• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Conroe <3Ghz vs. P4 Dual Core 940/950 >=3.2Ghz

Tigjaw

Tigjaw

Tigjaw

Associate
Joined
6 Oct 2005
Posts
669
Location
West Midlands
Ok, I've been on here recently looking to build my own computer but this isn't really about that.

I found the Intel Pentium 4 940 Dual Core "LGA775 Presler" 3.2GHz (800FSB) - Retail (CP-113-IN) and decided that was the processor for me, a fine upgrade over my Prescott. After being told that Conroe isn't necessarily better than it's none-conroe counterpart of a higher clockspeed I was confused to say the least to find every single person recommending the
Intel Core 2 DUO E6300 "LGA775 Conroe" 1.86GHz (1066FSB) - Retail (CP-126-IN)
or Intel Core 2 DUO E6400 "LGA775 Conroe" 2.13GHz (1066FSB) - Retail (CP-127-IN) ahead of any other processors.

Now, what has me confused is that on paper the none-conroe Intel P4 DC 940 actually looks better than those two conroe processors but everybody seems to hype the Core2s up so much I feel like I'm back to square one in choosing the best processor in terms for bang for buck.

So my question is, despite the significantly lower clockspeeds what makes the conroe a better choice over the handsomely specced Intel P4 940? Is it simply the overclocking potential?
I'm not very up to date with all the technical information about hardware (I'm a software guy) but I'd appreciate your views, stats and whatever else you want to throw in here.

Hopefully it will also provide answers for anybody else in a similar predicament as me.

Thanks,

Josh

[Discuss] :)
 
Last edited:
Conroe/Core 2 Duo, like AMD processors, are based on doing more work per MHz, so they work as fast as a much higher clocked P4 when only at a relatively low frequency - complexity of the chip design for production, and thus cost, is why companies like Intel and AMD simply don't release these more efficient processors at much higher clockspeeds. You can be safe in the knowledge that even an E6300 @ 1.86GHz will beat a 3.2GHz Pentium D Dualcore. There are various threads in this section of the forum that show it's power.
 
Thanks Assassin, after reading that article I feel a bit more informed whilst still confused as to what exactly makes the core2 so good, I can't really follow all the technical lingo but what I understood from all the charts was that the 2.13Ghz Conroe is significantly more powerful than the Pentium Dual Core 940 3.2Ghz I was going to buy, would you say that is accurate?
 
Last edited:
I would say so based on those figures and figures I've seen on other review sites, but for absolute confirmation of Core 2 Duo performance, wait for when the more popular review sites like anandtech.com, tomshardware.com, xbitlabs.com, for example, review it after it's official release (14th/27th July?).

The best way I can think of the difference in architecture btw, is that the Core 2 is a wide but short motorway where cars travel slower, whereas the Netburst/P4 is like a dual-carriage way (not very wide) which is much longer, but the cars travel much faster. They both might get to the end of the respective roads at the same time for example, but one involves going much faster (i.e. the exra high frequency of the P4) to get the same peformance.
 
Thanks again Assassin; so it's actually the physical difference that makes the Core2 better (theoretically).

I'll keep an eye on those sites, especially tomshardware.com as it seems to be quite trusted around here. I'll be glad when I've got this all sorted so I can set this beauty up :) Whether I get the Conroe 2.13Ghz or the 940 P4 Dual Core 3.2Ghz can wait because the motherboard I've chosen is compatible with both, but I'll no doubt be forced by my neurotic nature to check a few hundred more times :D
 
Last edited:
From the benchmarks I've seen so far, even the 1.83 is faster than the P4's @3.6Ghz, and in games +quite a few other tests it even beats the 3.73 extreme edition.

That same low end 1.83Ghz processor seems to come in close to the performance of an AMD X2 4400, sometimes its faster than the X2 4800, other times slower than the X2 4200. But considering its the bargain basement Core 2 Duo, thats pretty impressive.

Probably the 'best' chip will be the E6600, as the extra cache gives a good performance boost.
 
Corasik said:
From the benchmarks I've seen so far, even the 1.83 is faster than the P4's @3.6Ghz, and in games +quite a few other tests it even beats the 3.73 extreme edition.

That same low end 1.83Ghz processor seems to come in close to the performance of an AMD X2 4400, sometimes its faster than the X2 4800, other times slower than the X2 4200. But considering its the bargain basement Core 2 Duo, thats pretty impressive.

Probably the 'best' chip will be the E6600, as the extra cache gives a good performance boost.
Click to expand...

Are all those processors you listed that the 1.83 outperformed dual cores? The processor I chose was the Intel P4 Dual Core 940 3.2Ghz, so should the 2.13Ghz outperform even that processor on all counts by a significant boost? Also, would it be worth the extra ~£80 to get the E6600 over the 2.13Ghz?
 
Last edited:
Sorry :) I know the Motherboard does say it supports it but I'm pretty insecure about my choices when it comes to spending so much money! You should have seen me when I bought my telescope lol.
 
i think the low end conroes will be the sweet spot in all truth, theres simply more overclocking headroom than the E6600 favourite, the lower version will have so much theoretical potential, plus they'll have another advantage over E6600 at equal speeds, there FSB will be higher (unless someone pointlessly lowers the divider to get higher FSB)
 
True, but the E6600 is the lowest speed conroe to include 4meg cache, and that seems to make a fair difference in performance, especially with games.

Also if you have a good enough motherboard/ram, some people have been getting E6600's up to 3.6Ghz on air cooling, at standard volts, I dont expect to see much better results from the lower end chips. And to hit 3.6Ghz your already up to 300mhz (1600FSB), thats quite a good overclock for any motherboard, higher FSB than that is probably best left to the heavy modders. The 2.13 would need almost 350mhz on the motherboard to hit 3.6Ghz.

I'll be ordering the 6600 for my rig :)
 
Last edited:
I've been convinced to go for the E6600 :D 2.4Ghz conroe sounds nifty to me, but I'm blaming everybody in this forum for spending the extra £100 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom