E6400 and P4 Smithfield compared at 2.8GHz

[Hulk]

If you're like me you've seen more C2D and P4 reviews than you care to remember. I'm still a sucker for a CPU review so I checked out this one today and it was worth a look.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=696&num=1

Comparing the Smithfield core Pentium D to the C2D both at 2.8GHz.

Jeez, both are dual core but the C2D is literally twice as fast (or more) in a lot of the benches. Of course we all knew the C2D was a screamer compared to the Pentium 4 but this is nuts.

 

[f4phantom2500]

i'd like to see how well a pentium d 805 would compare when overclocked to 4ghz, as far as what speed c2d would it be about the equivalent of.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
i'd like to see how well a pentium d 805 would compare when overclocked to 4ghz, as far as what speed c2d would it be about the equivalent of.

probably like a 1.5ghz 6600

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
i'd like to see how well a pentium d 805 would compare when overclocked to 4ghz, as far as what speed c2d would it be about the equivalent of.

probably like a 1.5ghz 6600

nah, I'm pretty sure it's higher than that; I remember seeing a stock 9 series pentium d (945 maybe?) performing about on par with a stock e4300, maybe a tad better. granted the 805 isnt as efficient as the 945, when shot up to 4ghz I don't think it'd matter too much lol. I was thinking somewhere in the range of ~2.2GHz, but I was actually thinking of the 2MB cache C2D's not the 4MB ones.

 

[Hulk]

I was just kind of amazed at how much more efficient the C2D is over the P4. I thought it would be more like 50% better not 100% or more.

The crazy thing is that P4's don't really overclock that much better than C2D's right? I mean given identical cooling they're pretty close I think. Now if you go to extreme cooling measure I believe the P4 can go significantly higher.

Seems as though the transistors on the P4 are not the thing holding that core back but it's more the thermal limitation.

For the C2D Intel seems to have the transistors and thermals maxing out around the same time.

But I'm not expert on this. These are just my impressions from things I've read.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Hulk
I was just kind of amazed at how much more efficient the C2D is over the P4. I thought it would be more like 50% better not 100% or more.

The crazy thing is that P4's don't really overclock that much better than C2D's right? I mean given identical cooling they're pretty close I think. Now if you go to extreme cooling measure I believe the P4 can go significantly higher.

Seems as though the transistors on the P4 are not the thing holding that core back but it's more the thermal limitation.

For the C2D Intel seems to have the transistors and thermals maxing out around the same time.

But I'm not expert on this. These are just my impressions from things I've read.

Intel themselves have said the NetBurst architecture is heat limited rather then frequency limited.