• 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.

p4 or core2 duo...?

mac

mac

mac

Associate
Joined
6 Jul 2003
Posts
204
Location
Devon
im thinking of getting a DS3 / DS3p board with 6400c4 ram and want to know if having a core2 2.0ghz e4400 is worth it over a p4 3.0ghz prescott? (both are 800mhz fsb) - i also want to know if having 2 cores is really worth it as the benifit of both cores is dependant on whether a program supports it (id rather have a system that can run individual programs like games at the fastest possible speed than running lots of programs at a good speed.)

also is there any point of having a 1033fsb cpu (e6320 etc.) with 800mhz ram?
 
If im not mistaken prescotts run very hot and arean't nearly as fast per clock as a C2D...not sure on your last question.
 
The e4400 is a far better option than the P4.

As for ddr2-800 memory with an e6320, it's pretty much necessary if you're going to overclock the CPU as it has a low multiplier (x7).
 
but itsnt the optimum performance of the dual core reliant on software that supports it?
 
It does, but the e4400 does far more work per cycle. It's a completely different design from the P4.
 
Clock speed is irrelevant when comparing CPUs in different product families. The E4400 would trounce the Prescott, even in applications that aren't multithreaded.
 
mac dude, read up on it ! core2 OWNS prescott in every way, in laymans terms a core 2 (just one core for example) works at 2000mhz (pretend thats 2000 'processes' a second (its not but u get the idea)

So 2000x 50 (it does more per clock cycle) things at once is 100000 jobs / processes completed

3000 (p4 prescott for example) x 10 = 30000 things/jobs processes done every second

so if you follow that core does 100000 things per cycle, prescott would do 30000 things per cycle so thats over 3 times quicker in my example (these are not real numbers, just an example so you can understand)

Also there are 2 processing cores in core 2 so thats 100000 x 2 VS 30000 x 1, i.e. prescott is a hell of a lot slower, kappeesh ?
 
Just to add to what the rest have said: You can not even compare the 2. C2D is a complete redesign & in the name of the processors there's a small hint of how fast it would be in comparison to older P4's NetBurst architecture, that's right 4400MHz!
 
ok lol, ill hang my head in shame for suggesting the prescott in the first place... :p

i thought because its the same socket as the core2 and also its 3ghz it might be on a par. o well thanks for letting me aviod a bad mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom