Pentium 4 Vs. Core Duo 2
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,239
Likes: 0
From: Delaware & Long Island NY
Pentium 4 Vs. Core Duo 2
I currently have a P4 extreme Edition HT 3.4ghz non-overclocked. Will i notice a night and day difference with one of the new Core Duo 2 processors?
Yes I read Core Duo 2 blows p4 away but anyone here actually have one and compared?
Yes I read Core Duo 2 blows p4 away but anyone here actually have one and compared?
#2
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,029
Likes: 0
From: NEBF:06,07 | NYBF:06,07 | ONBF:06,07 | CNBF:06 & more............
well when i went froma AMD 64 3700+ 1mb to a AMD X2 4400+ 2mb there was a driffrence but not a night and day... if its running fast enuff for you now and does every thing u need then dont wates the money.
But if your like me, then every speed incress counts
But if your like me, then every speed incress counts
#5
One question, what do you use your computer for?
Unless you say extensive 3D rendering, or compression of large video files, or some other massively CPU intensive task, it'* hugely not worth the money.
My AMD single core, 32 bit 2600+ is still an awesome computer. Albeit I also have a dual core 64 bit 3800+, AND a Core Duo laptop which is equivalent to about a 4400+ and honestly the times I notice the laptop being faster are rare.
99% of the population should be investing their CPU money into high end hard drives, that'* when you can genuinely say, "Wow, that money was worth it"
Instead spend $350 on some 10k or 15K ULTA160 SCSIs, stickm' in RAID 0 and notice a real difference. Or for simplicity just get some WD Raptor'*, less overhead cost than SCSI drives, not as fast, but still worthwhile.
Big difference between a 12ms and a 3.5ms seek time!
(Ok, so that was partly a rant over the new Core2s and people being obsessed with them.)
Unless you say extensive 3D rendering, or compression of large video files, or some other massively CPU intensive task, it'* hugely not worth the money.
My AMD single core, 32 bit 2600+ is still an awesome computer. Albeit I also have a dual core 64 bit 3800+, AND a Core Duo laptop which is equivalent to about a 4400+ and honestly the times I notice the laptop being faster are rare.
99% of the population should be investing their CPU money into high end hard drives, that'* when you can genuinely say, "Wow, that money was worth it"
Instead spend $350 on some 10k or 15K ULTA160 SCSIs, stickm' in RAID 0 and notice a real difference. Or for simplicity just get some WD Raptor'*, less overhead cost than SCSI drives, not as fast, but still worthwhile.
Big difference between a 12ms and a 3.5ms seek time!
(Ok, so that was partly a rant over the new Core2s and people being obsessed with them.)
#6
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,029
Likes: 0
From: NEBF:06,07 | NYBF:06,07 | ONBF:06,07 | CNBF:06 & more............
aCiD- X2 to that
Thats whyt i have two SATA 2 160gigs ina Raid 0, thats where all the speed comes from
also 2GB of memory helps alot!
Thats whyt i have two SATA 2 160gigs ina Raid 0, thats where all the speed comes from
also 2GB of memory helps alot!
#7
Bandit
Like I >AM< a person who does lots of CPU intensive stuff, but I just don't do it THAT often to justify expensive processors and new boards.
I got dual (RAID0) 36GB 10k Ulta160 SCSIs on my main workstation. And my AMD 2600+ has dual SATA 120s on RAID0.
Since all my stuff is kept on the rather volatile RAID0 setups (as reliable as SCSIs are...) I also keep a tape backup of my main systems.
1GB of RAM is mandatory nowadays, you really have to be a reasonably serious user to need 2GB. When I get into Photoshop pretty hardcore I can get up to needing 3.5GB at times , but again, too expensive and not needed often enough to justify.
Like I >AM< a person who does lots of CPU intensive stuff, but I just don't do it THAT often to justify expensive processors and new boards.
I got dual (RAID0) 36GB 10k Ulta160 SCSIs on my main workstation. And my AMD 2600+ has dual SATA 120s on RAID0.
Since all my stuff is kept on the rather volatile RAID0 setups (as reliable as SCSIs are...) I also keep a tape backup of my main systems.
1GB of RAM is mandatory nowadays, you really have to be a reasonably serious user to need 2GB. When I get into Photoshop pretty hardcore I can get up to needing 3.5GB at times , but again, too expensive and not needed often enough to justify.