Processor question?

ok my laptop has the Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T5750 (2.0 GHz) but since it duo does that mean my Processor speed is 4.0 Ghz? How can I find the Processor speed?

 

Its 2.0GHz per core. Does not add up to 4.0.

CPU-Z will let you know the clock speeds...
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

 

no man , it means you got two processors running in 2.0 Ghz speed.

 

No, that's not what it means exactly. It means that you have 2 cores going at 2GHz. Think of the CPU like a toll plaza (in this case) and your programs like cars passing through it. Your clock speed is how fast each booth can process cars, while the number of cores is how many booths there are in the whole plaza, and the cars are processes. If each booth can process 3 cars a minute, and a car only shows up every 1/3 of a minute, than having a second booth isn't going to do any good. However, if 5 cars show up every minute, adding a second booth will improve performance. Similarly, if you only have one process needing work at a time, your CPU will only be using one core, so you won't really be getting benefit from the second one. However, if you have multiple processes needing work done at the same time, multiple cores will allow them to work at the same time, increasing speed.

As to finding out your CPU specs, in XP, go to Start>Settings>Control Panel>System. That will show you your CPU clock speed and some other information about your system.

 

it's dual core.Each with 2.0GHz.It don't add up linearly

 

so I only have 2.0 Ghz? so is it better to get this proceesor? Pentium(R) Dual-Core Mobile Processor T2390 (1.86 GHz)

 

Why get the t2370 when you have a better proc? I'm confused.
I think the T5750 have higher clock speed and faster fsb (667mhz vs 533mhz)

 

No, that processor has less L2 cache and is slower... the Pentium Dual Core's are basically the new celerons..

 

so the Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T5750 (2.0 GHz) will allow me to play games just fine and video editing just fine?

 

Yeah....u sure can bet on dat..!!
the processor will multitask better since it can run two programs at once, one on each core.

 

Why would it be better to get a lower model number? No, the T5750 is better.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people TRY to type like illiterates...

 

im a gud spelr tew

No, but I think the main question has been answered, but Core Duos and Core2Duos are always faster than the Pentiums, clock for clock.

 

did'nt get the point..??

 

Just amazing.

Agreed.

 

Correct me....A dual core processor is a CPU with two separate cores on the same die, each with its own cache. It's the equivalent of getting two microprocessors in one. In a dual core processor each core handles incoming data strings simultaneously to improve efficiency. Just as two heads are better than one, so are two hands. Now when one is executing the other can be accessing the system bus or executing its own code.
In short, it would "Boost multitasking power with improved performance for highly multithreaded and compute-intensive applications" (as quoted by Intel)

Well whats so amazing about that..??

 

Maybe I got the 4gig part wrong....!!

 

A lot of programs can use both cores, so you have great benefit from that, not just multitasking. Especially when editing video, almost all of that software is SMP coded.

I would recommend a faster cpu though, like a T7500, 8300, 7700, 9300.

 

Well it appears you have at least fundamental understanding of how the processor works, and what a dual core processor entails, etc... but the way you say it can make a big impression on what people think. Again, I am not calling you illiterate, as your post has good information, the problem is HOW you post. Namely the first and last sentences, they were not so "gud."
Also I'd like to state that I'm not trying to be rude, just saying how people utilize your advice can be affected greatly by how you give that advice.

 

Oh....yeah got the point..
Thx for the advice....wud keep that in mind....no hard feelings on ma side....

 

Its all the fault of the pushers on ebay, I cant count how many adds I see combining the speeds of the dual and quad cores and dual channel memory, "amazing **rare 9.6GHZ CPU** with secret new 1600MHZ DDR2 memory!!!!" translation, run of the mill q6600 and ddr2 800.

 

And not only ebay, http://www.systemrequirementslab.com rates my 2.2Ghz T7500 at 5.43Ghz

 

I guess that means you can compare a 2.2GHz c2d to a 5.43GHz single core

 

I was wondering, will a processor with a later model number still outperform an older processor with a higher clock speed?

eg. A Core 2 Duo with 1.5 ghz vs a Pentium Dual Core with 1.86 ghz.

 

Great question, It depends, todays pentium dual cores are based on conroe (the original core2), just scaled back , lower fsb, tiny caches, the older pentium dual cores were based off of netburst....and considerably less powerful, it also depends on the application, for the tasks that dont use much l2 cache, the modern pentium duals will perform nearly identical to core2 clock for clock, however for apps that eat up the cache, the performance gap is quite noticeable. Basically in order to keep up, intels value chips are rebranded cut back models of previous high end chips.

Honestly a lot of folks have too much computing for thier needs these days,internet,basic office work, general media viewing and light photo editing really doesnt need quad cores and 4+gb of ram, "dirty windows" from lack of proper maintanece and foolish web activities bog down an otherwise competent machine, though buying a new machine is more fun than adopting better computing practices and fresh windows installs.

 

The answer is no. The faster core duo or pentium will perform better than a comparable C2D. If you have any questions about it check out hwbot.com and compare cpus. Only when you get to the 3-6MB L2 caches with 800Mt/s FSB do the newer ones win out. Of courese that dual pentium is only 533Mhz FSB, so it pretty much stinks.

If you look at the older Core duos are only 32-bit but most of the world is running on a 32-bit OS and not many people are coding things in 64-bit, so you'll be ready for a new laptop by the time you need 64-bit cpu.

 

As a blanket statement thats untrue, architecture plays a huge role in performance. A 3.2ghz penium D DC will get beat soundly in most tests by a much lower clocked modern cpu.

 

that would be most likely on paper benchmarks only, i dont see a single core 3.2ghz being beaten by a Core duo 1.8ghz in raw performance

 

Why not? The IPC of the Core duo is a lot higher, and when you factor in multi-threading (if you're doing videoediting/transcoding, for instance), a 3,2GHz P4 gets soundly beaten.

 

Efficency is the key here, intel's p4 was getting stomped by the athlon 64 despite having nearly double the clock speed, the game now isnt exactly how many clocks you have, but what you can acomplish with those clocks, we could easily have 5-6ghz chips today, but they wouldnt perform well, and would have stupidly long pielines, that was the death nell for inteols netburst architecture, the goal was faster clocks no matter what the cost, and the cost was performance, at first it was okay, but as it grew, performance did not scale well with the clockspeed, nor could they keep up with the thermal and power demands, basically it was like putting a V12 engine in a go cart, the engine is so big and heavy and fuel hungry that while it can move the cart forward, it will easily be outpaced by lawn mower engines pushing the same frame

 

I dont think that go cart lawnmower analogy was very good, because that go cart is going to haul a$$ way faster than that lawn mower.

I said a Core Duo and a general statement about COMPARABLE cpus.

I'm just annoyed when someone thinks its better because its newer, or it must be better because Intel said it uses Halfnium or something.

At HWbot.org you can compare any cpus you want and if you look here you can see some of the older stuff keeps up just fine with newer technology. There is always something screwed up with the superPi 32M bar charts, but the scores are on top.

http://www.hwbot.org/hardware.compa...1051_1&id=1607_1&id=1442_1&id=1403_1&id=670_1

Theres no reason to dismiss a good deal on a computer because it has older cpu or gpu if that stuff was the cream of the crop when it came out and beats the budget stuff today.

 

It's not always newer=better, but for the most part, newer at same initial pricepoint=better. Of course that isn't always true either... but it is a better guideline than "throw up your hands at any sort of guideline and expect everyone to read whitepapers for every revision." And it is definitely better than "faster clocks+more cores=better".

 

The point of the analogy that I supposed you missed was that the girth of the oversized engine was too much for the cart frame to handle, making it essential useless and required to expend tremedeous amounts of energy to acomplish the same task a much lighter more suited to the task engine could.
As for your chart, for

1) synthetic benchmarks and real world application performance are seprate entities.

2) the pentium D mentioned has 1.44 GHZ clock advantage and its big wins are in older tests built around the advantages of that chips architcture.

3) Your comparing a at the time high end high power consumption desktop part to mobile cpus designed to run cooler and more efficently than balls out speed, thats not even an apples to oranges comparison. Put the D up aginat a few E series chips and see how it fares.

Bottom line, point is that your "blanket" statement is not "always" correct, in some cases it is, in some case it most certainly isnt.

http://www.hwbot.org/hardware.compa...=873_1&id=1051_1&id=871_1&id=1514_1&id=1452_1

 

My point was that a COMPARABLE cpu of faster clock frequency but older technology will most likeyl perform better. I would sure rather have a T7700 than a T8100 or T8300. And I'd rather have a T2700 than a T5550.

I didnt bring up the Pentium D, you did, so what the heck are you lecturing me for. I showed you it does too perform very similar to newer slower cpus.

 

An example for the question that started the debate, The lowly 1.6 GHZ core2 E2140 vs a 2.66GHZ pentium D805

http://www.hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=cpu&id=1386_1&id=740_1

I didnt bring up the pentiumD, the poster asking the question at hand did, I think we just have a few wires crossed in the intterpretation of the question. The point I was originally trying to make is the difference in architecture between the pressler pentium D cores vs todays Pentium D's based on conroe and allendale cores.

 

Youre making Pentium D and dual core pentium synonomous which they are two separate things.

Hes talking about the Yonah and Merom mobile dual cores, not the Pentium D, so you did bring it up , specifically the desktop 3.2Ghz model.

So I still hold, T2600 or T2700 better than T5xxx anything (even lower power than the newer higher model #) if using 32-bit OS, and T7700 better than T8xxx for same or less power draw, whiel T7500 is basically even equivalent to a T8300. Now T9300 nothing really is clocked faster than that.

In his specific example I said that dual core pentium sucks because of 533Mt/s FSB, but it still performs in benchmarks close to the other C2D.

You can compare any cpu by the standard cpu specs and if the older one has better specs its going to be better, but you can't just look at clock speed, which is why i said comparable cpu. Intel has been using such similar architecture since 1990s it doesn't really matter. So what if one is two cores on one cpu or two cores in one cpu, with Intels rush to keep up with AMD they did a lot of nonsense and consumers bought so I guess it was good on Intel. So the L2 cache is shared differently, it doesn't make that huge of a difference, which is why to get better they just have to keep slapping on more and more, to make up for their crummy FSB architecture.

 

The OP was comparing yonah to merom, the topic on hand now was started by yennox, and is quoted in my previous thread asking whats better, "A Core 2 Duo with 1.5 ghz vs a Pentium Dual Core with 1.86 ghz." and your response was the the P4DC is better, as stated earlier, wires have been crossed , no biggie. I grasp your points and they make sense, espically in regards to the OP, my comments were directed to the side topic.

 

I never said a dual coer Pentium was better, youre making things up. You got things mixed up, so there was wires crossed. Things happen, you were in a rush to judge. In fact I said it stank.

Again that dual core pentium is not a Pentium 4 D.