processors

[billb]

i remember the day when the higher the number the better the processor but no longer looking for a dell for somoeones home use nothing that high end. the choice is between a dual core, core 2 duo or a viiv processor. whats the dif bet dual core and core duo??? from what i can tell viiv is the one u need for remote control and crap?


thanks

[Jinx]

Processor - the dogs danglies are intel core 2 duo's at the moment VIIV is just a chipset designed around media performance (sound chips, video etc) and will work with a core 2 duo.

www.intel.com/products/viiv/description.htm

[billb]

Jinx said:

Processor - the dogs danglies are intel core 2 duo's at the moment VIIV is just a chipset designed around media performance (sound chips, video etc) and will work with a core 2 duo.

www.intel.com/products/viiv/description.htm

so a 1.6 core duo is much better than say a 2.6 dual core?

[robbieduncan]

billb said:

Jinx said:

Processor - the dogs danglies are intel core 2 duo's at the moment VIIV is just a chipset designed around media performance (sound chips, video etc) and will work with a core 2 duo.

www.intel.com/products/viiv/description.htm

so a 1.6 core duo is much better than say a 2.6 dual core?

Dual core what? Pentium IV? Athlon 64? A Core Duo (or better a Core 2 Duo) is a dual core CPU. Each of these has a distinctly different architecture internally and preforms differently.

Interestingly this whole bigger number = better has not been true for ages. The Pentium IV was almost never faster than the Athlon running at a lower clockspeed. It was bought by people suckered in by Intel's marketing who did not read the reviews.

[scorp]

robbieduncan said:

Dual core what? Pentium IV? Athlon 64? A Core Duo (or better a Core 2 Duo) is a dual core CPU. Each of these has a distinctly different architecture internally and preforms differently.

Interestingly this whole bigger number = better has not been true for ages. The Pentium IV was almost never faster than the Athlon running at a lower clockspeed. It was bought by people suckered in by Intel's marketing who did not read the reviews.

Unless you work in the computing field or a enthusiastic amateur then i imaging most normal people won't make heads or tails out of most of the tech speak.

One of the biggest bottlenecks in pcs these days is FSB/RAM speed, that gets worse the more cores you add too ; since each core demands being fed from RAM, unless you have your apps tuned to fit within each cores internal cache.

[billb]

ie i take it the second one is better? is it better to make a diff to standard user?


Intel® Pentium® D 915 Dual Core Processor (2.80GHz, 800MHz, 2x2MB)
Intel® Viiv™ Core™ 2 Duo E6300 Processor (1.86GHz, 1066MHz, 2MB)

[scorp]

billb said:

ie i take it the second one is better? is it better to make a diff to standard user?


Intel® Pentium® D 915 Dual Core Processor (2.80GHz, 800MHz, 2x2MB)
Intel® Viiv™ Core™ 2 Duo E6300 Processor (1.86GHz, 1066MHz, 2MB)

The first cpu is generally better, although for applications where huge amounts of memory are accessed as opposed to number crunching (say big databases, or image processing) the second one would be fastest, since it runs as fast as the FSB, the cpu would spend most its time waiting on RAM.

Cache plays a big part in speeding things up between cpu and RAM.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 28th November 14:53

[mr_yogi]

scorp said:

billb said:

ie i take it the second one is better? is it better to make a diff to standard user?


Intel® Pentium® D 915 Dual Core Processor (2.80GHz, 800MHz, 2x2MB)
Intel® Viiv™ Core™ 2 Duo E6300 Processor (1.86GHz, 1066MHz, 2MB)

The first cpu is generally better, although for applications where huge amounts of memory are accessed as opposed to number crunching (say big databases, or image processing) the second one would be fastest, since it runs as fast as the FSB, the cpu would spend most its time waiting on RAM.

Cache plays a big part in speeding things up between cpu and RAM.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 28th November 14:53

Not really, the Core 2 would be faster in most normal applications. I think the tech report benchmarked a E6300/ A64 2800+/ P4 D 920 and the Core2 won almost every benchmark - some by a large margin. The P4 only won a synthetic benchmark as I remember.

I'll try and find the link.

The Core 2 also has more advanced SSE.


EDIT: it was xBit Labs and it was a P4 D945.

Core 2 Duo, no contest!

Edited by mr_yogi on Tuesday 28th November 15:32

[aldi]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm

Usefull up to date charts here, check different benchmarks via the menus as some processors win on some and loose on others.

[scorp]

mr_yogi said:

Not really, the Core 2 would be faster in most normal applications. I think the tech report benchmarked a E6300/ A64 2800+/ P4 D 920 and the Core2 won almost every benchmark - some by a large margin. The P4 only won a synthetic benchmark as I remember.

I'll try and find the link.

The Core 2 also has more advanced SSE.


EDIT: it was xBit Labs and it was a P4 D945.

Core 2 Duo, no contest!

Edited by mr_yogi on Tuesday 28th November 15:32

Like i said, depends on the application. The higher clock rate of the first cpu would give it better number crunching performance, say mp3 encoding, where large amounts of memory aren't accessed. The second would be better for large amounts of memory processing. Although real-world apps are never that simple, usually the involve lots of memory access and number crunching, making any estimation a guess