Pentium Duo and speed question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simon
  • Start date Start date
S

Simon

Is a Pentium dual processor with a speed of less than 2 GHz faster
than a Pentium single processor with a speed of over 3 GHz? If not,
why is it more expensive?

I am looking for a PC for my wife and don't really know what to get.
My own PC is a Pentium duo 3.4 GHz but I can't find it for sale
anywhere.
 
It depends on how you use it. Yes, it can be faster.
Whether or not it's the "right" computer depends on what she does with it.
My wife basically uses her computer for web browsing, email and online
banking. Doesn't have to buy the latest and greatest for that.
 
Simon said:
s a Pentium dual processor with a speed of less than 2 GHz faster
than a Pentium single processor with a speed of over 3 GHz? If not,
why is it more expensive?
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, a dual processor (or dual core) can do two things at
once, while a single processor does them one at a time. So, if you are
running two processor intensive tasks a twin 2GHz will give you an
effective 4GHz and so will appear faster than a single 3GHz processor
running the two applications one after the other.

On the other hand, if you only run one main application at a time, a
single 3GHz processor will appear faster.

As an aside, I find that a dual processor machine always feels more
"responsive" even if jobs take just as long to finish. Now that
dual-core has gone mainstream, I cannot conceive of ever buying a
single-core machine again.

Regards, Andrew Borland (UK)
 
did you check here.

http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/



(e-mail address removed)



Is a Pentium dual processor with a speed of less than 2 GHz faster
than a Pentium single processor with a speed of over 3 GHz? If not,
why is it more expensive?

I am looking for a PC for my wife and don't really know what to get.
My own PC is a Pentium duo 3.4 GHz but I can't find it for sale
anywhere.
 
Is a Pentium dual processor with a speed of less than 2 GHz faster
than a Pentium single processor with a speed of over 3 GHz? If not,
why is it more expensive?

I am looking for a PC for my wife and don't really know what to get.
My own PC is a Pentium duo 3.4 GHz but I can't find it for sale
anywhere.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with XP and interaction with the h/w?
 
NoConsequence said:
What does this have to do with XP and interaction with the h/w?
Click to expand...

Since how the CPU interacts with XP IS hardware related I find the
question very relevant. I am also looking at maybe upgrading my CPU for
running XP but want to know if the change will be a step backwards or
not. There was a very noticeable increase in responsiveness with XP
changing from a 2 GHz Pentium 4 to a 3.4 GHz Pentium with
HyperThreading, especially on long data conversions. I am looking at
the Core2 Duo CPUs to see if I can get a quieter machine without losing
the responsiveness I got with the HyperThreading.
Maybe you should quit trying to be a net Nazi and either start
contributing something useful to the thread or ignore it.
 
Since how the CPU interacts with XP IS hardware related I find the
question very relevant. I am also looking at maybe upgrading my CPU for
running XP but want to know if the change will be a step backwards or
not. There was a very noticeable increase in responsiveness with XP
changing from a 2 GHz Pentium 4 to a 3.4 GHz Pentium with
HyperThreading, especially on long data conversions. I am looking at
the Core2 Duo CPUs to see if I can get a quieter machine without losing
the responsiveness I got with the HyperThreading.
Maybe you should quit trying to be a net Nazi and either start
contributing something useful to the thread or ignore it.
Click to expand...

You see wrong. How fast the processor runs is not a function of the
OS. Hence, XP doesn't control it.

Ask in a h/w group NOT related to the OS.
Buh-bye.
 
If you want a direct comparaison of your older Pentium D running at 3.4GHz
against the newer Core 2 Duo E6600 running at *only* 2.4GHz, you can take a
look at the following reviews:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

You will see that the difference in price is more than justified. (BTW,
Intel has stopped the fabrication of the Pentium D many, many months ago, so
it's no wonder why you can't find it for sale anymore.)
 
For an exemple, at the page
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=8 , the general
performance of SYSmark 2004 is practically the same between the Intel
Pentium Extreme XE 965 running at 3.73 GHz and the Core 2 Duo E6300 running
at 1.86GHz: 256 versus 255.

Like they said, with this range of performance, the old lineup of Pentium D
processors is now nothing else than an embarrassement.
 
NoConsequence said:
You see wrong. How fast the processor runs is not a function of the
OS. Hence, XP doesn't control it.

Ask in a h/w group NOT related to the OS.
Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reading or comprehension problem along with your anal
retentiveness??? The posts ask whether processor A will have a
difference compared to processor B while using XP. Obviously the
processor does make a difference with XP. In the good old days of DOS
3.x CPU speed mattered, but these days the processors and the OS are so
complicated that the interactions between them is not readily apparent.
Since Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, has not posted a
comprehensive guide to CPUs and XP performance the only other place to
ask is here regardless of what you want.
 
Sylvain said:
If you want a direct comparaison of your older Pentium D running at 3.4GHz
against the newer Core 2 Duo E6600 running at *only* 2.4GHz, you can take a
look at the following reviews:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

You will see that the difference in price is more than justified. (BTW,
Intel has stopped the fabrication of the Pentium D many, many months ago, so
it's no wonder why you can't find it for sale anymore.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I have a 550 processor so I guess that it is even
worse in the tests than the 950. This is what I was looking for but
there is so much "noise" out there finding good information is hard.
 
The 550? This is a single core Pentium 4. You should give this old machine
to your wife and buy instead a Core 2 Duo for yourself. Even a very low
priced Core 2 Duo installation will leave the 550 in the dust.
 
Sylvain said:
The 550? This is a single core Pentium 4. You should give this old machine
to your wife and buy instead a Core 2 Duo for yourself. Even a very low
priced Core 2 Duo installation will leave the 550 in the dust.
Click to expand...

The HyperThreading made it much faster than the 2 GHz Pentium 4 that it
replaced. I hate the noise level from the CPU as I have to use a
Thermaltake Cyclone cooler to keep the temperature low enough. My main
concern with upgrading was keeping at least the same level of
performance. I wasn't sure if the much slower Core 2 CPUs would perform
the same in single-threaded tasks but it appears they do.
 
Do you have a reading or comprehension problem along with your anal
retentiveness??? The posts ask whether processor A will have a
difference compared to processor B while using XP. Obviously the
processor does make a difference with XP. In the good old days of DOS
3.x CPU speed mattered, but these days the processors and the OS are so
complicated that the interactions between them is not readily apparent.
Since Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, has not posted a
comprehensive guide to CPUs and XP performance the only other place to
ask is here regardless of what you want.
Click to expand...

No, you are an idiot. The OS has NO control over how fast the
processor runs. NONE. NADA. ZIP. As such, how fast the processor
runs has NOTHING to do with the OS and as such, this post does NOT
belong here.
 
NoConsequence said:
No, you are an idiot. The OS has NO control over how fast the
processor runs. NONE. NADA. ZIP. As such, how fast the processor
runs has NOTHING to do with the OS and as such, this post does NOT
belong here.
Click to expand...

Are you really that clueless??? The OS has a great amount of control
over the processor and the processor, likewise, has a lot to do with how
well the OS runs. A Core 2 Duo processor will run DOS 3.3 no better
than the 8088 I used in those days other than the increase in speed of
some operations. There is no way in hell that same 8088 could run XP
Pro. The memory on the motherboard was a maximum of 64 KB and the hard
drive had a massive 40 MB.
Microsoft Operating Systems have always required a lot out of the
hardware, far more than any of the Unix clones, and making sure that the
requisite hardware in place is no easy task. The only way to find out
is to ask questions of those who have braved the bleeding edge to find
out what works, what doesn't work, and what may work if the signs are
right. Your blathering that this discussion does not belong in a PUBLIC
forum just shows how ignorant you are of these interactions.
 
No, you are an idiot. The OS has NO control over how fast the
processor runs. NONE. NADA. ZIP. As such, how fast the processor
runs has NOTHING to do with the OS and as such, this post does NOT
belong here.
Click to expand...

Huh. My XP system has complete control over the processor speed. There's
even a little widget in the system tray to control the clock speed. Imagine
that.

Maybe take a peek at wikipedia: speedstep.

-John O
 
Huh. My XP system has complete control over the processor speed. There's
even a little widget in the system tray to control the clock speed. Imagine
that.

Maybe take a peek at wikipedia: speedstep.

-John O
Click to expand...
Wikipedia? You pull out WIKIPEDIA as a reference? You do know any
idiot can edit ANYTHING in wikipedia, right?

Besides, speedstep is NOT something that is part of the OS; it's an
add-on, and as such, STILL does not belong on this group.
 
NoConsequence said:
Wikipedia? You pull out WIKIPEDIA as a reference? You do know any
idiot can edit ANYTHING in wikipedia, right?

Besides, speedstep is NOT something that is part of the OS; it's an
add-on, and as such, STILL does not belong on this group.
Click to expand...

Like ALL of your posts they are of "NoConsequence". Plonk
 
Wikipedia? You pull out WIKIPEDIA as a reference? You do know any
idiot can edit ANYTHING in wikipedia, right?
Click to expand...

Can you challenge the Wiki information on Speedstep? Go for it No, I'll wait
right here.....

<tapping foot while waiting on No>



Besides, speedstep is NOT something that is part of the OS; it's an
add-on, and as such, STILL does not belong on this group.
Click to expand...

If hardware/OS is a simple case of black or white, then why does this group
even exist?

And BTW, Microsoft fills these groups with MVPs. The *MVPs* fill the role of
netcop so plain old users like you (and me) don't have to. This is
Microsoft's group, and they'll handle the content. So rather than getting
all frothed up, just sit back and relax, and enjoy the conversation, OK?

-John O
 
JohnO said:
And BTW, Microsoft fills these groups with MVPs. The *MVPs* fill the role of
netcop so plain old users like you (and me) don't have to. This is
Microsoft's group, and they'll handle the content. So rather than getting
all frothed up, just sit back and relax, and enjoy the conversation, OK?

-John O
Click to expand...

Uh, most MVPs AFAIK are not employees of M$, and do not get marching orders
from M$ IMHO.

And, M$ is not responsible for the content of this NG. M$ merely supplies
the hardware/OS/tools to host this NG. While some M$ employees probably do
follow this NG, this is certainly not an official -- or even a reliable --
channel to M$ officialdom.
 
Back
Top