Please Help Settle An Argument

I need help from all of you folks with an understanding of CPU's.

This link shows the minimum requirement CPU for playing StarCraft2 (Pentium IV, 2.6GHz):

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor supporting HT Technology 2.60 GHz, 512K Cache, 800 MHz FSB with SPEC Code(s) SL6WH, SL6WS

And this link shows the processor in question (to be used for playing StarCraft2):

Intel® Core? i5-520UM Processor (3M Cache, 1.06 GHz) with SPEC Code(s) SLBQP

A fellow poster at Yahoo! Answers has made this claim to me:

"Now, as you can CLEARLY see, the Core i5-520UM is a 1.06 ghz dual core/4 thread processor that has turbo boost to 1.8ghz. This falls short of the minimum required processor speed for Star Craft 2.

Next. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So what he is trying to say is that the i5 processor is inferior to the Pentium IV, 2.6GHz processor (if I understand him correctly), for the purposes of playing StarCraft2. Is he correct? The i5 blows the doors off any Pentium IV, according to Passmark's benchmarks. So what am I missing here? I get the impression that he thinks that clock speed, and nothing else, makes the difference.

 

No he's an uninformed person who doesn't understand that MHZ stopped being the benchmark for CPU performance a long time ago.

The P4 was one of the worst processors ever made. It was designed to produce huge MHZ, not performance.

 

Hahaha, that's a funny one... Pentium IV > i5? Good job, brah. Whoever said that is a complete... Well, lets put it nicely: Clueless .

Anyways, it's been officially stated by Blizzard on SC2's B.net forums that ANY i3/i5/i7 will more than meet the system requirements.

 

Let's put it this way: Core iX > Core 2 Duo > Core Duo > Pentium 4

It's too hard to put an equivalent on it but even a Core i5 ULV is probably twice as powerful as a P4 2.66GHz.

You're talking a 130nm tech single core 55M transistors CPU using original DDR vs 32nm tech with 382M transistors CPU with two cores with effective hyper threading acting almost as four cores using DDR3.

Also, please refrain from posting at Yahoo answers. These are the kinds of responses you will always get. It's a bunch of clueless yahoos (hey, kind of a pun) thinking they know a lot more than they actually do.

 

Well, he was actually answering someone else's question, and when I very politely questioned his response via email, I got the impression that I am some kind of idiot, and that he is smarter than anyone else.

 

They are completely different architecture. Think of it in term of cars. The frequency is the number of cycle per seconds the CPU is capable off, which in car analogy would be the number of trips you can do between 2 locations in a set time. Now imagine you are trying move your belongings between those 2 locations. The P4 would be a fast small car with a really small trunk and the i5 would be a similar to this. The i5 is multicore and also has hyperthreading which is the same as having a fleet of those trucks. Now start the transport process. Who do you think will move everything the fastest? The dump truck obviously because it can carry much more in a single trip. While the small car would have to make 10 trips ust to empty the living room. You can fit everything that is in the living room and the kitchen in the dump truck making everything much faster. This is a quite simplified explanation but I think you'll get the point.

 

Yahoo answers may be terrible, but sometimes the questions are even worse...

 

NEVER rely on yahoo answers unless somebody provides references to their claims....this is also a good rule of thumb for forums.

 

The I5 is plenty to play starcraft. The m11x with the I5 play it fine. Same processor I believe.

Feel free to reach out to the m11x r2 folks if you want a better idea of performance for that exact processor.

Best wishes,

StevenX

fine print (This assumes that you also have the I5 paired with a video card that is powerful enough to play the game as well...)

 

That's impossible, because I'm smarter than everyone else!

Except for NBR.

 

Ok. So, now I've been dragged into this little argument and discussion. Let the fur fly, as it were.

Here is the first mistake in this absurd thread. I am not saying anything is superior or inferior to anything. So, this guy obviously doesn't understand me correctly. The Minimum system requirements listed for StarCraft 2 state...

Which actually brings up another important point...

... that THIS fool is an uninformed person who doesn't understand that MHZ and GHZ are STILL being used as a benchmark for CPU performance by companies like Blizzard, who makes the game in question, which started this whole thing. I mean, argue with ME all you like, but when Blizzard says that a minimum speed processor is required, they obviously are indicating that the speed of the processor is important... especially when they indicate a P4 as the benchmark.

Now, unless you fools all missed the boat, one of the big advantages of the core i5 and core i7 processors over "normal" dual core and quad core processors, is the addition of Hyperthreading to each core (An achievement introduced with the P4) as well as the overclocking on demand known as Turbo Boost. So regardless of what your personal opinions are on the P4 processor, it is at the CORE of what makes the Core series so special.

Now, again, I am not saying that a P4 is superior to the Core i whatever. I am saying that a Core i5-520um processor running at 1.06ghz will NOT run as fast as as a P4 2.6ghz. You might think that you multiply the processor speed by the number of cores, and add some random number to compensate for it being a newer processor to come up with a magical number that makes it faster, but it's not. Can you run more programs without lag with that Core i5 processor? Sure. Can you use less juice with that Core i5 processor? Sure.

Interesting that no one acknowledged the recommended specs for StarCraft 2...

Which STILL exceed the capabilities of the Core i5-520um.

So is it POSSIBLE for someone with a Pentium 4 processor to get better game performance out of StarCraft 2 than someone with a Core i processor? With the right computer around the processor, ABSOLUTELY! Will Everyone with a Pentium 4 processor get better game performance out of StarCraft 2 than people with Core i processors? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The worst part, is how laughable it is that you ALL talk about the Core i5 processor in terms as if all Core i5's are equal.

 

OMG LOL! Sorry but this made me laugh so much, I couldn't help it. The person who answered you was incredibly misinformed, and to answer your question, yes you can run SC2 a lot better that a pentium 4.

 

Okay then, PROVE it, lol.

 

Unfortunately, you're one of those people that 'know just enough to not realize they don't yet know enough'.

What you're saying makes sense--for the most part, but you miss out on the fact that Pentium 4 architecture had a serious flaw in that the processor pipelines was too deep and required far too many steps to do a simple MOV command.

That is to say, if a Pentium 4 takes 4 cycles (hertz) to execute a single MOV command, than processor <X> only takes 2 cycles to execute the same, then that means processor <x> is twice as powerful at the same clock speed, or rather: Can be twice as slow, yet it will still be just as powerful!

The Core 2 architecture was a major reworking of the Core arch, which was based on the Pentium-M's, which--guess what?--was not based on Pentium 4's because like I stated above, they were too inefficient. They went back to the drawing boards and actually based it on the core Pentium 3 architecture.

One thing you are right is that Intel introduced HT in the later Pentium 4 line--Intel focused on threads while AMD focused on IMC (integrated memory controllers), which gave them a lead and completely crushed the Pentium 4's with their Athlon XP 64bit series CPU.

Now, however, Intel has managed to bring HT and IMC onto their i3/i5/i7 processor lines, which, put simply, blows any 8 year old CPU architecture out of the water. And in this case, even the fastest stock Pentium 4 is not possible to be faster than even the slowest i5's.

Clock for clock, the i5's will slaughter the P4, and while you're onto something by stating that cores doesn't linearly stack, it doesn't matter when benchmarks have already shown that SC2 takes advantage of up to 4 Cores, therefore the i5's with HT would actually have an advantage as compared to a P4 with HT.

 

some relevant information, mostly incorrect conclusions.

 

Simply put, Pentium 4 is ancient architecture and most mobile core i3, i5, i7's don't run at 2.6GHz, so if that is the case no notebook would be able to handle it.

Look at wPrime:
Intel Core i5 Mobile U 400 series @ 1729,4 MHz = 38.919 seconds
Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) @ 3251.9 MHz = 81.484 seconds

The Core i5 listed is an Arrandale ULV CPU, not even a regular mobile or desktop variant for that matter.

Processor speed between a P4 and current architecture is completely irrelevant. They're just saying minimum is a P4 2.66GHz or current equivalent, which is pretty much any Core iX CPU out there.

There is no way in hell a P4 will outperform a mobile i5 in any way, shape or form. Sorry.

btw @ bongart - nobody "dragged" you into this. Nobody knew who you were. Fine if you want to defend yourself, but don't come here calling us fools.

 

you can use benchmarks to figure out approximate performance differences between processors-

all i have to say is:

- a 1.4ghz core 2 solo (single cpu, laptop version of the core 2 processors) is at about 20% faster than a 2.6 ghz pentium 4 (desktop).

- a 1.06 ghz core 2 duo (ultra low voltage, laptop) is about 60% faster than the pentium 4 2.6ghz (desktop). Keep in mind the total clockspeed of the core 2 duo is only about 75% of the p4, but you are getting 160% the performance.

- the 1.06 ghz core i5 is faster than the 1.06 ghz core 2 duo, so that pretty much settles that.

pentium 4 2.6 ghz < 1.4 ghz core 2 solo < 1.06 ghz core 2 duo < 1.06 ghz core i5

 

No way! But it's impossible to run Starcraft 2 with a 1.06GHz CPU!

 

I guess you're that guy from Yahoo answers the OP was talking about. But yeah you quite obviously don't understand how newer CPU's work. CPU performance today is tied more to architecture than actual Mhz/Ghz. No need to get mad at our forum member's for having superior CPU knowledge, I'm sure some of the answers here hurt your ego, but on the bright side you learned something important about CPU's today.

 

Are CPU benchmarks such as the ones at Passmark's website irrelevant, and what are they an indicator of?

 

If your goal is to gauge CPU performance, benchmarks are more relevant than specifications, cache, or clock speed.

 

lol, can we PLEASE make an exception those rules stating that we can't point and laugh at stupid, ignorant users?

ps, to the guy the OP is talking about. try running starcraft 2 on a core i5 lappy and see what you get. that ALONE should show you that you don't know what you're talking about.

fyi, real-life benchmarks/experience/s > your lack of knowledge about computers.

 

That's what I had assumed, but didn't know for sure. The i5 processor in question ranks (if memory serves) somewhere like 290th on Passmark's list, while a P4 2.6GHz ranks something like 798th on the list.

The kid originally asking the question had just purchased an Alienware M11x which has a gt335m 1GB graphics card as well, and couldn't figure out why it was lagging so badly on medium settings, when an apparently equal or less capable Sony Vaio ran the game on medium settings just fine. I did some research, and discovered that the M11x has switchable graphics. So I suggested that maybe he needs to toggle to the dedicated card, as it might be set to only use the integrated graphics. I also posted the keystroke procedure to do so. Don't know if that was the issue, as Yahoo! Answers question posters seldom get back to you to let you know if a solution was found. Wish he would though, lol.

 

There was one article I read where they compared a Pentium 4 3.0ghz vs Intel Atom 1.66ghz and dual core intel atom.

In the end, the Dual core atom curbstomped the Pentium 4 while the single core 1.66ghz got similar performance, and in some cases was slower.

If you need to know, atom processors are massively slower than any core+ processor. A 1ghz Core i5 would totally slaughter an intel atom, which in turn means it kicks the pentium 4's behind.

Anyways, the Core i5 can certainly play SC2, it is just not a really good CPU for it.

 

Can you post the link to the Yahoo Question that was asked, I want to check it out, thanks.

 

http://tinyurl.com/23ox84h

 

its funny to read all the answers on yahoo, it shows just how uninformed the majority of people are. 1shado1 im sure your Q was answered, and maybe don't use yahoo answers in the future unless you want a laugh.

 

Funny how the recommended Processor MHZ are lower than the Minimum Processor MHZ. Maybe because architecture plays a large role? One post Rage Quit FTW!

PC Minimum System Requirements*:
Windows® XP/Windows Vista®/Windows® 7 (Updated with the latest Service Packs) with DirectX® 9.0c
2.6 GHz Pentium® IV or equivalent AMD Athlon® processor
128 MB PCIe NVIDIA® GeForce® 6600 GT or ATI Radeon® 9800 PRO video card or better
12 GB available HD space
1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista®/Windows® 7 users)
DVD-ROM drive
Broadband Internet connection
1024X720 minimum display resolution

PC Recommended Specifications:

Windows Vista®/Windows® 7
Dual Core 2.4Ghz Processor
2 GB RAM
512 MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8800 GTX or ATI Radeon® HD 3870 or better
*Note: Due to potential programming changes, the Minimum System Requirements for this game may change over time.

Blizzard Support

 

In general, Multiply any C2D speed by at least 1.7 when comparing to any P4 processor.

 

As the others have said, clock speed is hardly a relevant factor anymore in regards to performance. With more cores and more effieciency per cycle, clock speed has become more of a way to rank current processors of the same achitecture.

 

It wasn't MY question. I usually come here to get answers.

 

Don't mind Bongart, he is just trying to defend his reputation as a knowledgeable top contributor on Yahoo Answers *LOL*. I shudder to think how much bad info he has given people over the years.

I'm sure the guy who asked the question had his integrated GFX on and didn't realize it. The i5 surpasses the minimum requirements by a significant margin so that's definitely not an issue.

 

Aye. Either that, or SCII isn't holding the 30+ fps at 1920x1080 that it's telling me it is on my machine, and the cake is a lie

 

Here is the comparison between a 3.6ghz P4 (P4 660) and a 2.93ghz core i3:

(anandtech benchmarks)



I conclude from these results the Core iX series is around 4X faster per clock per frame than a pentium 4 in games.

Even with the ULV processor at stock non turbo its going to smash through that 2.66ghz P4.

Please be aware these results will not scale linearly for the i3 necessarily.

They will for the P4 since it is a massive bottleneck.

 

In defense of Bongart, I HAVE seen him give plenty of good info, too. He is there in an effort to help people. It is just his holier-than-thou, superior attitude even when wrong that sometimes frosts my cake. Nobody knows all the answers, and we all make mistakes. Unless I am 100% sure of my answer, I always say, "I THINK this might fix the problem".

Agreed about the integrated graphics being switched on instead of the discrete graphics. That was my answer to the question as well (after doing some research on the M11x).

 

I'd believe that if he didn't give such bum advice this time around. Sorry, and thanks to Meaker for that info. Hard to find comparisons like that. +1

 

Yes, thanks Meaker!! +1

 

You guys are welcome.

Feel free to make more comparisons at:

Bench - CPU - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

There are two pentium 4s in the list:

The 660 and extreme 955.

The extreme 955 was a dual core extreme edition CPU @ 3.45ghz.

All it takes to match that in gaming is a 1.6ghz dual core celeron (E1200).

I think that is rather amusing.

Here is the comparison between the i5 670 and EE 955, both clocked at 3.45ghz, both dual core with HT:



As you can see fallout really likes extra cores but after a certain point is not CPU bound in this case.

The others show the full story.

 

Considering that even the lowly current gen Intel Atom gives comparable performance to a much higher clocked P4 processor, the answer seems laughable. xD

 

P4 is about 30% faster than an atom per core per clock.

 

I don't know specifically which Atom processor was being referred to, and I don't know how Passmark ranks processors, but on their list, the Atom D525 @ 1.8GHz ranked 547th. All the Pentium 4 processors are ranked lower. Is that accurate?

Most if not all of the rest of the Atom processors are beaten by many if not all (I didn't check that thoroughly) of the Pentium 4 processors, according to the list.

 

Does it all matter really? Point is that P4 is what, ten year old tech? Sure there's been revisions to it, but even at best its three year old tech. Pit any lowest end chip of current generation CPU against highest CPU from five years ago, you'll likely be neck and neck.

 

Nope. Doesn't matter in the least. Just a friendly discussion somewhat related to my original question.

 

I know, and my point was just in support of your point. Point taken.

 

Have a look at this Pentium 4 vs Intel Atom link.

It seems, for most applications which can make use of multiple threads or advanced SIMD extensions (SSE 3), Intel Atom processors perform remarkably well, on a clock-to-clock basis, (I'd say, even on a core-to-core basis) when compared to a Pentium 4 processor.