Solve : core 2 duo processor vs p4?

1.	Solve : core 2 duo processor vs p4?
Answer» So i have a p4 3ghz cpu and just for kicks i was looking for other processors as i have pretty much rebuilt my compy recently (originally a dell 8400 compy, now with a new case, mobo, audigy 2, 3gb ram and a xfx 512mb 7950gt). I dont know much about the core processors except that you don't multiply the speed by 2 its just 2 processors running at some frequency. So does that mean that an e6600 2.4ghz is actually two 1.2ghz cores working together? Now i have played with hyperthreading on my compy before and i think two logical processors on one physical processor does give an increase in speed and smoothness. My question is, are core 2 duos 775 lga's or will they not fit where a p4 originaly was? Also would it be worth the money to upgrade from the 3ghz p4 i have to a core 2 duo? What speed do you think would make it a wiser choice? How about if I just overclock the p4 i have now? I've replaced everything on my compy except for the 1gig (2x512) of ram and audigy 2 dell sold me (which works fine for my audio needs). Do i go for broke and buy the core 2 duo? also would i need a new power supply nstead of the stock 300-350 that i think dell gives you? Also, can you split the physical processors on a core 2 duo into logical processors? sorry lots of questions but i really need some clarification on this edit: the 8400 comes with a 350 (400max) ps and I used an online power calculator to check what I use and with the p4 i use about 260-270 watts. found a c2d within my price range: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003Quote So does that mean that an e6600 2.4ghz is actually two 1.2ghz cores working together? An E6600 is two cores running at 2.4GHz each. It's like having two CPUs - much smoother when multitasking. Quote My question is, are core 2 duos 775 lga's or will they not fit where a p4 originaly was? They are LGA775 CPUs, but your board may not support them. Check the manufacturer's site or your manual, if it's an older board it my need a BIOS update in which case be very careful and do not attempt it unless necessary. Quote Also would it be worth the money to upgrade from the 3ghz p4 i have to a core 2 duo? Depends what you do with your PC, if you're browsing the web and typing emails it won't make any difference. If you're using it for demanding tasks such as gaming, video editing, etc it will make a massive difference, also if you multitask you'll see a big boost. Quote How about if I just overclock the p4 i have now? it won't touch a C2D, even the lowest MODEL will outperform it most likely. Quote also would i need a new power supply nstead of the stock 300-350 that i think dell gives you? You're using a P4 and a 7950GT on a 300W PSU? That surprises me. If I were you I'd get a better unit, but make sure the one you have is a standard size first. Quote Also, can you split the physical processors on a core 2 duo into logical processors? I doubt it. Anyway, it wouldn't be necessary, technologies like Hyper Threading can't touch the real thing. The E6600 you linked to is a good choice, it offers great performance without the premium of the HIGHEST models.Excellent reply, Calum. Right on the ball. Just one thing though. He should buy an E4300 and not an E6600.Quote from: Jess607 on June 11, 2007, 07:59:50 PM Excellent reply, Calum. Right on the ball. Just one thing though. He should buy an E4300 and not an E6600. Yeah, E4300 is a little hotrod, but what about 6320 and 6420 ? I'm an AMD guy, but Intel sure has some nice choices right now.The E4300 is the lowest in the series. I advised the E6600 because it has 4Mb of L2 cache, the first model to do so (allowing for the fact that the 6320 and 6420 slipped my mind momentarily). Personally, I'd choose the E6320 for a good price and good performance - the extra L2 cache can really help in some situations and it's fairly cheap too.Quote from: jflan on June 11, 2007, 09:34:53 PM Quote from: Jess607 on June 11, 2007, 07:59:50 PM Excellent reply, Calum. Right on the ball. Just one thing though. He should buy an E4300 and not an E6600. Yeah, E4300 is a little hotrod, but what about 6320 and 6420 ? I'm an AMD guy, but Intel sure has some nice choices right now. If u have the motherboard and RAM to overclock your FSB to at least 400Mhz, then you can afford to buy the E6420 instead of the E4300 and gain another 2MB of cache. But if not, then you should buy the E4300 because an extra 2MB of cache doesn't give you much more performance and overclocking it higher will.Quote from: Calum on June 12, 2007, 03:13:47 AM The E4300 is the lowest in the series. I advised the E6600 because it has 4Mb of L2 cache, the first model to do so (allowing for the fact that the 6320 and 6420 slipped my mind momentarily). Personally, I'd choose the E6320 for a good price and good performance - the extra L2 cache can really help in some situations and it's fairly cheap too. No, thats not right. The E6600 is expensive and is not a good price/performance candidate. If you have a really crappy board that cant overclock the FSB very high, then you will need the 9x multiplier. But if you have such a board, then you dont really care about the extra 2MB of cache wich will only slightly IMPROVE performance. The E6320 is not a good CPU either because it's 7x multiplier is far too low to overclock well. The E6420 is good, but you will need a good board to overclock well. The E4300 is not the lowest in the series. The E4200 is the lowest, and thats without mentioning the upcoming Pentiums 2140 and 2160, both based on the Core 2 Duo core but with only 1MB of cache. And guess how much performance is lost - not much. Overclocking a 50$ Pentium 2140 to 3.4Ghz gets u the performance of the X6800 wich costs 1000$, so u see how thats a good idea. But buying the 100$ E4300 is still a good idea, cause its only 50$ more. Now, for the comparison of the E6600 and the E4300 - would u really spend twice the money for a 5-10% increase in performance in only some applications (NOT GAMES)? No.I don't see any mention of the OP wanting overclocking potential. I avoid mentioning overclocking unless they want to - if they're inexperienced they can really do some damage if they get overenthusiastic. Therefore I'm judging by stock speeds. I saw no mention of the E4200 on the Intel site yesterday, and I don't today. And I'm comparing current CPUs, not upcoming ones. The E4300 is 1.8GHz, the E6600 is 2.4 with twice the cache. I fail to see how that is 5% better.my 2 cents then I'll shut up !!! E6600 was 330.00 us a month ago. now it is just 234.00 <<< why not just save a little more for the best all around cpu ? ps... the 6420 is getting rage reviews by the way.. I guess if its a $$$ thing, you can't go wrong with that cpu as well if oc'ing will be attempted......Quote from: Calum on June 13, 2007, 05:17:45 AM I don't see any mention of the OP wanting overclocking potential. I avoid mentioning overclocking unless they want to - if they're inexperienced they can really do some damage if they get overenthusiastic. Therefore I'm judging by stock speeds. I saw no mention of the E4200 on the Intel site yesterday, and I don't today. And I'm comparing current CPUs, not upcoming ones. The E4300 is 1.8GHz, the E6600 is 2.4 with twice the cache. I fail to see how that is 5% better. You got to be kidding me! In a time when you can buy a 100$ E4300 and through overclocking, make it into the most powerful CPU on the PLANET, there is simply no room for not overclocking. The days of the poorly overclockable Athlon 64 are over. Core 2 Duo changed the picture. If ppl dont know how to overclock - tell them to come to me. I've guided dozens of ppl in the art of overclocking, and it really is very simply. If u fail to see how its only 5% better, then u need to overclock.Quote from: honvetops on June 13, 2007, 05:33:35 AM my 2 cents then I'll shut up !!! E6600 was 330.00 us a month ago. now it is just 234.00 <<< why not just save a little more for the best all around cpu ? ps... the 6420 is getting rage reviews by the way.. I guess if its a $$$ thing, you can't go wrong with that cpu as well if oc'ing will be attempted...... Yes, excellent advice for us Enthusiests. But for the budget crowed, the E4300 and a CNPS 9500 are a much better deal.Quote from: Jess607 on June 13, 2007, 08:12:43 AM Quote from: Calum on June 13, 2007, 05:17:45 AM I don't see any mention of the OP wanting overclocking potential. I avoid mentioning overclocking unless they want to - if they're inexperienced they can really do some damage if they get overenthusiastic. Therefore I'm judging by stock speeds. I saw no mention of the E4200 on the Intel site yesterday, and I don't today. And I'm comparing current CPUs, not upcoming ones. The E4300 is 1.8GHz, the E6600 is 2.4 with twice the cache. I fail to see how that is 5% better. You got to be kidding me! In a time when you can buy a 100$ E4300 and through overclocking, make it into the most powerful CPU on the planet, there is simply no room for not overclocking. The days of the poorly overclockable Athlon 64 are over. Core 2 Duo changed the picture. If ppl dont know how to overclock - tell them to come to me. I've guided dozens of ppl in the art of overclocking, and it really is very simply. If u fail to see how its only 5% better, then u need to overclock. Without overclocking, it is not 5% better. It is more than that. And it's all right saying tell people to go to you to help them overclock, but if they blow up their PC or set it on fire because of that, it's not all right for them.Thats completely exaggerated. Overclocking is really not very hard at all and their PCs are not going to blow up from it just like they won't from buying a non-name-brand PSU, and I refuse to help people buy an already higher-clocked CPU. Because by that logic, buying a 6000+ is a good idea.

Answer»

So i have a p4 3ghz cpu and just for kicks i was looking for other processors as i have pretty much rebuilt my compy recently (originally a dell 8400 compy, now with a new case, mobo, audigy 2, 3gb ram and a xfx 512mb 7950gt). I dont know much about the core processors except that you don't multiply the speed by 2 its just 2 processors running at some frequency. So does that mean that an e6600 2.4ghz is actually two 1.2ghz cores working together?
Now i have played with hyperthreading on my compy before and i think two logical processors on one physical processor does give an increase in speed and smoothness. My question is, are core 2 duos 775 lga's or will they not fit where a p4 originaly was? Also would it be worth the money to upgrade from the 3ghz p4 i have to a core 2 duo? What speed do you think would make it a wiser choice? How about if I just overclock the p4 i have now? I've replaced everything on my compy except for the 1gig (2x512) of ram and audigy 2 dell sold me (which works fine for my audio needs). Do i go for broke and buy the core 2 duo? also would i need a new power supply nstead of the stock 300-350 that i think dell gives you? Also, can you split the physical processors on a core 2 duo into logical processors?

sorry lots of questions but i really need some clarification on this

edit: the 8400 comes with a 350 (400max) ps and I used an online power calculator to check what I use and with the p4 i use about 260-270 watts.

found a c2d within my price range: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003Quote

So does that mean that an e6600 2.4ghz is actually two 1.2ghz cores working together?

An E6600 is two cores running at 2.4GHz each.
It's like having two CPUs - much smoother when multitasking.
Quote

My question is, are core 2 duos 775 lga's or will they not fit where a p4 originaly was?

They are LGA775 CPUs, but your board may not support them.
Check the manufacturer's site or your manual, if it's an older board it my need a BIOS update in which case be very careful and do not attempt it unless necessary.
Quote

Also would it be worth the money to upgrade from the 3ghz p4 i have to a core 2 duo?

Depends what you do with your PC, if you're browsing the web and typing emails it won't make any difference.
If you're using it for demanding tasks such as gaming, video editing, etc it will make a massive difference, also if you multitask you'll see a big boost.
Quote

How about if I just overclock the p4 i have now?

it won't touch a C2D, even the lowest MODEL will outperform it most likely.
Quote

also would i need a new power supply nstead of the stock 300-350 that i think dell gives you?

You're using a P4 and a 7950GT on a 300W PSU?
That surprises me.
If I were you I'd get a better unit, but make sure the one you have is a standard size first.
Quote

Also, can you split the physical processors on a core 2 duo into logical processors?

I doubt it.
Anyway, it wouldn't be necessary, technologies like Hyper Threading can't touch the real thing.

The E6600 you linked to is a good choice, it offers great performance without the premium of the HIGHEST models.Excellent reply, Calum. Right on the ball.

Just one thing though. He should buy an E4300 and not an E6600.Quote from: Jess607 on June 11, 2007, 07:59:50 PM

Excellent reply, Calum. Right on the ball.

Just one thing though. He should buy an E4300 and not an E6600.

Yeah, E4300 is a little hotrod, but what about 6320 and 6420 ?
I'm an AMD guy, but Intel sure has some nice choices right now.The E4300 is the lowest in the series.
I advised the E6600 because it has 4Mb of L2 cache, the first model to do so (allowing for the fact that the 6320 and 6420 slipped my mind momentarily).
Personally, I'd choose the E6320 for a good price and good performance - the extra L2 cache can really help in some situations and it's fairly cheap too.Quote from: jflan on June 11, 2007, 09:34:53 PM

Quote from: Jess607 on June 11, 2007, 07:59:50 PM
Excellent reply, Calum. Right on the ball.

Just one thing though. He should buy an E4300 and not an E6600.

Yeah, E4300 is a little hotrod, but what about 6320 and 6420 ?
I'm an AMD guy, but Intel sure has some nice choices right now.

If u have the motherboard and RAM to overclock your FSB to at least 400Mhz, then you can afford to buy the E6420 instead of the E4300 and gain another 2MB of cache. But if not, then you should buy the E4300 because an extra 2MB of cache doesn't give you much more performance and overclocking it higher will.Quote from: Calum on June 12, 2007, 03:13:47 AM

The E4300 is the lowest in the series.
I advised the E6600 because it has 4Mb of L2 cache, the first model to do so (allowing for the fact that the 6320 and 6420 slipped my mind momentarily).
Personally, I'd choose the E6320 for a good price and good performance - the extra L2 cache can really help in some situations and it's fairly cheap too.

No, thats not right.

The E6600 is expensive and is not a good price/performance candidate. If you have a really crappy board that cant overclock the FSB very high, then you will need the 9x multiplier. But if you have such a board, then you dont really care about the extra 2MB of cache wich will only slightly IMPROVE performance.

The E6320 is not a good CPU either because it's 7x multiplier is far too low to overclock well. The E6420 is good, but you will need a good board to overclock well.

The E4300 is not the lowest in the series. The E4200 is the lowest, and thats without mentioning the upcoming Pentiums 2140 and 2160, both based on the Core 2 Duo core but with only 1MB of cache. And guess how much performance is lost - not much. Overclocking a 50$ Pentium 2140 to 3.4Ghz gets u the performance of the X6800 wich costs 1000$, so u see how thats a good idea.
But buying the 100$ E4300 is still a good idea, cause its only 50$ more.

Now, for the comparison of the E6600 and the E4300 - would u really spend twice the money for a 5-10% increase in performance in only some applications (NOT GAMES)? No.I don't see any mention of the OP wanting overclocking potential.
I avoid mentioning overclocking unless they want to - if they're inexperienced they can really do some damage if they get overenthusiastic.
Therefore I'm judging by stock speeds.

I saw no mention of the E4200 on the Intel site yesterday, and I don't today.
And I'm comparing current CPUs, not upcoming ones.

The E4300 is 1.8GHz, the E6600 is 2.4 with twice the cache.
I fail to see how that is 5% better.my 2 cents then I'll shut up !!!

E6600 was 330.00 us a month ago.

now it is just 234.00 <<< why not just save a little more for the best all around cpu ?

ps... the 6420 is getting rage reviews by the way.. I guess if its a $$$ thing,
you can't go wrong with that cpu as well if oc'ing will be attempted......Quote from: Calum on June 13, 2007, 05:17:45 AM

I don't see any mention of the OP wanting overclocking potential.
I avoid mentioning overclocking unless they want to - if they're inexperienced they can really do some damage if they get overenthusiastic.
Therefore I'm judging by stock speeds.

I saw no mention of the E4200 on the Intel site yesterday, and I don't today.
And I'm comparing current CPUs, not upcoming ones.

The E4300 is 1.8GHz, the E6600 is 2.4 with twice the cache.
I fail to see how that is 5% better.

You got to be kidding me!

In a time when you can buy a 100$ E4300 and through overclocking, make it into the most powerful CPU on the PLANET, there is simply no room for not overclocking.
The days of the poorly overclockable Athlon 64 are over. Core 2 Duo changed the picture.

If ppl dont know how to overclock - tell them to come to me. I've guided dozens of ppl in the art of overclocking, and it really is very simply.

If u fail to see how its only 5% better, then u need to overclock.Quote from: honvetops on June 13, 2007, 05:33:35 AM

my 2 cents then I'll shut up !!!

E6600 was 330.00 us a month ago.

now it is just 234.00 <<< why not just save a little more for the best all around cpu ?

ps... the 6420 is getting rage reviews by the way.. I guess if its a $$$ thing,
you can't go wrong with that cpu as well if oc'ing will be attempted......

Yes, excellent advice for us Enthusiests. But for the budget crowed, the E4300 and a CNPS 9500 are a much better deal.Quote from: Jess607 on June 13, 2007, 08:12:43 AM

Quote from: Calum on June 13, 2007, 05:17:45 AM
I don't see any mention of the OP wanting overclocking potential.
I avoid mentioning overclocking unless they want to - if they're inexperienced they can really do some damage if they get overenthusiastic.
Therefore I'm judging by stock speeds.

I saw no mention of the E4200 on the Intel site yesterday, and I don't today.
And I'm comparing current CPUs, not upcoming ones.

The E4300 is 1.8GHz, the E6600 is 2.4 with twice the cache.
I fail to see how that is 5% better.

You got to be kidding me!

In a time when you can buy a 100$ E4300 and through overclocking, make it into the most powerful CPU on the planet, there is simply no room for not overclocking.
The days of the poorly overclockable Athlon 64 are over. Core 2 Duo changed the picture.

If ppl dont know how to overclock - tell them to come to me. I've guided dozens of ppl in the art of overclocking, and it really is very simply.

If u fail to see how its only 5% better, then u need to overclock.

Without overclocking, it is not 5% better. It is more than that.
And it's all right saying tell people to go to you to help them overclock, but if they blow up their PC or set it on fire because of that, it's not all right for them.Thats completely exaggerated.

Overclocking is really not very hard at all and their PCs are not going to blow up from it just like they won't from buying a non-name-brand PSU, and I refuse to help people buy an already higher-clocked CPU. Because by that logic, buying a 6000+ is a good idea.

Solve : core 2 duo processor vs p4?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment