• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Pentium 4 vs C2D/C2Q in Single thread apps

J

jadams

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
4,086
Say you have an old single core Pentium 4 3.0Ghz, and a lower clocked C2D/C2Q.

Dealing with a single threaded application which processor would net you better results. By how much?

This is a general question. And pretty broad I know.
 
There's a bit of a misunderstanding. The OS will schedule certain threads to run on other cores, so in most cases a dual core is going to be faster than a single core. Plus, the Core2 technology is superior to the P4 in every way, so even a slower Core2 is still going to outperform P4. I remember going from a 2.4Ghz single core P4 to a 3.06 P4 with HyperThreading, which is actually only 2 virtual cores. The multitasking was drastically better, so the applications them self do not have to be multi-core aware in order to take advantage of multiple cores, it just helps much more than the OS itself can handle.

Now bumping up to the quad core, depending on the OS, it could be another story. Some things are going to run faster on a fast dual core than a slow quad.
 
One P4 core at 3.0 GHZ will be outperformed by one Core 2 core at 1.3Ghz
 
bigdogchris said:
There's a bit of a misunderstanding. The OS will schedule certain threads to run on other cores, so in most cases a dual core is going to be faster than a single core. Plus, the Core2 technology is superior to the P4 in every way, so even a slower Core2 is still going to outperform P4. I remember going from a 2.4Ghz single core P4 to a 3.06 P4 with HyperThreading, which is actually only 2 virtual cores. The multitasking was drastically better, so the applications them self do not have to be multi-core aware in order to take advantage of multiple cores, it just helps much more than the OS itself can handle.

Now bumping up to the quad core, depending on the OS, it could be another story. Some things are going to run faster on a fast dual core than a slow quad.
Click to expand...

This sort of clarifies it. My question is derived from the firewall application pfsense. We use it quite alot down in the Networking Forum.

It runs on FreeBSD8. Currently even the OS is only single threaded. My current install uses a 2.13Ghz C2D. Even at MAX load CPU usage will not go above 50%. This confirms that it is only using 1 thread. If it were on a C2Q I assume we wouldnt see CPU utliazation over 25%

Now say i swap back to a pentium 4 3.0Ghz. At max load I would imagine I'd see 100% cpu utilization.

So my question is which of these CPU's would actually give me the best performance? A Pentium 4 thats being fully used, or a C2D or C2Q that never hits full utilization because of the system itself being totally single threaded?

Does this clarify a little better?
 
The single thread of C2D at 2.13 should handily outperform the P4.

Like a Vespa at full throttle won't stand a chance against a Haybusa at half.
 
I would stick with the C2D, mainly since it will be more efficient, require less power and run cooler. Also retaining the C2D will increase scalability of the system.

I've got 3 P4 Northwoods @2.8-3.06 GHz in some old systems I have laying around and they run pretty hot. (55-60C)
 
When the Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6400 was release I brought this processor but I had checked a number of benchmarks before hand. Over at Tom's I was able to compare the Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 at 2.13GHz to the Intel Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition 965 at 3.73GHz in the 20 benchmarks that they tested at the time. The Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 outperformed the Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 965 in 16 of the 20 benchmarks and was only just beaten in the other 4 benchmarks. So the fastest of the Intel Pentium 4/Pentium D at $1000 got beat by the one of the slowest at release of the Intel Core 2 Duo's at $200.
 
Damn I remember going from a P4 2.8 to my e4300 overclocked. Loved it.

For sure though, less power, newer architecture, more cache, all around just faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top