Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1

    Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86ghz???

    I don't get this what the hell is with Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86ghz I currently have p4 3.2 ghz and compare to 1.86ghz its hell lot better then core 2 duo


    Im very confuse what should I do which will be better the Cor2 Duo 1.86ghz or my current P4 3.2 ghz as far as I hear core 2 duo is the fastest processor on the market.

    Someone please explain to me.
    I mean shoulldn't the duo 2 core be like faster and better/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    What data do you have proving one faster than the other?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,566
    Quote Originally Posted by priceww
    I don't get this what the hell is with Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86ghz I currently have p4 3.2 ghz and compare to 1.86ghz its hell lot better then core 2 duo


    Im very confuse what should I do which will be better the Cor2 Duo 1.86ghz or my current P4 3.2 ghz as far as I hear core 2 duo is the fastest processor on the market.

    Someone please explain to me.
    I mean shoulldn't the duo 2 core be like faster and better/
    The Core 2 Duo has a superior architecture so it can use faster memory and the motherboards for core 2 duo have better designs and take advantage of newer hardware. In addition, clock speed is irrelevant. The main factor of performance is how much work can be done per clock cycle. The core 2 duo has a second processing core. In a few years when programmers figure out how to use threads you'll notice a large performance boost when compared with the old p4. Right now video editing software is threaded, hence why people that do that sort of work love dual cores.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bluesquare dc, Uk
    Posts
    1,591
    We've lots of both, and I can safely assure you the core2duo is MUCH better a cpu
    Olly | INX-Gaming
    Call of Duty 4 hosting

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    737
    to the OP, that 1.86GHz is per core in case you are not up to speed with things, making it 3.72GHz across both cores, and tahts 3.72GHz of Core Design as opposed to the highly innefficient 3.2GHz of Netspeed design your P4 has, as such it uses about half the power, is cooler etc, which in turns makes it cheaper to run ( power wise, and cooling wise ) which makes the operating cost far less, which is just great lol.
    Perigee Global Corporation
    Design, Development and Hosting Solutions
    Dedicated Servers, CDN, Hosted E-Mail, Web Hosting, VPS & Cloud Servers
    1.212.400-7632 www.perigeeglobal.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    157
    Plus...

    The C2Duo's have better L2 Cache, each core can allocate the 4mb L2 cache if it is available. Other brands utilize separate 1mb L2 banks for each core.

    A Woodcrest processor will toast the old single core P4's because of the cache performance.

    Here some intel propaganda:
    http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...tools_coredemo

    http://www.intel.com/products/proces..._processordemo


    click on the cache link in the demo to get a visual.

  7. #7
    Damn guys I really love how you put this togather, I'm getting a Core 2 Duo wooo hooo.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    sydney.au
    Posts
    248
    Check the benchmarks. The Core 2 Duo runs approximately twice as fast as a P4, clock-for-clock. So the 1.86GHz Core 2 is equal to a 3.72GHz P4 - and then it has two cores! So it will be more than twice as fast as your P4 in total.

  9. #9
    What I find interesting about companies offering the core 2 duo is that it is a desktop processor. Where as the Pentium D is listed as their server processor. The differences are the L2 cache for the core duo is listed as 4M but the pentium D is 2x2M. The front side bus is faster for the core 2 duo, 1066, compared to the pentium D which is 800 and according to Intel the pentium D uses DDR2.

    The 1.86 processor server that priceww is looking at is actually a 2MB cache, not 4MB so thats something to be aware of.

    I guess my question is, wouldn't you want a processor specifically made for a server according to the manufacturers specs rather than a desktop processor?
    Matt Kelly
    WCiT.net
    Managed and Unmanaged
    Budget VPS, Cloud and Colocation

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    sydney.au
    Posts
    248
    The Pentium D is marketed as a desktop processor too. And the Core 2 Duo is better suited for server use due to its far lower power consumption - less heat to worry about in that 1U case.

    There's actually no meaningful difference between most of Intel's desktop and server processors. The Xeon 3060, for instance, is identical to the Core 2 Duo E6600. The dual-socket Xeon 5100 and 5300 series chips are again Core 2 Duos/Quads inside, just with a faster FSB and a different socket.

    The only chips that are really different are the Xeon MP chips (which have huge L2 caches) and the Itanium (which no-one buys anyway).

  11. #11
    Thats interesting to know. I always wondered why intel and amd had to make it so complicated with all the processors on the market. The way they are named, code named, etc. It would seem to me that they could sell more of the right processors to people if it was easier to understand all the gibberish they use.

    We've been testing some core 2 duo vs. the pentium D dual core and the difference in power usage is negligable really. By running all core 2 duo on a single 30 amp power circuit there is not enough power savings to plug in even one more server. Monitoring the temperature of the two servers there is a slight decrease in temp on the core 2 duo but we would need to have 50,000 servers to see any appreciable difference in heat output.
    Matt Kelly
    WCiT.net
    Managed and Unmanaged
    Budget VPS, Cloud and Colocation

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    157
    On the Dual/Quad proc (Woodcrest & Clovertown) packages the FSB is critical.

    Here is an article that suggests the Clovers FSB architecture is undersized, or perhaps under-designed, to handle the load that a quad might be capable of putting out.

    http://www.insight64.com/downloads/I...gentDesign.pdf

    It's a good read, even if almost 11 months old.

    I have heard feedback from providers with both Woodcrest & Clovertowns that they aren't really seeing the big performance over a single Woodcrest box. Although it is true that "Quad-CPU" will likely sell better than "Dual CPU" even if performance gain is marginal because of the FSB & Cache buffering problems. No one sees past the "QUAD" label.

    I am building a dedi box to colo and am really waffling between a 2x woodie, or a 1x clover. Or maybe a 1x woodie! Sometimes I say screw-it... lets just put in a 352 celeron! (ie... go cheap but build more boxes)... I probably have a few Bartons in my spare parts box!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •