Presler Vs. C2D?

[Texun]

I searched AT for Presler and got zip so here I am with a question.

I've been out of the Intel loop for years but I know the C2D is king of the hill, but after seeing the Presler I'm not sure why.

NE has a 3.4g Presler for about the same money as the E6300 Conroe @ 1.8g.

Both are listed as dual core but the Presler has 2x2M of L2 compared to 2M shared on the C2D, yet the C2D outsells the Presler by more than 3X.

At a glance the Presler looks like the better chip but something tells me I must be missing the buzz on Conroe over Presler. Can someone tell me what it is - or what is wrong with the Presler?

Also... a while back I found an interactive CPU comparison at Tom's but I can't find it now. Does anyone have it? I would appreciate the link if you do. \ Thanks.

 

[Cheex]

Presler is based on the NetBurst architecture, which is hot, somewhat inefficient and is also what caused AMD to kick Intel's ass for so long with their Athlon 64 and X2 CPU lines.

Core 2 Duo is a much more efficient (20% more than X2, 40% more than Presler) architecture and is also less power hungry.

You asked about Tom's CPU comparison...well here it is:
Tom's Hardware - CPU Charts



EDIT: Price for performance...Any Pentium D over $100 is garbage to be quite frank...and with the E4300 at $116, I don't see why anyone should buy a Pentium D ever again. I had one...sold it and bought a Core 2 Duo...

 

[Texun]

Thanks for the link. It's bookmarked. I had no idea the Presler was such a dog.

 

[lyssword]

OK, in a retarded internet speak: presler = teh suxxors, c2d = teh awesome.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: lyssword
OK, in a retarded internet speak: presler = teh suxxors, c2d = teh awesome.

I hope you aren't being funny....

The Presler is like your grandma, and the C2D is like that girl who will never let you touch her. It's that big of a difference.

 

[Texun]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: lyssword
OK, in a retarded internet speak: presler = teh suxxors, c2d = teh awesome.

I hope you aren't being funny.... The Presler is like your grandma, and the C2D is like that girl who will never let you touch her. It's that big of a difference.

I never jumped on the R-I-S bandwagon but this I understand.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Yeah man, the only desktop Pentium chip worth buying is the Pentium E series, which doesn't even come out until June lol; they're basically C2D's with 1MB L2 cache.

 

[Cheex]

Yeah and on the budget end...the current crop of Cedar Mill 65nm Celeron D chips really aren't that bad, they're quite fast given their price but the Celeron D 400 Series will be based on the Core 2 architecture which will be a LOT faster than the Celeron D 300 Series processors and will reign within the same price range.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: lyssword
OK, in a retarded internet speak: presler = teh suxxors, c2d = teh awesome.

I hope you aren't being funny....

The Presler is like your grandma, and the C2D is like that girl who will never let you touch her. It's that big of a difference.

You have a knack for explaining technology.

 

[coldpower27]

MHZ vs MHZ on different architectures aren't normalized units of measures, it's the concept of getting peopel to understand, my KM, is not the same as your KM, while we both do call it a KM.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
Yeah man, the only desktop Pentium chip worth buying is the Pentium E series, which doesn't even come out until June lol; they're basically C2D's with 1MB L2 cache.

what Pentium E chip that comes out in june?

Also P4's HT technology was a abosolute failure. Believe it or not, HT is a new technology then the C2D. Remember C2D's are nothing more then p3's on steriods.

Also, i heard if you can exceed the 5ghz barrier on a P4, HT actually pays out big. But 5ghz on a P4 is like

Hope you have LOTS and LOTS of LN2 or DICE.



But i agree with the rest of the people. E4300 will be a much better solution. Pair it up with a Gigabyte P965-S3 + Crucial Ballastix PC-8500 ram = watch you swim circles around AMD X2's and P4-D.

Actually it will more be like a game of marco polo, where your the guy running outside around the pool, and the guy with the blindfold IE the P4 is in the middle trying to find you.

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Also P4's HT technology was a abosolute failure. Believe it or not, HT is a new technology then the C2D. Remember C2D's are nothing more then p3's on steriods.

You try and talk like you're in IT when you're obviously not.

HT being a failure as in how? Up to 20% more attainable performance and smoother multitasking was an absolute failure? How so? You will find most people in this forum and wherever you ask them will agree that HT was a nice feature on their Pentium 4 be this Northwood/Prescott or Cedarmill. They have the option of turning it off in the BIOS but do they? No, overall it boosts performance and even if it degrades performance, it's on select applications and marginally at worst.

And HT is a newer technology than the Core 2 Duo? Whether the latter is based on the P6 which dates back to 1995 or not does not the mean it's close enough to its then predecessor to go claiming it as old technology. A lot was changed between 1995 and 2006 in the P6 architecture to create the Klamatch, Deschutes, Katmai, Coppermine, Tualatin, Banias, Dothan, Yonah and Conroe cores. The pipeline depth is also different on Core 2 Duo than it was on the Pentium PRO to P3 era equalling 10 Vs 14 stages now. There's a while multitude of changes in the Core 2 Duo to claim it as old technology. The Pentium PRO could only do 3 IPC at best while Core 2 Duo does 4 due to its REE or Rapid Execution Engine.

HT came about in the Prestonia core which was the Xeon based Pentium 4 in 2001. Core 2 Duo was publically unveiled during 2005 at Fall IDF 2005 but instead under the Conre nomenclature.

 

[BadThad]

Originally posted by: GFORCE100

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Also P4's HT technology was a abosolute failure. Believe it or not, HT is a new technology then the C2D. Remember C2D's are nothing more then p3's on steriods.

You try and talk like you're in IT when you're obviously not.

HT being a failure as in how? Up to 20% more attainable performance and smoother multitasking was an absolute failure? How so? You will find most people in this forum and wherever you ask them will agree that HT was a nice feature on their Pentium 4 be this Northwood/Prescott or Cedarmill. They have the option of turning it off in the BIOS but do they? No, overall it boosts performance and even if it degrades performance, it's on select applications and marginally at worst.

And HT is a newer technology than the Core 2 Duo? Whether the latter is based on the P6 which dates back to 1995 or not does not the mean it's close enough to its then predecessor to go claiming it as old technology. A lot was changed between 1995 and 2006 in the P6 architecture to create the Klamatch, Deschutes, Katmai, Coppermine, Tualatin, Banias, Dothan, Yonah and Conroe cores. The pipeline depth is also different on Core 2 Duo than it was on the Pentium PRO to P3 era equalling 10 Vs 14 stages now. There's a while multitude of changes in the Core 2 Duo to claim it as old technology. The Pentium PRO could only do 3 IPC at best while Core 2 Duo does 4 due to its REE or Rapid Execution Engine.

HT came about in the Prestonia core which was the Xeon based Pentium 4 in 2001. Core 2 Duo was publically unveiled during 2005 at Fall IDF 2005 but instead under the Conre nomenclature.

Nice! Ahhhh...the memories.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: GFORCE100

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Also P4's HT technology was a abosolute failure. Believe it or not, HT is a new technology then the C2D. Remember C2D's are nothing more then p3's on steriods.

You try and talk like you're in IT when you're obviously not.

HT being a failure as in how? Up to 20% more attainable performance and smoother multitasking was an absolute failure? How so? You will find most people in this forum and wherever you ask them will agree that HT was a nice feature on their Pentium 4 be this Northwood/Prescott or Cedarmill. They have the option of turning it off in the BIOS but do they? No, overall it boosts performance and even if it degrades performance, it's on select applications and marginally at worst.

And HT is a newer technology than the Core 2 Duo? Whether the latter is based on the P6 which dates back to 1995 or not does not the mean it's close enough to its then predecessor to go claiming it as old technology. A lot was changed between 1995 and 2006 in the P6 architecture to create the Klamatch, Deschutes, Katmai, Coppermine, Tualatin, Banias, Dothan, Yonah and Conroe cores. The pipeline depth is also different on Core 2 Duo than it was on the Pentium PRO to P3 era equalling 10 Vs 14 stages now. There's a while multitude of changes in the Core 2 Duo to claim it as old technology. The Pentium PRO could only do 3 IPC at best while Core 2 Duo does 4 due to its REE or Rapid Execution Engine.

HT came about in the Prestonia core which was the Xeon based Pentium 4 in 2001. Core 2 Duo was publically unveiled during 2005 at Fall IDF 2005 but instead under the Conre nomenclature.

actually my mind was difting and i ment netburst. And no im not a IT, but i did follow this transition very closely. Also i was running P-M Dolthan chips on the AOPEN board in a little Micro. And i believe THAT was the Conroe's predecessor.

Not HT. HT was hyper threading which allowed one core to pretend it was 2. I dont know why the hell i even typed out HT.

But i believe the DOLTHAN was P3 based, which was of a older technology. YONAH being only a DOLTHAN tweek, and then the birth of CONROE, which arch actually follows P3.


If im wrong, feel free to correct me, but thats how toms as well as XS followed the lifeline when i read it a year back.