e6600 - amd 4800 - real world difference

[ashagplz]

comparing two computers..one with e6600 clocked at 3.15 ghz, memory 1050mhz (2t),..the other amd 4800 stock speed, memory 200mhz (1t) .....

both rings have 2x1 gig ram

every benchmark shows the e6600 rig kills the 4800 as you would expect from the hype....apart from the sandra memory bandwidth...but then i try a couple of actual everyday tests of my own that i do a lot...

searching massive email folders in outlook
publishing large website in frontpage to another local folder
searching large local website in frontpage for occuring words wihinin the code

both computers are synced so the files are identical

the results show the o/c e6600 fractions ahead in the first two and slightly behind in the last....
searching large email folder takes 1m 26s with e6600 and 1m 30s with 4800..
publsihing large website to olocal folder is arond 45 minutes for both
searching for a single word across a large website is around 5m 10s for e6600 and slightly quicker for the 4800...

is all this down to the memory bandwidth difference?...seems amazing to me that on paper the e6600 is way batter than the 4800...yet is day to day tasks theres no difference...

 

[V4NT0M]

The tasks you have listed are more HDD intensive tasks, I would expect those to be the same.

Most of the benchmark sites often list things like photoshop and audio encoding as a lot of people do those and they're processor intensive.

And yes, most people's everyday tasks would be better sped up with more ram or a better hard drive than CPU.

 

[Chojin]

I think those kind of tests are limited by hard disk access than anything.

 

[ashagplz]

i tested if this was the case by doing the same tests with the e6600 at stock.....and it made a big difference..for example searching a large email folder took 1m 45s at stock compared to 1m 25s oc...so at stock the e6600 was well behind the 4800.....