Which processor would be faster

[dood]

I'm currently running a P4 prescott 541 3.2ghz with hyperthreading disabled. 200mhz bus, 1mb l2 cache.

I have, new in box, a Pentium e2180 2ghz dual core, 200mhz bus, 1mb l2

Would the dual-core get me a faster PC, assuming my motherboard will support it?

[UraBahn]

Re: Which processor would be faster

The pentium dual-core e2180 will blast that prescott to smithereens even though the p4 has a higher clock speed. It'll also run much cooler and eat alot less power. (65W TDP in the e2180 vs. 84W for the Prescott AFAIK).

Just be sure your motherboard supports the e2180.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Which processor would be faster

The E2180 is based on Core architecture.
[Derived from Pentium M,, Derived from Tualatin]

The P4 is based on NetBurst architecture.

A 2Ghz single core Core architecture chip would probably give a single core 3.2Ghz NetBurst architecture chip a run for it's money.
- A dual core would kick it's ass.
.

[dood]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Hmm... this board is from a Gateway e-4300 PC. It's an Intel D915GUX, obviously with the 915 chipset.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/915g/index.htm

They only state support for Pentium 4. Since this processor is built off the Pentium architecture, and not the Core architecture, it should work, right?

[dood]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Verified what PCBonez stated above... it does appear to be off the Core architecture. The question still remains whether it will work in this board or not. And, if I try it, does it have the potential to kill the processor? I just got this back from an Intel RMA.

[dood]

Re: Which processor would be faster

According to a thread on Toms Hardware, the 915 only supports the netburst processors. No e2180 for me

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Won't work in that board.

http://support.intel.com/support/mot.../CS-026954.htm

[dood]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Cheaper to buy a board that supports the e2180 than it is to get a better P4 - guess I'll wait a bit for my upgrade. At least my RAM and video card will switch over without a problem.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Which processor would be faster

I'm in the process of trying to cycle out most of my old Netburst based stuff right now.

Low level stuff (thin clients/NAS) are going to Tualatin or Pentium M.

High level (servers) are going to dual core Xeon with Core architecture.
Old servers are 2x single core Netburst.
New servers will be 1x dual core 'Core'.

One well chosen dual core 'Core' based Xeon beats the dual CPU Netburst setups I have in performance and the CPU's use less than 1/2 the power.
[2 x 85to110w] vs [1 x 65w] - Same number of cores in systems.

I'm ready to go with first server except the blasted CPU's aren't here yet. - ARGGG!
.

[370forlife]

Re: Which processor would be faster

I'm in the process of trying to cycle out most of my old Netburst based stuff right now.

Low level stuff (thin clients/NAS) are going to Tualatin or Pentium M.

High level (servers) are going to dual core Xeon with Core architecture.
Old servers are 2x single core Netburst.
New servers will be 1x dual core 'Core'.

One well chosen dual core 'Core' based Xeon beats the dual CPU Netburst setups I have in performance and the CPU's use less than 1/2 the power.
[2 x 85to110w] vs [1 x 65w] - Same number of cores in systems.

I'm ready to go with first server except the blasted CPU's aren't here yet. - ARGGG!
.

A dual core has so much advantages over a dual processor. My AMD athlon 64x2 5000+ 2.6ghz dual core blows my dual 3.06ghz xeon prestonias out of the water, (5000+ has 2 64K L1's, 2 512K L2's, Each prestonia has a 8K L1, and 2 512K L2's,) not to mention the prestonia's have only a 533mhz bus, but have hyper-threading (4 virtual cores,) while the athlon has a 2000mhz HT bus, and no Hyper-threading.

[gdement]

Re: Which processor would be faster

A dual core has so much advantages over a dual processor. My AMD athlon 64x2 5000+ 2.6ghz dual core blows my dual 3.06ghz xeon prestonias out of the water, (5000+ has 2 64K L1's, 2 512K L2's, Each prestonia has a 8K L1, and 2 512K L2's,) not to mention the prestonia's have only a 533mhz bus, but have hyper-threading (4 virtual cores,) while the athlon has a 2000mhz HT bus, and no Hyper-threading.

There shouldn't be any inherent advantage vs dual separate CPUs, other than maybe being more power efficient (not sure about that either). But the newer Core architecture is certainly faster than the P4's.

The only real advantage seems to be a contrived one. I discovered recently that Microsoft supports dual-core processors on XP Home, but not dual physically separate CPUs. Seems like a stupid and arbitrary distinction to me. My parents have a dual P3 Intellistation (bought used by my advice vs a then-new eMachines), and are now stuck with win2k unless they want to shell out for Pro edition or give away the use of a processor.
If they had a dual-core modern chip then home edition would be enough.

[acstech]

Re: Which processor would be faster

I built a computer for a guy using an E2180. Works alright when at 2.0GHz.

When you run it at 3.2GHz though, it flies! And it will do that on stock voltage. Now obviously not all of them do this, but we set his at 400FSB with an 8x multiplier, memory at 1:1. Night and day difference.

Ask if you need board recommendations.

[Wizard]

Re: Which processor would be faster

I wasn't aware how much of a gap between netburst and this C2D. Thanks for that. I'm happy now that I really skipped P4 straight from socket 462 athlons from 1GHz, 1.33GHz then couple barton cores. Now Pentium Duo (E2200 had that as main pc then cpu went on to new server at my work and E5200 currently in my machine).

Cheers, Wizard

[dood]

Re: Which processor would be faster

I always disable hyper threading on my single-core Pentiums. Some of the games I run will actually perform slower with hyper threading. It's still only a single core, so why even bother?

This prescott does run blazingly hot. Right now, I'm idling at 54C, albeit with the fan running at slow speed (temperature controlled). When it's at 100% load in games, it usually runs around 65C, with the fan running full bore. Plus it sucks down the juice like no tomorrow. My PSU fan kicks up, and if I'm playing for a long time, the PSU case will get quite warm to the touch (I only have 300 watter).

Dual core has a big advantage over dual processor... the direct pathways to the rest of the system. With two separate sockets, there's an inherent delay in getting the signals back and forth.

I'll probably hang on to this dual-core Pentium and get a decent board for it. acstech- I'd be interested in hearing your board recommendations. I've heard these e2180's overclock quite well on average.

[acstech]

Re: Which processor would be faster

If you don't want integrated video:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138122

Or the open box version:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2E16813138122R

You'll need to make sure your drives, video card, etc, will work.

The P45 based boards go much higher on the FSB, but the P43 board linked above, from what I hear, tops out around 420 which is more than you need anyway. The board I used in the computer from the last post was a TP35D2-A7.

I like these Biostar boards for the fan speed control, overclocking ability, and general stability. They do use some OST caps, not in the CPU voltage regulator area though. It's not a problem in a reasonably well cooled computer.

I guess my shopping list would be:

1. The board linked above.
2. Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227371
3. Heatsink: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233014

And maybe a SATA hard drive, and video card, of your choice. Depends on what you have now.

Good luck!

[dood]

Re: Which processor would be faster

If you don't want integrated video:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138122

Or the open box version:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2E16813138122R

You'll need to make sure your drives, video card, etc, will work.

The P45 based boards go much higher on the FSB, but the P43 board linked above, from what I hear, tops out around 420 which is more than you need anyway. The board I used in the computer from the last post was a TP35D2-A7.

I like these Biostar boards for the fan speed control, overclocking ability, and general stability. They do use some OST caps, not in the CPU voltage regulator area though. It's not a problem in a reasonably well cooled computer.

I guess my shopping list would be:

1. The board linked above.
2. Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227371
3. Heatsink: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233014

And maybe a SATA hard drive, and video card, of your choice. Depends on what you have now.

Good luck!

I current have 2x SATA 3.0 hard drives, 1x PATA hard drive, and 1x SATA DVD burner. I have an artic cooling PWM controlled heatsink, artic silver 5 thermal paste, and OCZ DDR2 memory (not sure what speed). I'm currently running a geforce 8600gt, which should be sufficient. Really, all I'd need is the motherboard.

[acstech]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Well there you go! I figured I'd cover it all, just in case.

[KeriJane]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Dual core has a big advantage over dual processor... the direct pathways to the rest of the system. With two separate sockets, there's an inherent delay in getting the signals back and forth.

Hi dood

Ummm... what about the availability of dual dual channel memory for a total of quad-channel memory for us dual-CPU system users?

Not to mention that some dual CPU systems (like this Mac Pro) are dual dual-core and some are dual quad-core.

When I added some memory to this thing I went from 2 DIMMs/1GB in dual channel to 4 DIMMS/8GB in quad channel. It made a large difference in speed and system responsiveness. Putting the original memory in added 1GB for a total of 9GB, but knocked it back down to dual channel mode and really killed the performance. One has to use 4 or 8 slots for best effect it seems.

Having to buy XP Pro.... Oh well. It wasn't THAT much extra. I'm just glad I found out about Home's single-socket limitation BEFORE I bought it.

Have Fun!
Keri

[bgavin]

Re: Which processor would be faster

Pay attention to your Front Side Bus first.

This is where the work gets done. When the processor issues a data request, it enters WAIT until the bus is clear. A faster processor simply WAITS faster on the bus. Most applications are I/O bound, compared to processor bound. If you are doing scientific calculations that do little referencing to memory, the fastest process makes more sense.

If a compromise is in order, buy the slowest processor with the fastest FSB. Intel makes their big markup $$ on the incremental processor speeds. You can plot a simple Excel sheet graph with GHz vs. $$$ and it will be readily apparent.

The next attention item is the memory performance.
It is worth your while to take the fastest memory throughput you can afford.
Buy matched pairs so you can take advantage of the Dual Channel memory controller built into all modern boards. This is Free Speed.

A benchmark such as Everest Ultimate will show you detailed performance comparisons of various processor speeds and memory configurations.

After you have optimal hardware, you can tweak off the unnecessary eye candy and B.S. services. This will gain you about 23mb in recovered system memory, and an untold number of free CPU cycles. You can feel the difference in both startup time, and performance. I do this for laptops used for digital recording stations.

Pick an antivirus that does not consume your machine.
I have yet to find one... I use McAfee Enterprise on my client machines, but it is a huge RAM hog. I've seen it eat 100~200mb during a session. I really like this AV, but the resource consumption is damn annoying.

[jpdoe]

Re: Which processor would be faster

nod32 v2.7 used to be great regarding RAM use.
nod32 v3 changed that, but it's nowhere near 100MB

I hate the way Windows loads services. There's no easy way to pinpoint which service is hogging memory.
All I could find was the WinXP
tasklist /svc
command, or it's Win2k equivalent:
tlist /svc
They show which service is loaded into each svchost.exe
But most of the services are always loaded by only one svchost.exe, and when you see it hogging RAM you can't determine which service is the culprit.

So you have to disable several services at once to solve the problem. And two months later, when an application doesn't behave correctly, you better remember which services you disabled, or you'll have a new problem in your hands.