Pentium D 930 vs

[UglyDuckling]

Whatever the fastest mobile CPU is in those hand held thingamabob devices.

Stuff like the ipad... A8X etc.

What would be faster? is there actually any way to compare them?

 

[Ken g6]

The fastest "mobile" CPU is probably Skylake. So the architectures are comparable.

The next problem is that performance of Intel's Y-series processors is highly dependent on their cooling. So you'd need an actual, specific tablet to compare to.

 

[UglyDuckling]

The fastest "mobile" CPU is probably Skylake. So the architectures are comparable.

The next problem is that performance of Intel's Y-series processors is highly dependent on their cooling. So you'd need an actual, specific tablet to compare to.

Hmm, so really these chips are better than even the Core 2 series?

 

[know of fence]

Hmm, so really these chips are better than even the Core 2 series?

They can be for a split second when they boost to 2 GHz or 3 GHz, but then they are throttled down again to 800 MHz or 1000 in order to be able to sustain a 4.5 W TDP, at which point they are decades behind modern desktop CPUs.

 

[Denithor]

Decades behind? LOL no. The first generation Core 2 Duo chips were literally 2x the performance of the P4 chips. As in, the lowly 1.86GHz e6300 ran about equal in most benchmarks to the Pentium D 965 Extreme Edition (clocked at 3.73GHz). IPC has increased at least 50% in the ensuing 8 or so generations (tick/tock). So, even throttled down to 800 MHz today's chips are likely comparable or superior to the old P4 chips. Plus we have moar cores now!

 

[know of fence]

Decades behind? LOL no. The first generation Core 2 Duo chips were literally 2x the performance of the P4 chips. As in, the lowly 1.86GHz e6300 ran about equal in most benchmarks to the Pentium D 965 Extreme Edition (clocked at 3.73GHz). IPC has increased at least 50% in the ensuing 8 or so generations (tick/tock). So, even throttled down to 800 MHz today's chips are likely comparable or superior to the old P4 chips. Plus we have moar cores now!

I meant to say a decade.

Cinebench R10 Single Threaded
Skylake@3.6GHz ~ 8000
Pentium 4 660@3.6 2245

So dial the clock do 0.8 GHz - 1 GHz (throttling) and you get a decade! P4 was about 2003, right.

 

[Haserath]

Using a fanless laptop with core m 5Y10c(slowest Broadwell), the scores are:

Cinebench R10
Single: 4071
Multi: 7968

It throttles down to about 1.68Ghz during the multi test vs 2Ghz for single.

 

[know of fence]

Using a fanless laptop with core m 5Y10c(slowest Broadwell), the scores are:

Cinebench R10
Single: 4071
Multi: 7968

It throttles down to about 1.68Ghz during the multi test vs 2Ghz for single.

Thanks for posting an actual score. Which is a combined number of highest clocks and reduced speed.
It's hard to say without special software what the actual clock is, just by looking at the readout (digital readouts tend to be averages). But if the score was half of a 3.6 GHz Broadwell CPU, we could deduce that the average clock was 1.8 GHz. I was talking about low(est) speed though, which is not so unusual, when it's possible to reach those 4.5 W TDP limits with just I/O or graphics loads, especially given the trend to have higher resolutions.
At the end of the day 4.5 W, thinness and fanless-ness are all crippling traits, that no amount of progress or parallelism can cure. Then again PCs have been "fast enough" for a while now.