Are you multi-cored?
-
A 2GHz Core 2 Duo will be at least twice as fast as a 2.4GHz P4. Firstly the memory bus speed is now at 1.3GHz rather than the 533MHz of your old machine (it might be an 800MHz but this is less likely, I think). Secondly the Core series are much more efficient in terms of computations per clock cycle than the P4s. The same junk program compiled with the same compiler and the same compiler options ran in 23 seconds on my work P4 3.0GHz HT (800MHz FSB) and in 14.4 seconds on my home Core 2 Duo T7200 (2GHz) laptop - see post 1[^], post 2[^].
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991That's interesting...I wouldn't have thought you'd get such a boost unless the proggy was written for multi-core. You're right though, I'm at 533mhz on the bus, I got the 400mhz ram but it's at 333mhz as well. I'm still gonna hold out for the cheaper quads though...I'm getting my money's worth out of this box :)
-
That's interesting...I wouldn't have thought you'd get such a boost unless the proggy was written for multi-core. You're right though, I'm at 533mhz on the bus, I got the 400mhz ram but it's at 333mhz as well. I'm still gonna hold out for the cheaper quads though...I'm getting my money's worth out of this box :)
IIRC the compiler is multi threaded. It's also IO intensive (not sure if memory and disk or just the latter). The biggest factor though is just that the netburst(p4) architecture was really bad. IT was much slower per clock than the p3(pm)a and Athlon architectures and was never able to scale fast enough in clock speed to fully compensate. The p4 was always too much of a power pig for mobile use and intel was rich enough to keep two full scale dev teams going. Eventually the p-m's incremental upgrades got to the point where they could meet (core 1) and then exceed (core 2) netburst's performance, at which point they took over the desktop lines as well. Core2 was also faster than A64 on most applications as well which has given them a commanding lead in the performance arena again. Barcelona's let AMD catch up on a per clock basis, but Intels more advanced manufacturing process (especially the coming 45nm) looks to keep them in control of the high end for the mid term future by virtue of significantly higher clock rates.
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
-
Looking at the recent Intel adverts, I feel lonely :((
"Multi-Core Is Mainstream: Are you ready?"
Both at home and at work, I am still on Pentium 4, and do not have any plans (especially for my home PC) to upgrade yet. At home, I have Dell Precision with Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz, at work it is self-built (with Dell monitor) with Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz. How about you? are you multi-cored to the teeth? Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
Four multi-cores (two desktops and two laptops) and two single cores. Haven't really noticed a lot of difference between the systems, honestly. At work I have a dual core laptop and a dual processor (Xeon single cores) desktop. The dual processor is much faster than the dual core. :-> Flynn
If we can't corrupt the youth of today,
the adults of tomorrow will be no fun... -
Four multi-cores (two desktops and two laptops) and two single cores. Haven't really noticed a lot of difference between the systems, honestly. At work I have a dual core laptop and a dual processor (Xeon single cores) desktop. The dual processor is much faster than the dual core. :-> Flynn
If we can't corrupt the youth of today,
the adults of tomorrow will be no fun...Flynn Arrowstarr wrote:
Haven't really noticed a lot of difference between the systems, honestly.
Most likely all are faster than your requirements.
Flynn Arrowstarr wrote:
At work I have a dual core laptop and a dual processor (Xeon single cores) desktop. The dual processor is much faster than the dual core.
I am now working hard to raise enough money, and go for dual processor Xeon Dell Precision, hopefully next year! :-D Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
benjymous wrote:
I've got a dual-cpu machine at home,
benjymous wrote:
and it's not powerful enough for Vista.)
Dual Pentium2?
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
Dual 1.6ghz Xeon, so it probably would run Vista, but I doubt it'd be up to having all the bells and whistles turned on!
-- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
-
Dual 1.6ghz Xeon, so it probably would run Vista, but I doubt it'd be up to having all the bells and whistles turned on!
-- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!