Core 2 Duo vs. Pentium D

[loucallme]

I recently decided to upgrade to a better processor so that I can run better games and applications as at the moment I have a 1.6ghz AMD 2000+ XP. I have narrowed it down to two choices that I can afford but am confused about which is "better". I have chosen:

INTEL
BX80553935
PENTIUM D 935 SOCKET LGA775 PROCESSOR

This is 3.2ghz with 2x2mb L2 Cache. (Whatever that means), and the other:

INTEL - CORE 2 DUO E4400 SOCKET LGA775 PROCESSOR

This is 2.0ghz with 2mb L2 cache.

Not knowing better, I would have picked the Pentium D because of its higher clock speed and "L2 Cache". But, after reading a few articles on the forums about Core 2 Duo's, I am not so sure. The "D" costs 60 pounds and the C2D costs 90 pounds, so which is the best overall and which is the best for value for money ?

 

[dguy6789]

The Core 2 Duo is better overall and is a better value for the money. It is significantly faster in everything while using less electricity and producing less heat. There are countless threads and articles stating the same thing that I have said.

 

[loucallme]

I am sorry about asking what must seem a "noobish" question but I did not fully understand the situation and I thought that the Core 2 Duo must have been overclocked to keep up with the Pentium because of the higher clock speed. I now understand that the C2D must just be awesome.

Also how can the C2D beat the Pentium if it has a lower clock speed and lower "L2 Cache"? And what is an L2 Cache anyway ?

 

[dguy6789]

Clock speed is not comparable directly between two different processors. A 2Ghz Core 2 Duo does not get the same amount of work done as a 2Ghz Pentium D for example.

Processors each have their own unique architecture. The Core 2 Duo is currently the most efficient one available. For every clock cycle, the Core 2 Duo gets way more work done than a Pentium D. A Core 2 Duo 1.86Ghz is faster than a 3.6Ghz Pentium D.

Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I could go into way greater detail, but I don't really have the time to type out a long and in-depth response. Others could help you with that or you could go and look into some processor articles.

This article should give you some decent info on the Core 2 Duo.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1

 

[amodpandya]

Ever try using this very nifty website?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache

 

[loucallme]

Thanks for the help

 

[RussianSensation]

Without going into too much detail, Core 2 Duo is more efficient per each clock cycle. This efficiency is approximately 90-100% of P-D/P4 models.

Meaning that Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz will roughly equal P-D 4.0ghz.

As far as Cache is concerned you can see that 2mb cache doesn't have that significant of an effect for Core 2 Duo vs. having 4mb - Link

You can check out the performance difference between the 2 models you are considering: E4400 2.0ghz to Pentium D 935 (3.2ghz) - 2.0ghz Core 2 crushes 3.2ghz Pentium D

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Without going into too much detail, Core 2 Duo is more efficient per each clock cycle. This efficiency is approximately 90-100% of P-D/P4 models.

Meaning that Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz will roughly equal P-D 4.0ghz.

As far as Cache is concerned you can see that 2mb cache doesn't have that significant of an effect for Core 2 Duo vs. having 4mb - Link

You can check out the performance difference between the 2 models you are considering: E4400 2.0ghz to Pentium D 935 (3.2ghz) - 2.0ghz Core 2 crushes 3.2ghz Pentium D

no way are they still basing their numbers on approximate athlon/p4 ratings
:Q

so ... in other words, a 1.8G e4300 is about a P4 4.3 ... a 2.0G e4400 close to a 4.4G P4 etc ?

really?!?!


so the e6600 would supposedly show the performance of an A64 6600+ or a p4 at 6.6Ghz?!?
--they have been making a little progress ...

 

[aigomorla]

wow if i had 5 cents each time this thread was brought up, i could probably buy a starbucks venti ice moca.


Yes the google and wiki = noobs best friend

They are mine. :]

 

[apoppin]

just don't drink it ... it is pretty bad for you




years ago ... "search" used to work here

i remember those days

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yeah, and the greatest thing about the C2D architecture is that it overclocks better than anything that has come before, up to 100% in some cases. And a 50-60% overclock is pretty easy in most cases with the lower speeds. And when you overclcock a C2D to 3+ ghz it just stomps all competitors

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
]no way are they still basing their numbers on approximate athlon/p4 ratings
:Q

so ... in other words, a 1.8G e4300 is about a P4 4.3 ... a 2.0G e4400 close to a 4.4G P4 etc ?

really?!?!


so the e6600 would supposedly show the performance of an A64 6600+ or a p4 at 6.6Ghz?!?
--they have been making a little progress ...

That, wouldn't make sense Apoppin. If an E4300@1.8Ghz is equal to a 4.3Ghz P4 and the E4400@2Ghz is equal to a 4.4Ghz P4, then a 200Mhz C2D speed bump is only "worth" a 100Mhz P4 speed bump. That's backwards if anything.

 

[o1die]

Fry's has their anniversary sale today only. One example is the e4300 bare cpu with ecs board for $99.99. The board sucks, but you can ebay it or use it for a spare.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

so ... in other words, a 1.8G e4300 is about a P4 4.3 ... a 2.0G e4400 close to a 4.4G P4 etc ?

really?!?!

No, a 1.8ghz Core 2 would roughly equal to 3.6ghz PD. However, this is not entirely accurate since you cannot blindly apply a 'fixed' percentage for every application. Core 2 architecture scales well in gaming for instance but Pentium D is not so bad at video encoding.

Here is a good review that shows E4300 @ 3.42ghz vs. Pentium D 945 (3.4ghz). In some benchmarks the difference is 'only' 50% and in others more than double - Link

It really doesn't make sense to buy a Pentium D since over time the cost of electricity offsets any savings. Once you add in the fact that Core 2 overclocks really well, it's a no brainer to spend a little extra.

All I know is that upgrading from P4 2.6@3.2ghz w/Hyper threading to an E6400@3.4ghz is fast enough for me

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: apoppin

so ... in other words, a 1.8G e4300 is about a P4 4.3 ... a 2.0G e4400 close to a 4.4G P4 etc ?

really?!?!

No, a 1.8ghz Core 2 would roughly equal to 3.6ghz PD. However, this is not entirely accurate since you cannot blindly apply a 'fixed' percentage for every application. Core 2 architecture scales well in gaming for instance but Pentium D is not so bad at video encoding.

Here is a good review that shows E4300 @ 3.42ghz vs. Pentium D 945 (3.4ghz). In some benchmarks the difference is 'only' 50% and in others more than double - Link

It really doesn't make sense to buy a Pentium D since over time the cost of electricity offsets any savings. Once you add in the fact that Core 2 overclocks really well, it's a no brainer to spend a little extra.

All I know is that upgrading from P4 2.6@3.2ghz w/Hyper threading to an E6400@3.4ghz is fast enough for me

it wasn't fast enough for me
--of course it went from a P4EE@3.74G and i am currently "stuck" at 2.81Ghz

but thanks for the details ... of intel's most logical numbering system

edit: theinq really explained it well:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39692

E7340, 2.40/8MB and three with 4MB caches at 2.40, 2.13 and 1.60GHz, the E7330, E7320 and E7310 respectively. There are also two DC parts, both 80W parts, the E7220 and the E7210.

It is heartening to see the Intel naming scheme coalescing in such a logical way, we hear the next numbering scheme, to be introduced a 47 days after Penryn will start numbering at 17 and new models numbers will be picked from a hat containing 2-5 digit prime numbers. If you think about it, it makes much more sense than current schemes.

new models numbers will be picked from a hat containing 2-5 digit prime numbers

forgive me

--i was looking for "logic" in intels' numbering scheme
:roll:

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

it wasn't fast enough for me
--of course it went from a P4EE@3.74G and i am currently "stuck" at 2.81Ghz

but thanks for the details ... of intel's most logical numbering system

I think the reason why Intel stopped applying a number system is because some applications do not benefit from dual processors and some do. Naturally in some applications Core 2 Duo excels beyond Pentium D and in others it doesn't have as much of an advantage. So it wouldn't be accurate to say Core 2 Duo outperforms Pentium D by a factor of 2 (because you would naturally assume in every app).

All I can say is that if you didnt feel a difference of going from P4 single core 3.74ghz to Core 2 Duo 2.81 ghz duo core you are just not a heavy multi-tasker or user. For me the difference was tremendous.

At the same time I upgraded my ram from 1gb to 2gb and my hard drive subsystem from Western Digital 80gb 8mb cache which gave 38mb/sec transfer rate in HDTach to 7200.10 320gb 16mb drive which average 65mb/sec.

Let me give you some indication of how fast my system became:

- WinRAR extraction improved from roughly 400kb/sec to 1300kb/sec (that's more than tripple real life difference). If you extract large files like movies or music or games you'll notice the difference immediately (or zip them).
- I still have my 80gb western drive and it takes me faster to defrag my Seagate 320gig.
- I can install programs simulateously and never wait for 1 program to stop installing before I start the next
- Before if I wanted to run Norton AntiVirus and Ad-aware at the same time while still doing something else with a P4 - forget about it! Now, it's not an issue at all.
- I can switch back and worth between 10 word documents, 8 excel sheets, 4-5 firefox windows and 4-5 explorer windows while listening to music with windows media player with 0 lag - something single core P4 couldnt' handle.
- I can watch 1080P HD videos with 0 slowdown or choppiness.
- I didn't measure it in seconds but while I have all these programs open if I wanted to open another excel, word or internet browser window it takes less than a second while my old system would take 3-5 seconds literally.

 

[apoppin]

just not a heavy multi-tasker

a [/i]gamer[/i]

i got C2D for next year's games

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

i got C2D for next year's games

My rule is I only upgrade when I see the performance benefit TODAY. Don't care for futureproofing because there is no such thing. I know your mobo went on you so it makes sense from your perspective. But buying hardware for next year's games is pointless for 2 reasons:

1) Most games do not get released on time...HL2, Unreal 3, STALKER, etc.
2) When that next year game you want comes out, you'll be able to buy something twice as fast for same price or something as fast for twice as cheap. Then why buy hardware today if it's not going to benefit you until next year?

 

[Shadowmaster625]

I thought the next intel cpu was going to be Core 4 Quad 2 Dual Duo

 

[Steaksauce]

No comparison between the two. C2D>AMD X2>Pent D

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: apoppin

i got C2D for next year's games

My rule is I only upgrade when I see the performance benefit TODAY. Don't care for futureproofing because there is no such thing. I know your mobo went on you so it makes sense from your perspective. But buying hardware for next year's games is pointless for 2 reasons:

1) Most games do not get released on time...HL2, Unreal 3, STALKER, etc.
2) When that next year game you want comes out, you'll be able to buy something twice as fast for same price or something as fast for twice as cheap. Then why buy hardware today if it's not going to benefit you until next year?

well, the choice as i saw it was buying a P4 MB for $75-$125
--or an open-box ASrock for $25 ...

since my P4 can be sold for the same thing as i paid for my C2D and my old DR "covers" my DDR2 ...

i'd say it was a 'no brainer'



and now the upgrade path is pretty simple for next year

and aren't you the guy that is still running a 6600 ?
:Q

you can't play the latest games without sacrificing a lot of details

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

and now the upgrade path is pretty simple for next year

and aren't you the guy that is still running a 6600 ?
:Q

you can't play the latest games without sacrificing a lot of details

Ya I know it made sense to upgrade for you. 6600 is good enough for my needs. It ran WarCraft 3 fine and I haven't really played games since then. I might get a faster graphics card sometime down the road like for Crysis.

 

[apoppin]

for Crysis ... i should hope so ... WoW plays on anything
:Q

will a 6600 even run it at 4x6, minimum details