If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
I'v recently upgraded my system form a P 4 3.2 E and a MSI 875 Pe fsir with
512+512M DDR to a core 2 duo 8500 and a Asus P5Q p45 with 2+2M DDR2. I'v tried to look in the net for some comparison of this tow processors with no results. I would like to know how must faster the core 2 duo is related to P4 3.2 E ? Thanks in advance. Manuel. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
MS wrote:
I'v recently upgraded my system form a P 4 3.2 E and a MSI 875 Pe fsir with 512+512M DDR to a core 2 duo 8500 and a Asus P5Q p45 with 2+2M DDR2. I'v tried to look in the net for some comparison of this tow processors with no results. I would like to know how must faster the core 2 duo is related to P4 3.2 E ? Thanks in advance. Manuel. You can look for benchmark results on http://www.hwbot.org/ but the site is almost impossible to navigate. They have SuperPI results for example. My old P4 running at 3.1GHz, would do SuperPI 1 million digits in about 45 to 50 seconds. If I run that benchmark on a Core2 overclocked to 3.4GHz, the number drops to about 18 seconds. So that kind of benchmark is the most impressive comparison. HWbot has those kind of data, but it would take me at least 30 minutes of clicking on the web page, to offer a comparison. SuperPI for download. http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/ Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed:
MS wrote: I'v recently upgraded my system form a P 4 3.2 E and a MSI 875 Pe fsir with 512+512M DDR to a core 2 duo 8500 and a Asus P5Q p45 with 2+2M DDR2. I'v tried to look in the net for some comparison of this tow processors with no results. I would like to know how must faster the core 2 duo is related to P4 3.2 E ? Thanks in advance. Manuel. You can look for benchmark results on http://www.hwbot.org/ but the site is almost impossible to navigate. They have SuperPI results for example. My old P4 running at 3.1GHz, would do SuperPI 1 million digits in about 45 to 50 seconds. If I run that benchmark on a Core2 overclocked to 3.4GHz, the number drops to about 18 seconds. So that kind of benchmark is the most impressive comparison. HWbot has those kind of data, but it would take me at least 30 minutes of clicking on the web page, to offer a comparison. SuperPI for download. http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/ Bear in mind that, unless SuperPI has changed since I used it, it only uses one of the available cores. Therefore, if you're looking for comparisons of CPU power, you can essentially halve the C2D score to compare it with a single core CPU. -- Shaun. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed: MS wrote: I'v recently upgraded my system form a P 4 3.2 E and a MSI 875 Pe fsir with 512+512M DDR to a core 2 duo 8500 and a Asus P5Q p45 with 2+2M DDR2. I'v tried to look in the net for some comparison of this tow processors with no results. I would like to know how must faster the core 2 duo is related to P4 3.2 E ? Thanks in advance. Manuel. You can look for benchmark results on http://www.hwbot.org/ but the site is almost impossible to navigate. They have SuperPI results for example. My old P4 running at 3.1GHz, would do SuperPI 1 million digits in about 45 to 50 seconds. If I run that benchmark on a Core2 overclocked to 3.4GHz, the number drops to about 18 seconds. So that kind of benchmark is the most impressive comparison. HWbot has those kind of data, but it would take me at least 30 minutes of clicking on the web page, to offer a comparison. SuperPI for download. http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/ Bear in mind that, unless SuperPI has changed since I used it, it only uses one of the available cores. Therefore, if you're looking for comparisons of CPU power, you can essentially halve the C2D score to compare it with a single core CPU. -- Shaun. SuperPi 1.1, the newest version shows it is using all 4 cores on my i7 920 Shaun. At least in CoreTemp, all the cores heat up evenly which to me points to it using all of them.....:-)..... My results at 3.7Ghz for 1m is 10secs...... for 32m is 10min 12secs. Ed |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Ed Medlin wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed: MS wrote: I'v recently upgraded my system form a P 4 3.2 E and a MSI 875 Pe fsir with 512+512M DDR to a core 2 duo 8500 and a Asus P5Q p45 with 2+2M DDR2. I'v tried to look in the net for some comparison of this tow processors with no results. I would like to know how must faster the core 2 duo is related to P4 3.2 E ? Thanks in advance. Manuel. You can look for benchmark results on http://www.hwbot.org/ but the site is almost impossible to navigate. They have SuperPI results for example. My old P4 running at 3.1GHz, would do SuperPI 1 million digits in about 45 to 50 seconds. If I run that benchmark on a Core2 overclocked to 3.4GHz, the number drops to about 18 seconds. So that kind of benchmark is the most impressive comparison. HWbot has those kind of data, but it would take me at least 30 minutes of clicking on the web page, to offer a comparison. SuperPI for download. http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/ Bear in mind that, unless SuperPI has changed since I used it, it only uses one of the available cores. Therefore, if you're looking for comparisons of CPU power, you can essentially halve the C2D score to compare it with a single core CPU. -- Shaun. SuperPi 1.1, the newest version shows it is using all 4 cores on my i7 920 Shaun. At least in CoreTemp, all the cores heat up evenly which to me points to it using all of them.....:-)..... My results at 3.7Ghz for 1m is 10secs...... for 32m is 10min 12secs. Ed What do you see in Task Manager ? I thought the one in the above link (xtremesystems), is single threaded. One of the reasons I like it as a bench, is it is a conservative means of predicting the speedup. In other words, if all my software is single threaded, my benchmark won't be predicting speedup factors I'll never see in practice. For example, the only thing I have on the computer right now that uses two cores, is Windows Movie Maker. So what I can count on, is ~45/18 as a speedup factor. (I don't currently leave it overclocked, so my speedup is a bit less than that.) That particular program apparently has no publicly available source. The above executable, has been maintained by editing the binary with a hex editor. The change to improve the timing resolution, the anti-cheat features, were all added in machine code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpi For a multithreaded test program, you could try the Prime95 Torture Test. Since the directory on the original server tends to be closed now, you can get a copy here. If this doesn't trip the power limiter on your board, nothing will. http://majorgeeks.com/Prime95_d4363.html Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Ed Medlin" typed:
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed: MS wrote: I'v recently upgraded my system form a P 4 3.2 E and a MSI 875 Pe fsir with 512+512M DDR to a core 2 duo 8500 and a Asus P5Q p45 with 2+2M DDR2. I'v tried to look in the net for some comparison of this tow processors with no results. I would like to know how must faster the core 2 duo is related to P4 3.2 E ? Thanks in advance. Manuel. You can look for benchmark results on http://www.hwbot.org/ but the site is almost impossible to navigate. They have SuperPI results for example. My old P4 running at 3.1GHz, would do SuperPI 1 million digits in about 45 to 50 seconds. If I run that benchmark on a Core2 overclocked to 3.4GHz, the number drops to about 18 seconds. So that kind of benchmark is the most impressive comparison. HWbot has those kind of data, but it would take me at least 30 minutes of clicking on the web page, to offer a comparison. SuperPI for download. http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/ Bear in mind that, unless SuperPI has changed since I used it, it only uses one of the available cores. Therefore, if you're looking for comparisons of CPU power, you can essentially halve the C2D score to compare it with a single core CPU. SuperPi 1.1, the newest version shows it is using all 4 cores on my i7 920 Shaun. At least in CoreTemp, all the cores heat up evenly which to me points to it using all of them.....:-)..... My results at 3.7Ghz for 1m is 10secs...... for 32m is 10min 12secs. Hi Ed. When I used it last (not sure of version, I'm on my laptop currently) on my C2D both cores were used, both to ~50% and the result it gave was about what I would have expected from a single core. I've also used it on a mate's C2Q and it most certainly didn't use all cores to 100%. His C2Q @ 3.2GHz had a slower time than my C2D @ 3.6GHz. Cheers, -- Shaun. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Hi Ed. When I used it last (not sure of version, I'm on my laptop
currently) on my C2D both cores were used, both to ~50% and the result it gave was about what I would have expected from a single core. I've also used it on a mate's C2Q and it most certainly didn't use all cores to 100%. His C2Q @ 3.2GHz had a slower time than my C2D @ 3.6GHz. Cheers, -- Shaun. I wonder if it has anything to do with all 4 cores being on the same chip on the i7? After messing around with various programs I found that Lavasys' Everest is by far the best program to stress all four cores a ton and also for benchmarking memory and CPU. It goes far beyond what I believe any processor could be stressed in any real application. It even made me back my processor down to 3.6Ghz from 3.7Ghz because it started to do some throttleing when it actually got the processor up to 100C. Yep......100C which is the Tjunction so that seems to fit. 8-12 instances of Orthos didn't get anywhere near that. The strange thing is that even at those temps there were no failures of any kind. It stayed rock stable. Temps during gaming and other benchmarks like 3DMark 06 are much more in line with the C2Ds and Quads staying at temps that don't worry me.....:-). At 3.6Ghz it takes much less of a vcore increase and just might run stable at default vcore. I will do some testing just to see how high it will go at default. I have only gone to 3.2Ghz with vcore on 'Auto' with no issues. As I went higher, I used voltages that others had success with rather than to check myself. I usually don't do that and it really isn't the correct method since individual processors, even the same batch, can all be different as far as vcore and stability goes. Memory perfomance is great with the triple channel Corsair DDR3 XMS 1333 @ 1440 memory with read being 14896mb/s, write at 12992mb/s and latency at 36.7ns. Ed |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Ed Medlin wrote: I wonder if it has anything to do with all 4 cores being on the same chip on the i7? I just tested my Q9550 @ 3.2 Ghz (1:1 with 400 clock) with Super-Pi and Super-Pi mod. It does appear to use all cores, but total CPU utilization was only about 27 percent. As I recall, memory speed and timing were always a big factor with this program so it must be memory bandwidth limited. I tried setting he core affinity to a single core and it shaved 2.5 seconds from the time (17.7 s / 15.2 s). The result using two cores was comparable to that using all four. It would seem that it was about at the limitation of the memory subsystem and the multithreading just added more overhead. I really must reseat my CPU cooler one of these days so I can crank it up! Snip Memory perfomance is great with the triple channel Corsair DDR3 XMS 1333 @ 1440 memory with read being 14896mb/s, write at 12992mb/s and latency at 36.7ns. Holy crap! Try setting the core affinity at *two* cores, since your CPU utilization was at 50 percent, and see what you get... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Memory perfomance is great with the triple channel Corsair DDR3 XMS 1333
@ 1440 memory with read being 14896mb/s, write at 12992mb/s and latency at 36.7ns. Holy crap! Try setting the core affinity at *two* cores, since your CPU utilization was at 50 percent, and see what you get... When set to 2 cores/no HT memory performance went up from 14896mb/s read to 16827mb/s.....write up to 13939mb/s. Ed |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
core 2 duo and P4 3.2 E
Ed Medlin wrote:
When set to 2 cores/no HT memory performance went up from 14896mb/s read to 16827mb/s.....write up to 13939mb/s. But- I mean't Super-Pi, since you weren't bandwidth limited as I was with more than one core. Since I shaved 2.5 s by eliminating the threading overhead, I wondered if you would see a similar gain by eliminating two threads, as your CPU utilization was 50% to my 25%. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Fred | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | January 8th 08 12:41 PM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | John Weiss[_2_] | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | January 4th 08 09:09 AM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Patrick Vervoorn | Ati Videocards | 1 | January 3rd 08 09:10 PM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | John Weiss[_2_] | Ati Videocards | 0 | January 3rd 08 08:54 PM |
Which Notebook to buy? Intel Centrino, Core DUO, Core Duo 2, AMD Turion, Single Core | [email protected] | General | 4 | August 31st 06 02:11 AM |