Intel Core 2 Duo performance

Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...

From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.

EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
That is certainly the impression I get.

Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?

A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?

Core 2 Duo's run MUCH cooler than Pentium 4's and especially cooler than
Pentium D's. Dual core CPU's run your system faster, despite lower rated
core speeds, when you multitask by doing two system chores at once, by
having each core take over one of the tasks. If you are a simple computer
user that always only does one task at a time, then the older Pentium 4's
might be a little faster, barely.

--

DaveW

___________
"hummingbird" <hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote in message
news:m7it03toc183s08fhvc14cck5abl7bn4jd@4ax.com...
> Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>
> From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
> I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
> to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>
> EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
> That is certainly the impression I get.
>
> Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
> If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?
>
> A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
> P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?

hummingbird wrote:
> Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>
> From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
> I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
> to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>
> EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
> That is certainly the impression I get.
>
> Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
> If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?
>
> A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
> P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?

P4 935 dual core 3.2GHz 2MB cache per core 95W power
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9QR

P4 925 dual core 3.0GHz 2MB cache per core 95W power
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9D9

E4300 Core2 Duo 1.8GHz 1MB cache per core 65W power
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9TB

Now, compare the performance. E4300 finishes the job faster
than the D 925 or the D 935. Clock for clock, the Core2 duo
is faster. Such a property is called a "higher IPC" or instructions
per clock. It is the clock rate times the IPC that measures how
much work the processor can do. It is OK to have a lower clock,
if you have a higher IPC to go with it. And those processors can
still be overclocked as well, if you have the right motherboard.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...roundup_7.html

Paul

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:58:10 +0100, hummingbird
<hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote:

>Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>
>From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
>I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
>to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>
>EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
>That is certainly the impression I get.
>
>Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
>If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?
>
>A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
>P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?


Forget a CPU upgrade, get internet access as there a zillion
benchmarks and comparison after comparison to be found via
basic search engine - far moreso than could be covered in a
single usenet thread.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:35:04 -0700 'DaveW'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>Core 2 Duo's run MUCH cooler than Pentium 4's and especially cooler than
>Pentium D's. Dual core CPU's run your system faster, despite lower rated
>core speeds, when you multitask by doing two system chores at once, by
>having each core take over one of the tasks. If you are a simple computer
>user that always only does one task at a time, then the older Pentium 4's
>might be a little faster, barely.

Many thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

What is of great interest to me are the cooler temps of Core 2.
My current Prescott P4 3.0GHz simply overheats too much, idling
at 50C and when given any real work to do, goes up to 66-69C,
despite having plenty of internal fans.

Spybot S&D is one program which pushes up the temp very quickly
to 69C. Adobe Audition is another when processing large wavfiles.

*all temps as per Speedfan.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:57:16 -0500 'Paul'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>hummingbird wrote:
>> Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>>
>> From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
>> I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
>> to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>>
>> EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
>> That is certainly the impression I get.
>>
>> Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
>> If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?
>>
>> A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
>> P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?
>
>P4 935 dual core 3.2GHz 2MB cache per core 95W power
>http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9QR
>
>P4 925 dual core 3.0GHz 2MB cache per core 95W power
>http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9D9
>
>E4300 Core2 Duo 1.8GHz 1MB cache per core 65W power
>http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9TB
>
>Now, compare the performance. E4300 finishes the job faster
>than the D 925 or the D 935. Clock for clock, the Core2 duo
>is faster. Such a property is called a "higher IPC" or instructions
>per clock. It is the clock rate times the IPC that measures how
>much work the processor can do. It is OK to have a lower clock,
>if you have a higher IPC to go with it. And those processors can
>still be overclocked as well, if you have the right motherboard.
>
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...roundup_7.html


Many thanks for those helpful links and explanations Paul - some
valuable info reading in there for me.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:37:07 -0400 'kony'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:58:10 +0100, hummingbird
><hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>>
>>From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
>>I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
>>to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>>
>>EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
>>That is certainly the impression I get.
>>
>>Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
>>If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?
>>
>>A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
>>P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?
>
>
>Forget a CPU upgrade, get internet access as there a zillion
>benchmarks and comparison after comparison to be found via
>basic search engine - far moreso than could be covered in a
>single usenet thread.

Thanks but understanding some of the tech jargon in reports is
often a problem, hence my request here for some plain opinions.

Several responses have confirmed what I suspected: Core 2 Duos
often run faster than equivalent GHz rated P4s and of great
importance to me is that they run cooler.

I think my choice is clear - the next build will be a Core 2 Duo.
Prices will determine which model.

hummingbird wrote:
> Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>
> From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
> I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
> to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>
> EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
> That is certainly the impression I get.
>
> Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
> If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?

Tom's interactive CPU charts are nice:
<http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html>
<http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/21/cpu_charts_summer_2006/>

>
> A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
> P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?

Yes - less power consumption, less heat.

Roy

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 04:05:14 +0200 'Roy Coorne'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>hummingbird wrote:
>> Hi, I'm planning a new DIY system over the coming months and...
>>
>> From reading several reports and tests about these new processors,
>> I get the impression that their GHz ratings are not easily comparable
>> to earlier P4s and Pentium D processors which they mainly replace.
>>
>> EG: a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo might not be slower than a P4 3.0GHz.
>> That is certainly the impression I get.
>>
>> Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
>> If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?
>
>Tom's interactive CPU charts are nice:
><http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html>
><http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/21/cpu_charts_summer_2006/>
>
>>
>> A second question is whether Core 2 Duos run much cooler than
>> P4s and Pentium Ds. Is that right?
>
>Yes - less power consumption, less heat.
>
>Roy

Thanks. That's amazing.

I compared the time for a 3GHz Pentium 930 -vs- a 2.13GHz Core 2 E6400
to encode a 53min MP3. P930 takes 4:43m and the Core 2 takes 3:10m.

That makes the Core 2 much faster despite a lower clock speed.

The lower heat output of Core 2s is also v/important to me, so I think
the only remaining question is which credit card do I use!!! ;-)

> Am I right or have or I missed summat vital?
> If true, is there a comparison of relative performance anywhere?

Years ago the clock speed was probably the most important factor in
determining a CPU's performance. But nowadays it is much less important.

CPU architectures have changed so lower clock speed chips often perform
better than older higher clock speed chips.

There is a good chart here, More than 10,000 systems have been tested
covering more than 300 types of
CPUs.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Enjoy
David