• 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.

Dual Core Vs P4

T180985

T180985

T180985

Associate
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Posts
230
i just wondered how a Intel Core2 E6300 @ 1.86Ghz with 1GB of DDR2 5300 Ram is going to compare with a Intel Pentium 4 3.4Ghz Processor and 1.5GB DDR400 Ram? am i going to see any improvemennt in performance even with the reduction in RAM? Btw im running Vista

also do you know if its possible to overclock a standard HP mobo?
 
The core2 would offer better performance due to more cores and the better architecture.
Not sure what sort of hit 1gb would have with Vista, I've not used it on less than 2gb but with 1gb I imagine the page file will be used quite a lot.
With the price of memory being so low <£30 for 2gb DDR2 then it just isn't worth going with 1gb.
 
the C2D should be better then the P4

the BIOS on the HP board would be locked so no overclocking through there.
 
What would you be wanting to use the PC for?
Definately look into 2gb of memory, even on XP you notice a healthy speed boost so on Vista I'd imagine it'd befar better.

Edit: As Will says there'll be pretty much no chance of overclocking. You could maybe use clockgen and clock through Windows but it would really depend on how far the memory goes and if the pci clocks are locked. (I've never had much luck clocking in Windows)
 
Last edited:
would it be possible to use some software to overclock? sorry its been a long time since ive looked into this. just getting it as its v cheep so i thought i may aswell

edit: just seen the above post ok will try clockgen and see how i get on
 
Last edited:
I updated my media PC from a P4 3.4 Extreme Edition 2gb Ram running XP MCE to what I have now on Vista 64.

Okay Ive gone from 2gb of ram to 4gb, although I am now running Vista. The performance is extremely noticable in day to day tasks, I even run Intel speed step so the CPU is often at it's lower clock speed of 1.6 and things open up much quicker and there is less slowdown.

I can't say what gaming performance would be like as I have no experience on this rig. What I can say is with lots of progs running I would see a little slowdown with the EE cpu which is no where to be seen with the E6320.
 
Clockgen but it'd be so hit or miss, would hardly be worth the trouble either, chances are you might not even get an extra 100mhz from it if the memory won't go higher.
 
The Core 2 Duo will be quite a bit quicker than the P4 (and much cooler running). You really need 2GB with Vista though.
 
C2D will eat the P4 for breakfast

but running vista with 1gb RAM will not be fun, and RAM ain't exactly expensive so get another 1GB at least.
 
yeah my mum has a acer t180 which has vista, its running on a athlon 3800x2 and 768mb ddr2-400 ram (integrated graphics takes 256mb) and it is really slow even on a tiny 14" monitor that shouldn't use that much ram. the desktop alone uses 512mb of ram. on the other hand i have 2gb ddr2-800 ram and a 4200x2 and a 22" monitor, it flies by! considering that ddr2-533 is near enough to ddr2-400 it will run slow even with the extra 256mb. in short it is best to have 2gb for vista .
 
P4 Wasn't crap, the architecure may have been inefficient per clock but because of the clockspeeds they were still just as fast as amd's.

With any normall cooling they all hit 4 ghz on air, the prescotts anyhow.
A 4ghz pentium D for example would be just as fast as a 2ghz c2d, wich is erm, between an E6300 and an E6400 in, although overclocked they wipe the netbursts ***, a board that clocks well for a c2d is at least 50 quid, while for p4's its 15 quid ( yes early 2nd hand lga775 boards are rly that cheap). The base price of a c2d is also a lot higher, you can get a 3ghz pd 925 for 50 €, while you need to spend at least 75 € for an e2160 or at elast 125 € for an E6400.

Prices evened out these days, you can get reasonable performance per buck for nothing these days with p4's, they are not crap at all.

Although I agree, c2d's are far superb atm, love the E6400 I have, but you can all in all get a twice as slow system with netburst ( wich is fast enough anyhow for vista etc, my old 925 @ 4ghz got a cpu score of 5.2 in vista, and scored as high in benchy's as people running E 6400's @ stock), for almost 3 times as cheap.

Tbh I dunno why a non gamer/ proffesional video editor ( or whoever that uses more cpu power than your average Joe) would have a true need for a c2d, a p4 is more than fast enough, same as a socket A athlon.
Hell, my dad used a p3 800 mhz for years even though he sells pc's, he just didn't need a quad core for micrsoft office, email and internet.
 
Last edited:
IMO it was crap and in many other techs also, the AMD's wiped the floor with them with far lower mhz, the last P4 could not even run stock speeds without thermal throttling.

The P3 was a far better CPU.
 
helmutcheese said:
, the last P4 could not even run stock speeds without thermal throttling.
Click to expand...


Noob people that couldn't apply thermal paste normally, that couldn't keep their pc dust free, and that couldn't keep a normall ish airflow in their pc's.


Dad has build prolly over 200 netburst pc's, never even one returned with overheating problems.
That's even with sometimes using cheap 20 quid cases with the psu being the only fan in the case providing for airflow.
It's all in the proper applying of the cooler tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom