Computer help: Help an "older" user understand new CPU speeds
Help an "older" user understand new CPU speeds
by frapnitz - 9/12/08 10:12 AMI currently have a P4 3.6 Ghz 2 GB Ram machine. I am in the market for a new box. Unfortunately, with the advent of multiple cores, quad processors, etc. I no longer understand just what "speed" means. When it was simple (e.g. 3.6 Ghz), I just went for the higher number. Now I don't know 'what" the higher number is or means. For example is a Core 2 duo at 2.1 Ghz faster than my hyper-threaded 3.6 Ghz? I do minimal gaming (Tiger Woods golf extremely slow on this machine), and recently bought Spore......I also do Video editing (using Pinnacle 11). Any input graciously accepted......Thanx
In short.
by R. Proffitt
- 9/12/08 10:26 AM
In reply to: Help an "older" user understand new CPU speeds by frapnitz
The new Core 2 CPUs clock speeds when I compare to the classic P4 are doubled up. That is your P4 at 3.6GHz should fair about the same as any Centrino or Core 2 running at 1.8GHz. Yup that 2.1 GHz is much faster. But you have issues that slow it down such as the new OS and more importantly the GPU.
Now about GAMES!!!
That's usually not a CPU issue but the GPU. Here's the list of cards that are "good for the money" -> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,1987.html
Bob
Things are never as easy as "the biggest number"
by 3rdalbum - 9/13/08 2:32 AM In reply to: Help an "older" user understand new CPU speeds by frapnitzBefore I begin answering your question, even back in the days of the Pentium 4s, it wasn't as easy as just picking the highest number. At that period, Intel's processors had a high clock speed, but were inefficient. AMD's processors had a lower clock speed, but were more efficient, and actually ran faster.
Clock speed is not a scientific indication of actual processing power - it's just one part of a processor's specifications that can have a bearing on performance.
The first replier wasn't quite correct about the speeds of Core 2 versus P4. A Core 2 Duo at 3.33 GHz per core is actually more than twice as fast as your old P4 at 3.6GHz. Core 2 processors are more efficiently designed. Each 3.33 GHz core is much more powerful than your old P4, uses less electricity, and generates less heat.
Since your last computer would have been pretty high-end at the time, you'll probably want to get another high-end computer this time. In this case, you should be watching out for the 2.8GHz Core 2 Duos and above, or possibly the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quads which have been popular for a while. The quad-core will whip through your video editing, assuming that your Pinnacle software is written to take advantage of the four cores.
I bought a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo back when they were the fastest you could get, and I'm very happy. I guarantee you, it runs rings around your P4. You probably don't want to look at AMD as their processors haven't caught up with Intel's yet - sad truth. In this case, Intel's processors are more efficient than AMD's, as well as being higher clocked.
Exactly what I was looking for
by frapnitz - 9/13/08 6:09 AM In reply to: Things are never as easy as "the biggest number" by 3rdalbumThanx to you both for the info.....I am now enlightened. Another element in the equation is the Graphics card.....I'll ensure that that it is top of the line also....I'm just a geezer geek that likes his speed. Now if we could only get FIOS (instead of my 4MB down) or something similar in my little rural town, I'd really be happy. Once again....thanx for taking yoiur tine.
Processor Speed
by msgale - 9/13/08 7:56 PM In reply to: Help an "older" user understand new CPU speeds by frapnitzYou must consider three issues;
1. Clock speed, in your case 3.4 GHZ. Everything operates at that beat on multiples of that beat.
2. Cycles per instruction, if on your older processor a simple add took four cycles the processor could execute 850,000,000 additions per second. On some newer processor (2.0 GHZ) an add takes two cycles that processor could execute 1,000,000,000 additions per second.
3. Number of processors. This is tricky because this is really two issues:
A. Is your application designed to multiple processors or not?
B. Even if your application is not multiproce4sssor aware, the extra processors will be able to off-load other task the system is running thereby giving your application more time to run.
There is also another bunch of issues amongst which are cache size, cache speed, and memory access time.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
