• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Presler vs. Conroe

V

vsrdan

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
663
Can somebody tell me why Conroe is better than Presler given similar (sort of) priced CPU's of Presler are higher in clock speed than those of Conroe?
 
Here's my Conroe @ 3Ghz
http://www.crowdcontrolusa.com/overclock/shizzy3.html

Here my same system before with a Pentium D @ 3.9Ghz
http://www.crowdcontrolusa.com/overclock/shizzy2.html

same videocard, harddrive, etc.. just new mobo & cpu.

most new preslers OC to around 4+Ghz,
most Conroes OC to around 3+Ghz
so these 2 are perfect comparisons

You can see a pretty big difference in the 3dMarks scores.
SuperPI was over twice as fast on my Core2.
Before I think 1M was like 35 secs, now its 16 secs.
 
Conroe can do more work in a clock cycle. More work + less Mhz = faster CPU with less power consumption.
 
its so farking funny to see Intels "faster is better" marketing bite em in the butt !!!!!

As mentioned above, its a more effecient design. Kinda like 20 years ago a 4 cylinder engine was crap, but now they can put out 200+ horsepower.
 
BillParrish said:
its so farking funny to see Intels "faster is better" marketing bite em in the butt !!!!!

As mentioned above, its a more effecient design. Kinda like 20 years ago a 4 cylinder engine was crap, but now they can put out 200+ horsepower.
Click to expand...
Difference being, 4 cylinder engines are still crap...
:D
But, yeah... the more you can do in a given time frame, the better.
I've always wondered though...
Hypothetically speaking. If Conroe is, lets say, 2x more work per clock than, hm, Pentium Ds.
Then. If you have a Pentium D and lets say 4GHz, and a Conroe at 2GHz, would the Conroe still be faster? By how much? And why?
I'm not fully understanding of the less is more here. Sure, being able to do more each cycle rules, but, is there more to conroe than that? Why not more per cycle, plus more cycles per second? :confused:

-Ray
 
Eulogy said:
Hypothetically speaking. If Conroe is, lets say, 2x more work per clock than, hm, Pentium Ds.
Then. If you have a Pentium D and lets say 4GHz, and a Conroe at 2GHz, would the Conroe still be faster? By how much? And why?
I'm not fully understanding of the less is more here. Sure, being able to do more each cycle rules, but, is there more to conroe than that? Why not more per cycle, plus more cycles per second? :confused:

-Ray
Click to expand...

B/c you ever seen a body builder run a sprint? Or a Mack truck do 200Mph?

With Pentium 4/D, Intel basically built something like a ricerocket. Very fast but can't do a lot (can't carry a lot of weight). Or a fast 2-seater sports car. Then X2 came along as a 4 seater coupe (slower but does more work). Then Core 2 came along as like a Dodge 4 door truck with a Viper engine. (does even more work and almost as fast as a sports car)

Work done:
2 people @ 150mph = 300 miles of travel (Pentium D)
4 people @ 110mph = 444 miles of travel (X2)
5 people + a load in the back of the truck @ 120mph = 600mile of travel (Core 2)

They've made design trade offs. Work can't magically be done. Its going to take energy & heat. Core 2 is just more efficient and gets the work done differently. I'm not going to go in to a drawn out analogy b/c its been done a billion times already comparing the Pentium 4/D to Athlon 64/X2. Now its just:

Pentium 4 < Pentium D < X2 < Core2D
 
The analogies are really on the money here. But if it is more information you seek, Wikipedia/Google searches are your friend. Essentially, the older Netburst architecture is just ineffecient and has many design flaws that hurt performance. Intel went with a more MHz is better marketting strategy and over the last couple years, that started to fail.

AMD has been pounding them with better performing processors, and more performance per watt. AMD basically awoke the sleeping dragon and Intel has struck back. Mightily I might add. The performance of Intel's top three Core 2 models are faster than the mighty Athlon FX-62. Even though almost all of those CPU's run at a slower frequency.

The Core 2 being better than Pentium D is no different than the Athlon 64 being way better than the Pentium 4's and later Pentium D's of the day.

Intel Netburst architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst
http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/44004.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1301

Intel Core architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_microarchitecture
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/index.htm
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748

All the information you could want on Core 2 Duo and more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top