2.4 GHz Dual Core CPU: Faster than Old 3.0 GHz Pentium?

Discussion in 'Dell' started by David Arnstein, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. I am preparing to retire my Dell XPS after almost four years of
    service. This old machine has a 3 GHz Pentium 3 single core CPU. A
    nice chip, in its time.

    Without paying a fortune, I see that the most advanced CPU I can get
    is the Intel 2.4 GHz dual core. I am a bit concerned about the
    reduction in clock speed. It is rather unpleasant to trade "up" to a
    slower computer. I also don't expect a lot of benefit from the dual
    core, because much of my work is single-threaded. I simply don't have
    much software that is able to keep both cores working simultaneously.

    I understand the party line that the new CPUs do more work per clock
    cycle than the old CPUs. I understand the party line that the memory
    systems in today's computers are better than those of three or four
    years ago.

    Still, I have this nagging doubt. What do you folks think? Is a new
    XPS-710 with a 2.4 GHz dual core Intel CPU going to be faster than an
    old 3 GHz Pentium?

    Thanks in advance for your observations.
    David Arnstein, Feb 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. It must have been a Pentium 4, not a Pentium III (which incidentally the
    Core 2 Duo chips are closer in relation to).
    Well you don't have much to worry about, just because the clock speed is
    lower doesn't mean it's slower. The Core 2 Duo's and the Pentium 4's
    are very different architecture, and comparisons based on frequency are
    pretty much useless.
    If you're worried, look at the comparisons on the different tech web
    sites (I recommend anandtech.com and tomshardware.com). At worst case,
    there's some fringe tasks where the Pentium 4's beat the Core 2 Duo, but
    for the vast majority of tasks the Core 2 will wipe the floor compared
    to a P4.
    Nicholas Andrade, Feb 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Arnstein

    Bill Guest

    This may help.


    From what I have read if the application does not take advantage of
    multicore then there is little benefit to dual core, but as that is the way
    of the future, applications will eventually catch up.

    Bill, Feb 6, 2007
  4. David Arnstein

    Tom Scales Guest

    That's not entirely true, as XP and Vista will schedule different system
    processes on different CPUs.

    The Core 2 Duo 2.4 is light-years faster than a P4-3.0. No comparison.
    Tom Scales, Feb 6, 2007
  5. David Arnstein

    Bill Guest

    Tell that to gamers who get no benefit from dual cores. Like MS FSX. They
    admit that the application does not make use of multi core so there is no
    benefit. The application needs to be optimized to get maximum benefit.

    I would imagine if it affects games it very well will affect other

    Bill, Feb 6, 2007
  6. David Arnstein

    Tom Scales Guest

    Not really. Games are a very specialized piece of software. They
    essentially take over your machine and revert it to DOS :)

    In 'normal' applications, I see a signficant improvement. For example,
    printing a large document/image. It runs on one processor. I run on the
    Tom Scales, Feb 6, 2007
  7. David Arnstein

    Bill Guest

    Yes thats the multi tasking benefit of multi core which the OS will control.
    It does not necessarily mean the app itself is using more than one core if
    its not optimized for it. So the perceived improvement is better handling of

    Anyway thats my understanding of it and I always read that apps need to be
    optimized or written accordingly.

    Dont know about games reverting to DOS since in the example I gave FS is a
    full fledged windows game...And of course uses the current version of DOS,
    XP and Vista
    Bill, Feb 6, 2007
  8. David Arnstein

    RnR Guest

    Do you want the short or long answer?
    The short answer is YES.

    The long answer is that it really depends on the application but
    realistically as well as futuristically, it will be faster. I'm still
    not explaining the details here but some other replies gave you a
    clue. You might want to check out tomshardware.com (one of many)
    sites that can educate you and show you various comparisons of chip

    Look at it this way, traditionally when you bought new pc's the pc's
    always improved and now is NO different even if you don't understand
    why. Or you can look at it this way... do you think a pc mfg could
    survive in today's world selling pc's that are not as good as before?

    So "basically" the answer is YES..... they are and will be faster.
    RnR, Feb 6, 2007
  9. David Arnstein

    boostm3 Guest

    Im Confused.. Arent there 2 main lines of two core Pentiums? The newest
    Core 2 Duo, and the slightly older Dual Core Pentium D? Which one is this
    thread about, since their both referred to in one way or another as dual
    core processors?
    boostm3, Feb 6, 2007
  10. David Arnstein

    S.Lewis Guest

    Since the OP was talking about the current XPS 710, then he's likely
    referring to the (current) Intel Core2Duo CPUs.

    You can thank Intel (I have myself,many times) for creating the confusion by
    naming the previous generation chip "Intel CoreDuo" (also known or referred
    to as the Pentium D). The singles were referred to as "CoreSolo".

    I won't even go back to the Intel "hyper-threading" virtual dual core

    S.Lewis, Feb 6, 2007
  11. David Arnstein

    Tom Scales Guest

    There are actually THREE lines and that's just for the desktops.

    The P4D (original Dual cores)
    Core Duo
    Core 2 Duo

    Each faster than the one before it.
    Tom Scales, Feb 6, 2007
  12. David Arnstein

    S.Lewis Guest

    That seems clear as mud to me, though I do appreciate the correction. Now
    if I can only remember it....

    (And all of the new versions of Vista.....)
    S.Lewis, Feb 6, 2007
  13. David Arnstein

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    What about the Core 2 Extreme?

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, someone please, please smack
    some sense into the people at Intel responsible for product naming
    conventions. Please?

    "Core Duo" was OK, but what does "core 2 duo" mean? Core(tm) version 2,
    duo? What was wrong with "Core Duo 2", other than obvious redundancy
    confusion (not that "Core 2 duo" is any better in that aspect.)

    And now there's the Core 2 Quad line, although that's going to be out of
    the general users' price range for awhile.

    This whole thing reminds me of the "pizza pizza" ad campaign of Little
    Doug Jacobs, Feb 6, 2007
  14. David Arnstein

    Tom Scales Guest

    The 2 is before Duo since there is a Solo, I guess. Extreme is still the
    top of the line.

    Quad would be cool.
    Tom Scales, Feb 6, 2007
  15. David Arnstein

    User N Guest

    Called Pentium-D, strictly desktop chips, 8xx (first) and 9xx (added
    later) sub-lines if you will.
    Strictly mobile chips, which isn't to say that some haven't been used
    in SFF and desktop systems.
    Both mobile and desktop variants.
    User N, Feb 6, 2007
  16. Whatever, one thing that I think that we can all agree on: it IS confusing
    Barry Watzman, Feb 7, 2007
  17. Is a new Ferrari faster than an old VW? :)
    Sparky Spartacus, Feb 7, 2007
  18. David Arnstein

    User N Guest

    I know, which is why I tried to correct/clarify some things. Looking at what
    I said, allow me to correct myself... I believe it is Pentium D rather than
    Pentium-D. The point was there is no 4 in the name.
    User N, Feb 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.