• 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

@ snowdog, What are you smoking, THG showed the last of the P4 EE's running as hot as a Nuke Power Station, had nothing to do with them applying TIM wrong.

Thats exactly why Intel stopped short of 5GHZ crap NetBurst architecture and went back to the drawing board using knowledge from the P3's and made the great C2D.

Most peeps know the P3 was a far better CPU than the P4 (ones old enough to have used, not their dads).

This is only 1 CPU and 1 issue: http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/14/the_p4/

Now get over FACT, the P3 were better and obv the C2D are even more so. ;)

I would take a 2GHZ C2D over a 5GHZ P4 anyday.
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
P4 was crap, P3 was better.....
Click to expand...

Whilst the P3 was more efficient than the P4's, not all P4's were crap. The 2.4 Northwood was a great OC'ing chip which wiped the floor with AMD's XPxxxx range which was out at the same time.

The later P4's were'nt up to much, IMO the last good chip they made was the 3.4 extreme edition Gallatin/Northwood core. I still have this chip which I used to game with before putting it into a media PC. At the time I replaced it with a AMD 4000+, and to be honest didn't see much increase in games or benching.
 
Im talking later P4 with the heat issues obv, and the P4 did not beat the AMD XP's in Games only business uses mostly, it was all over web that a AMD XP1800 (AFAIR) could Game better than a P4 2.5GHZ.

Then Intel could not touch AMD for over 3years with the AMD64's.
 
helmutcheese said:
Im talking later P4 with the heat issues obv, and the P4 did not beat the AMD XP's in Games only business uses mostly, it was all over web that a AMD XP1800 (AFAIR) could Game better than a P4 2.5GHZ.

Then Intel could not touch AMD for over 3years with the AMD64's.
Click to expand...

I agree the later P4's were poor.

But having owned many earlier P4's as well as various AMD XP's, the P4's were better in games and benching. The XP2500+ or XP2500+m were the AMD chips to have, they clocked like crazy and had the larger cache.

Back on topic, go for the C2D, you won't regret it :)
 
I can still back up with the URL to show the XP1800 was better in Games (not business) than a P4 2.5GHZ. :)

Yes its all off topic but Snowdog has been on the smokes again :p, I dont think THG are noobs that cant apply TIM correctly, it was welll known the last few CPU's ran far too hot.

And I gave my on topic input way above, the C2D is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
What do you use your computer for? If it's just a word processing/Internet machine then the upgrade to C2D is not needed. Your P4 is enough for the job and with 1.5gb RAM it should be a pretty decent machine for above purposes.

I recently got hold of a PentiumD 945 "Presler" 3.4Ghz from my friend's upgrade which I overclocked to 4.25Ghz. The performance is still a fair bit faster than stock E2180 which he upgraded to. Although the temp was shocking, went upto 87C with my Tuniq Tower during stress testing and the whole setup wasn't even in the case! This was comparing between C2D and the latest generation Pentium D (2 P4 Cedarmill cores) so an ordinary P4 will be even slower.
 
helmutcheese said:
@ snowdog, What are you smoking, THG showed the last of the P4 EE's running as hot as a Nuke Power Station, had nothing to do with them applying TIM wrong.

Thats exactly why Intel stopped short of 5GHZ crap NetBurst architecture and went back to the drawing board using knowledge from the P3's and made the great C2D.

Most peeps know the P3 was a far better CPU than the P4 (ones old enough to have used, not their dads).

This is only 1 CPU and 1 issue: http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/14/the_p4/

Now get over FACT, the P3 were better and obv the C2D are even more so. ;)

I would take a 2GHZ C2D over a 5GHZ P4 anyday.
Click to expand...


So what they're hot, they work fine upto 70- 75 C overclocked, and soemtimes fine upto 80C @ stock.

I don't care what sites say, I've used a p4/PD myself since northwood was out, till just 6 months ago, p3's were good yes, but I wouldn't care monkey's what review sites said, I've used pretty much all cpu's existant briefly for testing, as I'm free to test whatever my dad has in stock, and even the prescotts clocked FAR higher than (socket A ) amd's and performed much better in the end.

90 watts is no where near a nuclear power station, I wounder why nobody complained about the early AMD X2's and the core 2 quads, wich produce more heat ( just happened to have well designed coolers from start) . :rolleyes: It's logical the cpu's overheat if people use some cheap thermal paste that dryes up in a few weeks, along with a tiny aluminium block on it and a low rpm fan. Stick a good cooler or even an average cooler on a scott like the 92mm zalman flower or an AC freezer 4 and you have a cpu that is just 40 C, that's approx 25 C of headroom for overclocking.

A p4 is better than the p3, that's a fact, show me a p3 cpu wich performs same as a 5 ghz p4 in various stuff including games :rolleyes:.
Sure the design was better, I'm not denying that I've owned 4 P3's in my own personal pc's ( upgraded step by step offcourse) and kept the last 1 ghz p3 I had till northwoords were out and the first p4 I got was a 1.8 gig NW ( I knew the willamettes were carp and never had any myself).

I never said a p4 was better than a c2d, I'm just saying it's not crap, it does the job and it runs everything, still to this day. If they'd really be crap and useless as you seem to think then I'm woundering why there are millions of them still in use, and why my school has recently ordered Pentium D's 2.8 ghz ?
They are cheaper than c2d's and do the job...

Also that THG video is a bit stupid, what complete nutter in north america or europe has his case sitting in 38 C ?
Aside that, the thermal pads have long been replaced by better thermal material by intel, I haven't seen such a cooler with that pad in years. And when they applied their own thermal paste, they placed it like complete noobs, used WAY too much. And besides, who buys that kind of cheap goo? Even the cheap tital 2 € paste that comes in the 10 ml tubes does the job much better and there's no sane reason someone would buy such a poor unbranded paste as they've used in that video.

What do you use your computer for? If it's just a word processing/Internet machine then the upgrade to C2D is not needed. Your P4 is enough for the job and with 1.5gb RAM it should be a pretty decent machine for above purposes.

I recently got hold of a PentiumD 945 "Presler" 3.4Ghz from my friend's upgrade which I overclocked to 4.25Ghz. The performance is still a fair bit faster than stock E2180 which he upgraded to. Although the temp was shocking, went upto 87C with my Tuniq Tower during stress testing and the whole setup wasn't even in the case! This was comparing between C2D and the latest generation Pentium D (2 P4 Cedarmill cores) so an ordinary P4 will be even slower.
Click to expand...

How have you mounted the tuniq, I've had a mere freezer 7 and was running a pentium D 925 @ 4ghz for half a year and it never surpassed 65C.

The ordinary p4/d is not slower, they are just as efficient per clock ( or inefficient better said ), but they just run hotter and use more power, due to having a 90nm die...

okay. say this:

E21X0 vs a prescott 3.06GHZ

who would win? in gaming, and surfing, etc....
Click to expand...

Irrelevant test, you're comparing a 30 € cpu vs a 75 € cpu :rolleyes:.

A 3.2 ghz Pentium D vs a 2160 would be pretty much equal though, even though the PD can be had cheaper 2nd hand, it's only when the C2D is overclocked that it show's it's true potential.
 
Last edited:
The E21x0 is a bit faster @ stock than the p4 in single core stuff.
It's a lot faster in multithreaded stuff.

Once OC-ed it wipes the p4 away. Then it's David vs Goliath. OR the p4 being a poor Fiat panda, the c2d being a Ferarri.
 
helmutcheese said:
I can still back up with the URL to show the XP1800 was better in Games (not business) than a P4 2.5GHZ. :)
Click to expand...

You may be thinking of the 2.53B P4.

IIRC the first P4's were Willamette core s428 (FSB 100x4). These did not perform as well as the P3's they replaced and were soon updated to Northwood core s478 with an FSB of 533 (133x4) referred to as B's, again these were not great and the 2.53BGhz (133x19) was no exception.

When Intel upped the Northwood FSB to 800 (4x200), referred to as C's they outperformed AMD's XP offerings at that time. I don't know if you remember the Northwood 30 cappers? they were great OC'ing chips which run cool and perfomed exceptionally well.
 
sorry guys didnt expect it to kick off quite so much over a simple question lol sorry let me clarify the situation

basically i want to have 1 pc which i use for games and the other which i use for my media centre, now i know the spec isnt great so im not going to be able to play all the latest games but im sure it will do me anyway

basically i have the bellow PC's which i own both of and at present dont have any money to upgrade them

3.4Ghz "Prescott" P4
1.5Gb DDR400 RAM
Nvidia 9500 256Mb Graphics card
160gb IDE HDD running Vista

1.86Ghz C2D
1Gb DDR2 PC5300 Ram
Onboard graphics (the only graphics card i have i could use in this is an old fx5200 pci card which doesnt fit as the pc is small form factor :(
80Gb Sata2 Hdd also running vista

now im pretty sure the PSU on the first pc is on its way out as ocasionally it will make an odd "hissing" sound but works the majourity of the time i just need to get the PSU swapped out it also runs very hot and its quite noisy even though ive got a large heatsink fitted (recommended to me by this forum some time ago) and a 120MM fan attached but even at idle it will be high 40's low 50's

so from what ive read here im starting to think the older machine would be better to run games on and use the new one as my media centre? Thanks for all the help
 
Last edited:
Well you want a media center to run the quietest, the P4 isn't going to do that but the C2D you should be able to run nearly silent.

However the media center should have the better gfx card and the larger hdd for handling the media files. You might also look at really stripping down the vista install of non-essentials so that you can make use of the 1GB of memory more efficiently.

Also I don't think Nvidia made a 9500 gfx card, that sounds more like an Ati Radeo 9500.

So all in all it seems like you have the worst of both worlds, you can't swap parts around between the two machines to make the media center a workable solution really.

The P4 machine is ok'ish for gaming/every day use. Maybe could do with a tad more memory. But the media center machine is really a bit of a dog for that task imo.
 
hmmm not good well i might try putting all *** C2D gear into another case and using an old Fx5200 64mb card on it lmao got to be better than on board grahpics
 
I reckon whatever onboard graphics are in the Core2 setup will be far better than the FX5200. Any recent Intel GMA's will match or better that card, same can be said for the integrated Nvidia/Ati options. :)
 
oh right but even with the 1Gb of ram isnt it just giong to waste more of that hmmm oh well think i will just have to look at getting a half decent pcie card in a month or so
 
Didn't Intel have to scrap the last few mhz jumps of the Prescott down to it running so amazingly hot?

Also the people who don't clean their PC etc... the general public?

And I was working in a Tech Support call center at the time, and the mount of overheating P4 Prescott machines was mind boggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom