CPU comparison between P4 3.2 ghz 478 prescott and a core2duo 1.8 ghz?

[sdowney717]

Which is faster?

This always confused me, I know the 775 board, the CPU can be significantly upgraded while the 478 board is maxed out at that point.

Would they be about the same? Or does the extra core give it an edge?

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Hiyya sdowney mate take a look at the specs in these links you will see the slower CPU has better specs for L2 cache for example (all round in my opinion) and it is 64bit capable whereas the other is a 32 bit processor.
ARK | Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor E4300 (2M Cache, 1.80 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

ARK | Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor supporting HT Technology 3.20 GHz, 512K Cache, 800 MHz FSB

Plus the 3,2 is a very old processor mate.

 

[pbcopter]

Have a look at the link below as a rough comparison. Yes the dual core makes a difference.
.
The Pentium 4 3.2 GHz is benchmarked at 385
The E4300 is benched marked at 1065.
(Higher is better)

PassMark Software - CPU Benchmark Charts

 

[badger906]

it will be like night and day! theres pentium dual core, core duo and core 2 duo as families between them and then the e4300 was the second generation of core 2 duo chips.

now dont be confusing my night and day comparison with uber amazing processing speed and being able to max out current games. But for every day tasks the core 2 duo will still be a nippy little chip

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Well I thought it was fairly clear from my post back with the links from Intel what the differences were:sarc:

 

[LMiller7]

There is more to CPU performance than just clock speed and number of cores. In the years prior to the turn of the century CPU clock speeds were rising dramatically. Then they ran into the laws of physics and could go no further. But CPU performance continued to improve and modern CPUS are much faster than they were in 2000.

And it wasn't just due to modern CPUs having more cores. More cores don't help much unless you are running applications that can really take advantage of them (most won't), or you are running multiple CPU bound applications (not usually the case). Going from 1 to 2 cores will improve performance but typically the biggest gain will be in system responsiveness. From 2 to 4 cores will also see gains but they will be much more modest. But with more than 4 cores you would be hard pressed to even measure performance gains. I am talking typical applications , not those that really benefit from multiple cores.

In a busy server things are different. When sharing files with many active users a modern server will benefit from many cores. One edition of NT 4 Server (released in 1996) could have up to 32 CPUs. That was physical CPUs because at the time there were no multi core CPUs. Modern server operating system go further.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Agreed but I was going more on the instruction set and possible better RAM support.

 

[Computer0304]

+1 For the Core 2 Duo.

 

[sdowney717]

One reason among several I asked this question is

My daughter has a Dell laptop core2duo 1.8 ghz with 1 gb ram, small 14 inch screen.
It is so slow. I made sure it was not infected. ran all sorts of malwarebytes, etc... from bleeping computer.
For example if you boot it, just walk away for 5 minutes.

I have a desktop with a 2.8 ghz, 1gb ram 478 and it is much faster. Boots up fully in half the time.
Just a faster machine all around. Has a PM8M-v mb with IDE drive.

I have 5 pc's one is AM3 quad core, 2 are 478, one is core2 duo e6550, one is core2duo e7200

 

[Computer0304]

Maybe the drive is dying? Run http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/433-disk-check.html and http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1538-sfc-scannow-command-system-file-checker.html then post back the results for the laptop.

 

[sdowney717]

She is a ways a way, so cant do anything unless I go and visit.

Maybe I could get her to run it.

 

[badger906]

a slow booting computer is just poor maintenence.
its caused by 101 start up programs hogging what little ram is there causing it to slow to a crawl.. think of it as you trying to run a marathon with 2 fat people sat on you shoulders..

click start, type run, in the box type msconfig and then hit enter.

a box will pop up and you want to click the startup tab.

untick everything other than virus scanner and anything hot key related (such as touch sensitive volume controls).

restart and vola.. no more resource hogs! itunes and apple guff is the worst, so are most virus scanners.. avg or avast are small and free.