Trying to understand dual core processors

  • Thread starter Thread starter muzician21
  • Start date Start date
M

muzician21

Trying to understand the breakdown of things as far as dual core
systems. Things got a little murky for me since it isn't simply
Pentium -whatever- and an ever higher gig number.

I've got a 2.4 gig P4. How does that compare both to early dual cores
and to whatever the current fastest processors are?

Is there good a site that shows the breakdown of things as far as the
history of processors to present day?

Thanks
 
muzician21 said:
Trying to understand the breakdown of things as far as dual core
systems. Things got a little murky for me since it isn't simply
Pentium -whatever- and an ever higher gig number.

I've got a 2.4 gig P4. How does that compare both to early dual cores
and to whatever the current fastest processors are?

Is there good a site that shows the breakdown of things as far as the
history of processors to present day?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Modern Core2 family processors and Athlon64 processors, are roughly
1.5x faster per clock cycle, compared to a Pentium 4. So the clock
can be lower on a modern processor, and it will be just as good
or better.

If you had a Pentium 4 at 3.6GHz, a single core of a 2.4GHz Core2
Dual Core processor would match it. The conversion factor is somewhere
between 1.5x and 1.8x or so. I quote 1.5x to people, so they won't be
disappointed when they buy it.

Occasionally, you can run into a pathological situation, where
some code doesn't run well on a Core2. In that case, the Core2
can slow down to the speed of the Pentium 4, losing its advantage.
But in many situations, the 1.5x to 1.8x is what you'd expect.

So if you buy an E8600 3.33GHz processor, a single core of that
would be equal to a P4 at 5GHz+. And that one costs $270.

In some situations, a single program can run on two cores. Photoshop
is an example of a program that does that. But programs like
Microsoft Word/Excel/Powerpoint or other old programs, are less
likely to use both cores. Multimedia programs are more likely
to be multithreaded like Photoshop (video editing, transcoding etc).
That is when the extra cores really help.

The benchmark charts you typically find on enthusiast sites, don't
cover enough generations of processors, to make useful comparisons
possible. They don't like to put a P4 on the same chart as a Core2.

HTH,
Paul
 
Paul said:
The benchmark charts you typically find on enthusiast sites, don't
cover enough generations of processors, to make useful comparisons
possible. They don't like to put a P4 on the same chart as a Core2.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that with video card reviews as well. Kinda frustrating when
you're trying to compare different generations of products.

Jon
 
Why don't you try a search engine ?
I just tried one (Google) on your behalf. Entering "history of processors
to present day" which produced a return of:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,650,000 for history

of processors

to present day

.. (0.27 seconds)

Why don't you try it as well ?
 
muzician21 said:
Trying to understand the breakdown of things as far as dual core
systems. Things got a little murky for me since it isn't simply
Pentium -whatever- and an ever higher gig number.

I've got a 2.4 gig P4. How does that compare both to early dual cores
and to whatever the current fastest processors are?

Is there good a site that shows the breakdown of things as far as the
history of processors to present day?

Thanks
Click to expand...

any good A+ certification book will have a history of cpu development
depends on how deep you want to go. Michael Meyers A+ book is extremely
comprehensive very detailed on all subject matter including cpu history
Just make sure you get the latest if you want the latest info
here's a free study guide page showing up through the dual cores
http://www.mcmcse.com/comptia/aplus/notes/aplus_processors.shtml
A+ has 2 parts hardware and software. Cpu history will be in the hardware
section
 
All of you mucking forons could have dropped alt.windows-xp from the
address, but...........
 
Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
how to use google.

Do a search with these terms:
Multi Core
dual core vs quad core
dual core, gaming

Then there is the issues of compatibility - appropriate slot!
Cooling, overclocking. Etc
Do your own searching.
Click to expand...

"Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
how to use google."
Favourite expression of yours, "strange person".
It's maybe just as well you change your name so often, shit-for-
brainz.
That Troll & UnWise One, Ronnie Kray, Nancy, Ken.......is Barbie Next?
Do you have a "gender" problem? Like it's "that day of the month"? Hit
out at all "definite" males/females? Jealous? What a prick(less?) ****
you are. I haven't yet seen ONE helpful suggestion issued from your
gaping shit-hole you use as a mouth. "Talking shit" takes on a whole
new concept after your crap. Don't be a total arsehole ALL your life.
Have a day off. :-)
 
sandy58 said:
"Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
how to use google."
Favourite expression of yours, "strange person".
It's maybe just as well you change your name so often, shit-for-
brainz.
That Troll & UnWise One, Ronnie Kray, Nancy, Ken.......is Barbie Next?
Do you have a "gender" problem? Like it's "that day of the month"? Hit
out at all "definite" males/females? Jealous? What a prick(less?) ****
you are. I haven't yet seen ONE helpful suggestion issued from your
gaping shit-hole you use as a mouth. "Talking shit" takes on a whole
new concept after your crap. Don't be a total arsehole ALL your life.
Have a day off. :-)
Click to expand...

How's sandy58 today :-)
 
muzician21 said:
Trying to understand the breakdown of things as far as dual core
systems. Things got a little murky for me since it isn't simply
Pentium -whatever- and an ever higher gig number.

I've got a 2.4 gig P4. How does that compare both to early dual cores
and to whatever the current fastest processors are?

Is there good a site that shows the breakdown of things as far as the
history of processors to present day?

Thanks
Click to expand...




Download, install and run Sisoft SANDRA.

You can see a comparison of your systems actual performance versus thousands
of other systems.
 
Colon said:
Download, install and run Sisoft SANDRA.

You can see a comparison of your systems actual performance versus
thousands of other systems.
Click to expand...

This was an excellent suggestion unlike the several entries prior. The
short answer of course is that the 2.4GHz P4 is much slower than dual core
CPUs even those at slower clock speeds. SANDRA will show this graphically
in its performance module, rating the subject system to average performance
of several other CPU types.
 
This might be a good discussion for alt.comp.hardware, but it's so far off
topic in alt.windows-xp as to be wasted bandwidth. I can guarantee that the
typical user cannot tell the difference between the speeds of machines
running P4's or Dual-Core processors. Word will look equally quick on both.

So, quit your ****ing cross-posting you stupid moron!!!!
 
muzician21 said:
Trying to understand the breakdown of things as far as dual core
systems. Things got a little murky for me since it isn't simply
Pentium -whatever- and an ever higher gig number.

I've got a 2.4 gig P4. How does that compare both to early dual cores
and to whatever the current fastest processors are?

Is there good a site that shows the breakdown of things as far as the
history of processors to present day?

Thanks
Click to expand...

My E7300 dual core is about 6 times quicker than my old system using an
AthlonXP 2.4Ghz on pure processing tasks like RAW conversion and video
encoding. P4s were only a little quicker generally, so perhaps there's a
5:1 ratio in performance approximately.
 
Steve said:
My E7300 dual core is about 6 times quicker than my old system using an
AthlonXP 2.4Ghz on pure processing tasks like RAW conversion and video
encoding. P4s were only a little quicker generally, so perhaps there's a
5:1 ratio in performance approximately.
Click to expand...

Stupid Bastard!
 
This might be a good discussion for alt.comp.hardware, but it's so far off
topic in alt.windows-xp as to be wasted bandwidth.
Click to expand...


Inasmuch as the apps will be run in Windows XP, it seemed it might be
cogent.

 I can guarantee that the
typical user cannot tell the difference between the speeds of machines
running P4's or Dual-Core processors.  Word will look equally quick on both.

So, quit your ****ing cross-posting you stupid moron!!!!
Click to expand...


And you're so incensed you figured you'd contribute non-informational
screed not once but twice. You apparently consider that a valid use of
"bandwidth".

And note how effective your self-appointed netkopping is.
 
Back
Top