A P4 3.2Ghz Prescott is Equivalent to What Core2Duo?

photoshop · 19 Mar 2008 at 13:23

As per topic. A 3.2Ghz Prescott is equiv to what modern intel core2duo processer?

Slinky1989 · 19 Mar 2008 at 13:26

None of them

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=904&model2=884&chart=435

The 1st one highlighted in red is the e2140 (near enough the lowest spec core 2). The second is your p4.

mattyrigby00 · 19 Mar 2008 at 13:35

even an e2140 ownz it

photoshop · 19 Mar 2008 at 13:38

haha thats funny as book. Damn its slow!
So a E2200 would trully bury it!

gt_junkie · 19 Mar 2008 at 13:53

Yup!

gt

Stonedofmoo · 19 Mar 2008 at 14:43

Its probably closest in performance to the slowest E1xxx series Celeron.

eyetrip · 19 Mar 2008 at 14:48

Didn't realise the P4's were quite that bad.

psycodelicmonti · 19 Mar 2008 at 15:20

photoshop said:
As per topic. A 3.2Ghz Prescott is equiv to what modern intel core2duo processer?

Heh, snap, Im looking to upgrade to a Q6600 though... Think Ill notice any difference?!!!

IAmATeaf · 19 Mar 2008 at 16:06

psycodelicmonti said:
Heh, snap, Im looking to upgrade to a Q6600 though... Think Ill notice any difference?!!!

I went from a P4 3.2 641 to a Q6600 and I have to admit that in everyday use I've not noticed that much of a difference but get the Q6600 video encoding/resampling and it's simply leaves the P4 for dead by a very, very long way.

Paracelsus · 20 Mar 2008 at 09:18

Not a huge difference if you look at the games benchmarks though.

Stonedofmoo · 20 Mar 2008 at 09:40

Well there should be, the P4 is only single core, and it still managed to burn off lots more power.

G_Wizz · 20 Mar 2008 at 10:13

A Celeron 420 is faster than a p4

Blackhawk47 · 20 Mar 2008 at 11:29

put it this way . moving from a p4 2.6 to a core2 e4400 . i found a big difference . especially in games. i moved about 8 months ago

-iceblade^ · 20 Mar 2008 at 12:18

once you go dual core, you'll hate Prescott... that useless chip... and the sad thing is that where i come from, people STILL think it's the best thing since sliced bread...

played Bioshock on my PC (Vista 5.6 WEI, 10500 or so 3dmarks), and the loading times were cut from 6+ minutes, to 30 or so seconds.

yet, both the P4 "HT" and my cpu run at the same clock speed...

the E2**0 chips give Pentium a good name

Fothsn · 20 Mar 2008 at 15:48

G_Wizz said:
A Celeron 420 is faster than a p4

No it isnt, a few of P4 CPUs in LGA775 socket are faster.

Gashman · 20 Mar 2008 at 16:45

Paracelsus said:
Not a huge difference if you look at the games benchmarks though.

im with you on this one, i went from athlon 4200+ to E6750 clocked at 3.8Ghz and i can't say i noticed any huge improvement in games or general day to day use either and i don't think the 4200+ was much faster than pentiums, though if your a benchmarking fanatic its hugely superior

V3g3tto · 20 Mar 2008 at 16:51

My Prescott P4 3.4ghz (was one of the higher end ones) ran at 90C idle, i've given that PC to my dad

And yes, the thermal die in them obviously sucks, i laughed when it said it was 100C+ and i could touch it..

Corasik · 20 Mar 2008 at 17:07

V3g3tto said:
My Prescott P4 3.4ghz (was one of the higher end ones) ran at 90C idle, i've given that PC to my dad

And yes, the thermal die in them obviously sucks, i laughed when it said it was 100C+ and i could touch it..

With a good heatsink 100C at the core could easily be <50 degrees at the heatsink. That is the entire point of a heatsink, to absorb the heatsource, and disipate that heat as quickly as possible.

Even the IHS is generally 15 degrees cooler than the core itself.

Anyway, to the OP, at any given clock speed, a C2D is about twice as fast as the equivilent P4, so to compare the P4D (dual core P4 for a more direct comparison), a 1.6Ghz C2D will perform about the same as a 3.2Ghz P4D

-iceblade^ · 20 Mar 2008 at 17:13

so, an E6750 @ 3.2ghz will be likely 4 times as fast as a Prescott 3.2?

Corasik · 20 Mar 2008 at 18:01

-iceblade^ said:
so, an E6750 @ 3.2ghz will be likely 4 times as fast as a Prescott 3.2?

Depends on the task, many applications today still dont make full use of multi cores, so on average running a legacy single threaded application that isnt bottlenecked by a GPU, you could expect to see a 3.2Ghz E6750 being about twice as fast as a Prescott 3.2

But yes, if you used something which scales very well such as as media encoding, web server applications etc, then yes you could see as much as 4 times more processing power from a 3.2Ghz dual core "conroe" compared to a 3.2ghz single core Prescott.