athlon64 X2 is about 1.5x, while the Core2 ranges
somewhere between 1.5x, 1.8x or 2.0x, depending on
the benchmark being used.
[snip]
Paul, that's all good. However, I benchmarked a Celeron 420 1.6GHz
and it came out slightly ahead of an Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz).
As the Athlon was faster at most things than a 3GHz P4 then your list
of CPUs should start at the Celly 420. As I mentioned earlier, the
dual core Atom might even give the P4 a run for it's money.
I've been tempted by this for a while now:
http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=8114843
It's something silly like 2W for the CPU, it doesn't even need a fan.
The northbridge has a higher TDP than the CPU. I have a friend who
bought one and a single core benchmark comes out at about the same as
a Tualatin Celly 1.4GHz, so double that.
Would make an awesomely efficient email / newsgroups / web browsing /
torrenting...... machine. He says that even the integrated graphics
are more than adequate for all 2D stuff he's thrown at it on a 22"
LCD. Running XP Pro, a single 2GB stick of RAM that cost <$50...
I still want one. It'd do 90% or what I use my machine for at about
10% of the power consumption.