Might seem like a no-brainer to some but I have to make sure.
A 3.2GHz Pentium 4 w/ HT 1MB cache
or
A 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo E4700 w/ 2MB cache
A 3.2GHz Pentium 4 w/ HT 1MB cache
or
A 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo E4700 w/ 2MB cache
The C2D, Billy, the C2D.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Option 2.
lol #2
C2D >>>>>>>>>> P4
anyday
anyday
Dual Core > Single Core Always
Not always. But C2D > Netburst Always.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
Dual Core > Single Core Always
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
liquidat0r wrote:
Option 2.
Depends what you mean by 'faster'.
But I don't want to get into that argument again.
(because it will just end up with various people telling me I'm wrong, when they haven't actually read (or maybe just comprehended) what it was I was actually saying)
But I don't want to get into that argument again.
(because it will just end up with various people telling me I'm wrong, when they haven't actually read (or maybe just comprehended) what it was I was actually saying)
The thing is, that most other people don't have the issues you have with GHzScorpion0x17 wrote:
Depends what you mean by 'faster'.
But I don't want to get into that argument again.
(because it will just end up with various people telling me I'm wrong, when they haven't actually read (or maybe just comprehended) what it was I was actually saying)
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Lol, I have option 1
But Option 2 is faster
But Option 2 is faster
Does the 2.6ghz mean two cores each running at 2.6ghz or 1.3ghz each?
Well the P4 is going to perform slower at any task you throw at it so how exactly is there a scenario where it would be considered 'faster'.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Depends what you mean by 'faster'.
But I don't want to get into that argument again.
(because it will just end up with various people telling me I'm wrong, when they haven't actually read (or maybe just comprehended) what it was I was actually saying)
He's got some issues with that... He means that it's 600MHz faster clocked.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well the P4 is going to perform slower at any task you throw at it so how exactly is there a scenario where it would be considered 'faster'.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Depends what you mean by 'faster'.
But I don't want to get into that argument again.
(because it will just end up with various people telling me I'm wrong, when they haven't actually read (or maybe just comprehended) what it was I was actually saying)
It does not work that way! Dourgh! A 2.6GHz dual-core is 2x2.6GHz. You can't count it as one 5.2GHz either. Just two times 2.6GHz.wah1188 wrote:
Does the 2.6ghz mean two cores each running at 2.6ghz or 1.3ghz each?
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Chill.Freezer7Pro wrote:
He's got some issues with that... He means that it's 600MHz faster clocked.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well the P4 is going to perform slower at any task you throw at it so how exactly is there a scenario where it would be considered 'faster'.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Depends what you mean by 'faster'.
But I don't want to get into that argument again.
(because it will just end up with various people telling me I'm wrong, when they haven't actually read (or maybe just comprehended) what it was I was actually saying)It does not work that way! Dourgh! A 2.6GHz dual-core is 2x2.6GHz. You can't count it as one 5.2GHz either. Just two times 2.6GHz.wah1188 wrote:
Does the 2.6ghz mean two cores each running at 2.6ghz or 1.3ghz each?
But yeah I agree with you, I hate it when I run off a list of specs to someone and they say "So if it's a (say for example) 2.2 quad core I've got 8.8Ghz?"
/facedesk
I wasn't talking about a 2Ghz C2D vs a 5Ghz P4Freezer7Pro wrote:
Not always. But C2D > Netburst Always.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
Dual Core > Single Core Always
An 1.8GHz single-core Conroe beats a 4GHz P4 with HT any day.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
I wasn't talking about a 2Ghz C2D vs a 5Ghz P4Freezer7Pro wrote:
Not always. But C2D > Netburst Always.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
Dual Core > Single Core Always
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Anything now can beat a 5GHz P4. P4's were shit and who the fuck would buy them and how the fuck can you find one lol.Freezer7Pro wrote:
An 1.8GHz single-core Conroe beats a 4GHz P4 with HT any day.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
I wasn't talking about a 2Ghz C2D vs a 5Ghz P4Freezer7Pro wrote:
Not always. But C2D > Netburst Always.
Actually, in a multi thread app that can use all the cores, you could, in theroy get that 8.8Ghz. If the app is written for it. Though there limited in more ways than one, the fact intel quads aint really quads (two dualies) is one.Funky_Finny wrote:
Chill.Freezer7Pro wrote:
He's got some issues with that... He means that it's 600MHz faster clocked.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well the P4 is going to perform slower at any task you throw at it so how exactly is there a scenario where it would be considered 'faster'.It does not work that way! Dourgh! A 2.6GHz dual-core is 2x2.6GHz. You can't count it as one 5.2GHz either. Just two times 2.6GHz.wah1188 wrote:
Does the 2.6ghz mean two cores each running at 2.6ghz or 1.3ghz each?
But yeah I agree with you, I hate it when I run off a list of specs to someone and they say "So if it's a (say for example) 2.2 quad core I've got 8.8Ghz?"
/facedesk
Martyn
Last edited by Bell (2008-06-15 11:32:30)
In theory though, but it is not running at 8Ghz, but the all the cores are working in parallel. Kinda like comparing a 2 lane highway and a 4 lane highway with the number of cores, doesn't make shit faster, but lets you do a lot more without clogging up.Bell wrote:
Actually, in a multi thread app that can use all the cores, you could, in theroy get that 8.8Ghz. If the app is written for it.Funky_Finny wrote:
Chill.Freezer7Pro wrote:
He's got some issues with that... He means that it's 600MHz faster clocked.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well the P4 is going to perform slower at any task you throw at it so how exactly is there a scenario where it would be considered 'faster'.
It does not work that way! Dourgh! A 2.6GHz dual-core is 2x2.6GHz. You can't count it as one 5.2GHz either. Just two times 2.6GHz.
But yeah I agree with you, I hate it when I run off a list of specs to someone and they say "So if it's a (say for example) 2.2 quad core I've got 8.8Ghz?"
/facedesk
Martyn
True, but what Bell is trying to say, is, that if there is one, and only one, super-optimized process, and a super-optimized CPU, it is the same as having an 8.8GHz single-core CPU. However, neither exist :Dcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
In theory though, but it is not running at 8Ghz, but the all the cores are working in parallel. Kinda like comparing a 2 lane highway and a 4 lane highway with the number of cores, doesn't make shit faster, but lets you do a lot more without clogging up.Bell wrote:
Actually, in a multi thread app that can use all the cores, you could, in theroy get that 8.8Ghz. If the app is written for it.Funky_Finny wrote:
Chill. :)
But yeah I agree with you, I hate it when I run off a list of specs to someone and they say "So if it's a (say for example) 2.2 quad core I've got 8.8Ghz?"
/facedesk
Martyn
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
So this doesn't even hold a candle to the E4700?
3.4GHz and it's a real dual core and it has twice the cache(4MB over the E4700's 2MB), but it's still a Pentium
3.4GHz and it's a real dual core and it has twice the cache(4MB over the E4700's 2MB), but it's still a Pentium
Last edited by _j5689_ (2008-06-16 14:09:44)