Single core vs dual vs quad

T

tbremer

New Member
Simple question: In theory, how would the following processors:

http://ark.intel.com/products/27508...-HT-Technology-3_00E-GHz-1M-Cache-800-MHz-FSB

http://ark.intel.com/products/29765...cessor-Q6600-(8M-Cache-2_40-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB)

Compare to this processor:

http://ark.intel.com/products/27513/Intel-Pentium-D-Processor-830-(2M-Cache-3_00-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)

Is it accurate to assume, again in theory, that the Dual core will run ~ twice as fast as the single core and ~ 1/2 the speed of the quad core?

My situation: We have an in depth excel file at work that we have to use constantly that is loaded with VBA code (macros). The computers at work are the single core processor listed above. They also have 2gb of RAM (the max for the motherboard - yes the computers are probably 20 years old) and running XP. When the program is opened on these computers it takes about 50 seconds to fully open due to the VBA. When opened the performance monitor says that the CPU usage is maxed out at 100%, for the whole 50 seconds, while only using about 300-400mb of RAM.

On my computer at home (the quad core, and I have 3gb of RAM with Windows Vista) it takes about 10 seconds to open the file and my CPU usage peaks at about 30%. My computer is idleing at 1.25gb of RAM usage and did not peak when the file was opened.

Basically I need to find a computer that will efficiently run this program while spending the least amount and I have an opportunity to pick something up with the dual core processor listed above for a great price. It has Windows XP and 1gb RAM (which I can pick up another 2 GB of DDR2 for about $25 - not a big deal).

Hopefully with all that information I listed above you guys can help me deduce whether or not I will be OK. I have already deduced that it is not a RAM issue and am fairly sure it is a processing issue.
 
It is a little more complicated than what you are tying to make it.

The Pentium 4 and Pentium D are built on the same microarchitecture (netburst) and both are 90nm. This means that theoretically the dual core should be double as fast as the Pentium 4.

The quad core is a different architecture than the other two, the Core 2. It is more efficient and does more work per cycle, and has more cache memory. If you had a Core 2 Duo @ 2.4GHz with 4MB of cache, then it should theoretically be 1/2 as fast.

This is all under extremely controlled conditions assuming full thread utilization and no bearing on RAM speed or latency, not to mention differences in power demand.
 
wolfeking said:
It is a little more complicated than what you are tying to make it.

The Pentium 4 and Pentium D are built on the same microarchitecture (netburst) and both are 90nm. This means that theoretically the dual core should be double as fast as the Pentium 4.

The quad core is a different architecture than the other two, the Core 2. It is more efficient and does more work per cycle, and has more cache memory. If you had a Core 2 Duo @ 2.4GHz with 4MB of cache, then it should theoretically be 1/2 as fast.

This is all under extremely controlled conditions assuming full thread utilization and no bearing on RAM speed or latency, not to mention differences in power demand.
Click to expand...

OK. We use office 2003. From the information I can find, excel 2003 can only utilize one core. So, that would essentially make the performance the same for my particular situation since the program can only utilize one core. Is that correct?

There are virtually no other applications running at the same time except anti-virus and when idle, I dont remember the exact CPU usage, but I'm pretty sure its single digits.

So, really what I am looking for is a more powerful processor in the sense of productivity (more work per cycle) more so than more cores?
 
tbremer said:
OK. We use office 2003. From the information I can find, excel 2003 can only utilize one core. So, that would essentially make the performance the same for my particular situation since the program can only utilize one core. Is that correct?

There are virtually no other applications running at the same time except anti-virus and when idle, I dont remember the exact CPU usage, but I'm pretty sure its single digits.

So, really what I am looking for is a more powerful processor in the sense of productivity (more work per cycle) more so than more cores?
Click to expand...
If it can only use one core, then you are only going to see the same performance from the Pentium 4 and Pentium D. If you had a core 2 Duo at the same speed as your Core 2 Quad, then it would perform the same. If you upgraded to a 1156 dual core at the same speed, you would get it open even faster, and a 1155 processor at the same sped would trump the core 2 and the 1156. It is all about efficiency.
 
xxmorpheus said:
Processesor is bottlenecked. This will certainly do the job. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116392
Click to expand...

So how would that processor compare to these (and how would these compare to each other):

http://ark.intel.com/products/36689...essor-SL9400-(6M-Cache-1_86-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB)

http://ark.intel.com/products/27250/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E6600-(4M-Cache-2_40-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB)

And what am I really looking at to compare multiple processors and how important are they.

Does the 2.66ghz make a big difference over 1.86 or 2.4 ghz?

Is 6mb of L2 cache a big difference over 4mb (the 1.86 actually has a higher L2 cache than the 2.66 and 2.4).

Whats max TDP? The 2.66 is 65W vs the 1.86 is 17W - seems like a big difference. What does that mean and is it important?

The 1.86ghz looks to be the most recently released of the 3. Is it safe to assume that its, baring known issues, "better" than the other two?

Lastly, in a blanket statement, are the core2 processors going to basically be equivalent to each other or will the different models have a pretty noticeable difference?

Sorry for the all the noob questions, just want to make sure I get something that will work well enough for what I need without going "overkill." #budgets
 
it's the amount of power used, the 1.86ghz one is a mobile processor, for laptops.

the 2.4 would be the faster of the 2.
 
OK. Last question for now.

What is AMD's equivelant processor to the Intel Core 2 duo?

Thanks again for all the help and bearing through these questions.
 
I would like to inform that dual-core is better than quad-core. Because the performance in dual-core is faster than quad-core. I have tested this many times by encoding hd videos.
For example: Intel E8400 and E6600 is faster THAN Q6600, Q9500 AND Q8400. For your info i have used same type of RAM, MOTHERBOARD, OS, BIOS AND HDD. The only thing i change is THE PROCESSORS.
 
your obviously not taking into account something. the Core is the same in all of those, 65 and 45 nm alike. I am going to assume that you are running a program that only has 2 threads that can run, because otherwise you are not telling the truth as a quad core running 4 threads would smash a dual core running 2.
The E8400 is much faster stock than the other processors. at 2 threads it would win because of speed, no other reason.

And in his case, the Pentium D is a far inferior processor to all of the ones you mentioned. The core 2 smashes the netburst in clock for clock performance.

If you are going to offer advice, please at least take the time to research it and fin out why something is happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top