I've been working with my 3.4Ghz single core Pentium 4 CPU for about five years, and it has served me well.
I think the Pentium 4 is a pretty fast CPU for it's age, maybe I just got used to the speed.
In addition to my P4, I've been running on only 1 GB of RAM.

Now the main question is, how much faster is a 4GB PC running on a Core 2 Duo CPU (specifically an E8X00) compared to my 1GB P4 rig?

I'm looking for comments from people who have experience with multiple CPUs and from those who actually own a E8X00 Wolfdale processor. Analogies will greatly help to satiate me.

If you want/need to know what I use my PC for: I'm a general gamer and I usually multitask a load of heavy software (Steam, PS, Fx, 3dsmax and MSN all at the same time runs surprisingly well on my PC.)

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jun 14 2009, 5:59 am by FlyingHat.

Well, I went from a P4 3 GHz 1 Gb set up (pretty similar to yours) to a E6700 + 2 Gb set up winter '06. The difference was night and day.

Depends on what OS you're running on, some OSes can use the multiple cores well, other's cannot, what you'll mostly notice when you switch over is that your multitasking capabilities will shoot through the roof, especially with the extra RAM.

I upgraded from a 2.7 P4 to the E8700. I must say I enjoy its speed much more than my slow ass old compy, also 4gb ram.

How much more? How big was the change to you?

Sounds pretty drastic to me.

My comp genius friend said that dual core, when used correctly, is much faster and cheaper than a single core.

In your case, most games don't evenly distribute the workload between both processors(if at all) so gaming will generally be faster on a single core.

Generally true, however with the new Duo cores and OSes to use them, they can act better as a single core, however, what it really comes down to is how well threaded the game you're trying to play is.

Very noticable, not only does windows start up in under 3 seconds well, its capible of actually running higher end games as well.

Not to mention when you alt tab from a game, it doesnt take an hour for the start bar to reload, only about a second.

No DM, you have an E5300. I'd know, I designed your PC.

It doesn't take a genius to know that having more than one core will equal better performance. You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that.

Not true. Maybe you DID need your 'genius' friend to tell you.

Look, more cores = more performance, even if an application or game is old and single threaded, there are instructions on the CPU itself to try and work the load out between the cores. This isn't as fast, efficient, or as perfect as it could be if the app or game was meant for it, but it still means that your CPU is using those cores. And even if we aren't strictly talking about that particular game or app, what about the other processes on your computer that are running while you're playing said game? Windows services, explorer.exe, and all the other nice things that run as long as your computer is up.

Also, you're all forgetting architecture improvements from each CPU lineup. A Core 2 Duo like the E8400 could be limited to a single core and clocked to 2.7GHz. It would, clock for clock, beat a P4 2.7. Why? Architecture. Each time Intel releases a new lineup they aren't just rehashing the same processor on a smaller die with a bigger cache and clock rate. Each design is made to be more efficient and powerful. You could clock that P4 as high as you want, throw on as much cache as you like too, but its architecture is old and it will never stand up to the newer CPUs.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 14 2009, 2:19 pm by Excalibur.

First off, I believe you misunderstood me, second I wasn't saying his statement was flooded with genius, I was validating his statement. Plus, you seem to be disreguarding the cost portion of that statement.

It's nice to hear another opinion, and I understand your side of the argument, but I think you misunderstood mine. Most games haven't been properly multithreaded, so the game itself doesn't receive any boost from a dualcore. Maybe you need a genius to tell you that what you said was super obvious. Naturally, multitasking on a dualcore is more efficient.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 15 2009, 5:48 am by Jello-Jigglers.

Long time no see Jello.

the advantage of a multi core depends on a couple things. like Jello(or his friend) said, older games haven't been made to utilize multi core processors. However, that doesn't mean gaming performance isn't enhanced by a multi-core. As is the case with most newer games too, the OS(for windows, xp and above can utilize multi-cores) is what distributes the workload. While each core has the capability to top out at X.X speed, the OS will spread the work load(games, programs, what ever) to the multiple cores. The only real advantage of having a game that utilizes multi cores is that the OS doesn't need to do any extra work, which will save you a neglegable amount of processing power.

In general, and there is a formula I forget what, a multi core is usually better than a single core. A single core 4 ghz processor, will be better than a dual core 1.2 ghz. however a 1.2 ghz triple core, will be better than a 4 ghz single core.

Coming from someone who has 3.25 gigs of ram(32 bit >.>) and a 4.4ghz Quad core processor, multi cores are a lot better. The biggest difference in changing from a single core to a multi core of about the same speed, will indeed be the greater multi tasking capabilites. Don't forget though, multi tasking also requires a good deal of ram, not just processing power.

As the quote attests, I didn't call you any names. I suggest you stop the name calling unless you're looking for moderation. I stated these things did not take a genius to know, but due to other statements you made, I reasoned maybe you needed someone smarter to explain them to you.

You completely ignored the entire section on architectural improvements, probably because you don't understand them.

I didn't exactly want to see a bunch of unintelligible bickering.
Ex's statement concerning architecture is completely correct, but I don't want to know what is faster.

What I DO want to know is how big is the speed gap between a 90mm Prescott Pentium 4 and a 45mm Wolfdale Core 2 Duo.

Basically Hat, I'd say clock for clock, a Wolf has 1GHz advantage over a Prescott at least. IE Wolf at 1Ghz and 1 core disabled beats a Prescott at 2GHz.

In that situation, there wont be much, if any of a speed gap when doing something like gaming. However in this case you can do more at once. Like run two games, why you would do that I have no idea.

Dwarf Fortress + Source SDK + Firefox + MSN Chat + Photoshop

Hmmm... How did I ever manage that on a P4?

you do mean 45 nm right?

Well wait a second, what gave me the idea I had a 8700 then, wheres that number coming from O_O

But hey, you'd be impressed by what I got as well...I guess.

I have no idea. Your GFX is a 4830, maybe you mixed something up there.

Thats the one, sorry for the mix up XD

Sucks when someone knows more about your stuff than you do