Can Lowest Core 2 Duo beat highest Pentium 4? Year 2006 Battle
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Thank you for watching this video! Hope you found it interesting, please leave a comment and subscribe to the channel!
💙 Support Me 💙
Consider supporting me on Patreon. Get exclusive early access, behind the scenes, pickups, extended gameplay, first impressions and more: / philscomputerlab
Disclosure: Some links in this description are affiliate links. I receive a small commission when you make a purchase. There are no additional costs to you.
Support PhilsComputerLab:
Amazon.com: amzn.to/3fvz8sg
AliExpress: s.click.aliexpr...
eBay US: ebay.us/bKzLAW
ebay UK: ebay.us/Bs9Z0u
eBay Germany: ebay.us/k3bPol
eBay Canada: ebay.us/CD6KZz
eBay Australia: ebay.us/eon4Ys
GOG: adtr.co/eqi5mb
PayPal donation: www.paypal.me/...
To this day, I still find it amazing how much more efficient the Core 2 Duo is compared to the Pentium 4. I ran Pentium 4 machines as a kid and never thought anything with such a low clock speed would come close to a Pentium 4 3.8GHz but I stand corrected. Thanks for the videos, you do a great job presenting things!
The main advantage of very first C2D E6300 ( I bought it when was introduced, July-August 2006) was that came with BOX cooler from P4. High height, copper base, with Asus motherboard with PWM control fan can able to run about 1000-1500 rpm which was fine because HDDs produced more noise. OC without a problem to 2,8Ghz with BOX. I used that system for 6-7 year with no change at all CPU+Cooler+MB+some RAM upgrade. Motherboard still working, only I have got C2Q in that system and have more RAM. Plus modern GPU with acceleration (OpenCL etc...). ;)
BubakSlovakia, Very cool! Yes, I do remember seeing the Core 2 Duo chips shipping with the stock Pentium 4 coolers which I thought was always weird however like you said, they ran really well with the copper core and the fans were quiet! I think Intel probably just had a surplus of those Pentium 4 coolers so they just shipped them with the Core 2 chips to save on cost. 6-7 years is really good for a computer these days. just goes to show how much better the hardware is. My old Pentium 4 machine only lasted about 4 years before it could no longer keep up. I pretty much skipped the Core 2 generation and went right into the i7 series. How does the Core 2 Quad cope with modern day usage? I know people talk a lot about the Q6600 being amazing but I've never owned one.
Well, how about using C2D/C2Q today? For daily routine it is quite OK (check 10 tabs, write to someone or something etc. etc.). Single thread power/use is usually an issue. Of course, encoding video is not possible (with band with much much time...). Watching video is not a issue, but max. 1080p/1440 (25fps)... 60 fps it quite on edge. Many things now is under GPU, I have old NTB here (Dell Latitude D620 with C2D and iGPU from Intel) too and there is problem. And idle power is too much (especially OC with C2Q). Maybe not from CPU, but from motherboard combo (northbridge, for example iP965 had TDP up to 25W). I do not know, if I bought something in 2012, I use it now. But this is still working...
@@Bubak777 My parents PC has Core 2 Quad Q9400 @2.66Ghz and is running Windows 10. It has 8Gb RAM and 250Gb SSD. I bought it for them for Christmas in 2019 as a cheap used Dell PC (under £100). They still use it now, and it's fine for them. Will probably have to replace it when Windows 10 is end of support though.
I am testing it right now and I can confirm his results, maybe there are games where single core with high frequency is better, but it's definitely not FarCry, 1.8 GHz dual core gives much better FPS than P4 3.4 GHz,
Hey Phil! If you can, I definitely recommend you to include *1% lows and 0.1% lows* to your charts like RandomGaminginHD does to explain these stutters better. Some processors might do better averages, but their inconsistency is spotted relatively easily by those *1% lows and 0.1% lows*
I knew the outcome - yet I still watched the whole video :D I find it strangely satisfying.
Phil: the only youtuber who pronounces Wolfenstein with the correct German accent. :D
time stamp?
I remember making this exact decision with my first gaming pc. I could've had the pentium with twice the ram or the e6300. Went for the e6300 and managed to overclock to 3ghz on the stock cooler for years. One of the best value cpus of all time imo
You should have used the E4300. Even cheaper, but an absolute OC legend.
For E4300 you had to wait till 2007, E6300 was out mid 2006
@@HenrySomeone Correct, and I was building my PC for Christmas 2006
Same here, got an E6300 with 1 gb of ram in late november, than upgraded the ram a couple months later when I got a really good deal.
im using e7500(2.93) oc to 3.75 with stock cooler...
Bro why do these old ass games look better than PUBG but run on a bloody P4 at 100fps
Bro because Pubgee is an unoptimized pile of Unreal 3-lookin assets. That and we draw ever closer to graphical diminishing returns.
pubg looks way better than any of these games.
@@bobhumplick4213 Okay? Congrats, if we take your statement as fact then pubgee looks better than games from 10-15 years ago. Accomplishment! It runs so so much worse though.
the first statement was hyperbole so i was just pointing that out. on how the game runs well its got some problems and you need a high end system to run it well. but how many games do what it does? 100 people in a quick reflex type shooter. its not easy to do. the closest thing to it would be battlefield and try running battlefield 1 on a quad core. it just wont happen. of course the gpu requirements are lower on bf but the cpu requirements are much less on pubg. and bf 4 only goes up to about 64 players max and it really struggles even on a high end i5 when doing that.
they are at the limits of the unreal engine. unreal was made for small deathmatch games and story based games. not this. and it looks like a modern game if you are not running it at low. on ultra its a good looking game. the first thing shroud said about it when you go back and watch his game of pubg (even back alpha or beta or EA whichever it was) was that it was a good looking game. he might have just said that cause he was used to csgo on the half life 2 engine but still.
this whole thing about pubg not looking good is overblown. mostly its from ps4 owners who are butt hurt that ps4 doesnt have pubg.
if you dont have the game then watch a high quality encode of someone playing it on non-competive settings. watching some guy on twitch live stream while he plays with very low to get all the frames he can gives people the wrong impression of the game
PUBG is a turd. Even on 8700k with 1080ti it has horrible lag and input stutter. It feels like playing UT whilst wading through molasses.
Only game I have ever got a refund for through Steam. Can't understand the appeal sorry!
Wow you're making me feel better about my old E5200 CPU PC. It was like 2.5 GHz. It was a big step up for me from the 2GHz P4 I was running before it.
Core 2 was released in mid 2006, what came in 2005 was the Pentium D
That is true, this is a stupid comparison. It's pointless comparing a single-core processor to a dual-core, especially because Intel had dual-core Pentium D's as early as 2005. A Pentium D 840 at 3.2 GHz would most likely outperform a Core 2 Duo E6300 at 1.86 GHz in most benchmarks.
I have a 945EE 3.73 and it gets destroyed by a core2 2.13. Well, its more or less faster in most tasks. Only time is perhaps transcoding or any opperation where the EE's 4 threads can help extract more out of the ol' Netburst. But its usually by very few %
Even still, a P4 3.8 would still be beaten by a single core Pentium (of the conroe) if it were to exist, but of course you can choose to only enable a single core on boards
The p4 I have is a 965 Extreme (1066mt/s 2x2m/hyperthreading). (i thought I had a 945) The few benchmarks I ran, the 2.13 i had (e6400 2m/1066mt/s) was on average 10-30% faster in both single threaded and lightly threaded applications. The only tasks that the P4 EE could surpass the 2.13, was in a few heavily threaded apps like transcoding. And even then only by ~5% at most. One code path was said to be hyper-threading optimized and compiled for SSE2. And that was the best it did. However when I checked the box for optimizing for core 2, the difference was quite shocking. I suspect cache coherency to perhaps be a huge advantage for the Core2 in that option, and hyper threading just does not do enough for the P4 to overcome its sandboxed caches. It shows about a 15% gain here only. And I ran all my benchmarks with it both on and off to see what difference it made. It was often negligible and sometimes worse with it on.
I used a P975 based board with ddr2 667 at 444 timing. I have never tried overclocking either to see what it would do. But everything else being equal, the Core2 is much faster. If I used a more modern chipset like a P35 or P45 I suspect the Core2 would only pull further ahead. Given those chipsets take better advantage of the specific optimizations that Conroe had for prefetching directly from ram. Optimizations not supported on 9xx chipsets.
I doubt very much a more standard pentium D could beat the 1.86. The only difference between mine and Phils core 2 is about 10% performance at most.. And My cpu stays more than 10% ahead of the EE in nearly any test I threw at it. Reduce the FSB to 800mt/s and drop hyper threading, and its goodnight...
wishus knight I did a little bit of research and it seems you are right. Looking at old benchmarks from 2006, a Core 2 Duo E6300 at 1.86 GHz was faster than any 800 or 900 series Pentium D, though I haven't seen any benchmarks with a Pentium D EE 965 included, which, to my knowledge, was the fastest Pentium D ever created. That did surprise me, I didn't know Pentium D chips were so outclassed by Core 2's and even Athlon's.
Thank you! I've been waiting for something just like this!
This video brings back the feeling I had when I read the review of the first Core 2 Duo, so fast and so energy efficient. Man that was a fantastic time. Looking forward to the DDR3 build!! 😀
You should do a video about the “BSL” or “Tape” mod for the core 2 cpus, it’s a very interesting way to squeeze some life out of a core 2 when you don’t have an overclockable motherboard, like a lot of those older oem workstations that can be found for pennies on the dollar
I still have a Dell xps with the Pentium D 3.73 EE. Use it every day and just upgraded the video card to a gtx460 which i bought new. Still works great and performs very well for every day use.
Fun video!
The first computer I built from components had an LGA 775 board with DDR3 memory. I had (and still have) an EVGA Nforce 790i ultra SLI, 2x GTX 9800+ and a Core2Quad q9450, with 4 gigs of 1333MHz low voltage DDR3. I built the computer in 2008, so a decade ago.
Having said that, I personally don't consider LGA 775 DDR3 to quite be retro. Most of the games for that platform run just fine on modern architecture, with few to no bugs at all. This is the period in gaming when 16:9 monitors really started taking off as well, so there are very few aspect ratio hacks (if any) you have to do to run games from that era on contemporary hardware.
Testing Conroe (and to a lesser extent, Wolfdale) chips should be fine, but Kentsfield (q6600) and Yorkfield are already very modern and powerful architectures that can still run most new games with few problems if any when overclocked.
You could do a retrospective on these processors if you wanted, but I'm not sure if there's enough meaningful retro content with just intel chips. It might be interesting to compare the Athlon 64 x2 6000+, alongside first generation Phenom (which was a huge letdown at the time), and maybe even some Phenom IIs or Athlon IIs (which are very contemporary, like the competing intel platform at the time). The Phenom II x2 555 BE in particular was a very interesting chip, as you could often unlock two dormant cores on the chip and get a quad-core processor on the cheap, like a callback to the old celerons that could be overclocked for top-tier performance at a budget price. That being said, it's on a very modern AM3 platform, so it might be a little bit too new for the general content of your channel.
you should do the same but with the fastest single-core Athlon/slowest Athlon X2
Loved my E6320 with the larger 4mb cache. Got a cooler for it and bumped it to 2.8ghz. I was AMD for a long time prior to that with my Opteron 146, but after Core 2 came out I never looked back.
I'd like to see comparisons between high clocked core 2 quad and 1st gen i5. I get it's out of the retro area that you normally cover but I think it would be quite nostalgic for a lot of us, even if it was comparatively recent. I didn't upgrade until Sandy Bridge so I'd be interested to see how much the previous gen improved over core 2.
Might also want to see just how much the first batch of Core 2 Duo's outperformed the AM2 Athlon X2's.
Thanks, love the vids as always.
I'm still rocking that old 212 evo it still runs cool
Matthew Watson
212 Plus here, before Evo was the cool suffix to add to products names.
P4 vs Core 2 Solo?
The former games were not geared to multi-core processors.
The performance in the tests correspond roughly to what each 1 CPU core performed.
With Core 2, the architecture has changed dramatically, this architecture change in the processor led to the performance increase.
Nice video.
Even just one core usage, the E6300 at 1,86 could easily compete with the 3,8 GHz P4. Much cooler and less power hungry. Many games in 2001-2006 did not even took really advantage of multi cores. So that says A LOT.
For late XP 2004-2008 gaming, the C2D is an awesome choice. However I would pick a P4 or Athlon 64 (with AGP!) for 98SE or early XP(2001-2004) Retro gaming. Maybe just for compatibility.
The biggest innovation step in the 2000's regarding CPU's. Was like they reinvented the Pentium (as from 486 >> Pentium in the 90's).
I believe that C2D was Intels last true breakthough in the CPU world. From there... just tick-tock money making game they did.
I think you should compare the fastest P4 to the lowest denomination but fastest clocked Core series part, the Celeron 450. There was an engineering sample Celeron 460 at 2.4 GHz, but it was never officially released.
The Celeron 450 is a single core 2.2 GHz part with an 800 MHz FSB. You could also try the absolute slowest Core 2 series dual core, the Celeron E1200.
another things those graphs don't show is the power usage difference between the two.
Great vid as always.
Do a video about the E4300. It was a E6300 with less cache and a lower FSB.
The latter made it an absolute legend! ANY E4300 could be OCed to FSB1066 without additional Voltage (1.8->2.4 Ghz), often, even 3GHz was very easy with the stock fan. With good cooling, you could go even higher.
Edit: This is a time-period correct example of a typical 2006 PC using the E4300 OC legend:
th-cam.com/video/feXWIzssGmA/w-d-xo.html
I had one of these C2D processors at one time and my buddy had a Pentium D I think it was 3.2GHz or something around that. I bet him that my C2D would be faster and he went on and on about how 1.8GHz was way too slow to be useful etc. Well pretty sure the C2D didn't just keep up but beat it in most if not all of the benchmarks we ran. The new architecture really was a big improvement for Intel at the time.
I had some Dell tower with the fastest Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. Put a decent video card in it and sold it for $75 as a retro game machine for Windows XP. Ran XP very well.
was that gta san andreas u was using at beginning and end?
I think best compression is between high clock Pentium d (like 945) and low clock c2d (like e4600) . Its pure netburst vs. core and its fair( both of them have 2 cores and FSB 800 )
Painkiller..... I still have no idea how to defeat the final boss.....
By the way, will you introduce Athlon64 X2 in the future?
By 2005 I still had this single core 2ghz celeron (Northwood, 2002) which actually lasted me until Sandy Bridge, needless to say when I finally upgraded I had a massive backlog of newer games to catch up with x)
Very interesting. I remember about 8 years ago I had the E6300 and it was having trouble with Titan Quest at 1080p. I had a Pentium D 950 (3.40GHz) lying around so I threw that in there. It actually did better for that specific game. I guess some older games can only do single core and enjoy the high clocks. The Core 2 was more responsive in pretty much everything else.
Wow makes me happy that I upgraded my AGP benchmarking system to a newer motherboard that supports core 2.
The pentium D 945 im using is good, but when testing the HD3850 AGP it feels held back... very shortly it will be paired with an E6600 :)
These had amazing overclocking potential. I bought an E6400 at release and it ran 3.2GHz at stock voltage. Really great CPUs, especially for the money.
The Athlon 64 X2 and Core 2 Duo/Quad lines of CPUs are my absolute favourite. They'll run absolutely anything and everything :P
The newer, cheaper end Pentiums and Athlons, like the G4560 and such, are pretty neat too. Super low cost and they're still very good chips - my server runs said Pentium and it's fantastic.
Why can't you OC your RAM? I used to run 800MHz sticks at 1600
What operating system did you use.
There was also Core 2 Duo E4300, just a little bit worse, but results would be very similar.
My first PC had this processor along with the Nvidia GeForce 9400gt
You can use the unified GPU usage on the first settings page in afterburner to show the info you're missing.
Hmm I'll have a look, but apart from video memory there was nothing obvious. But I'll check for the next video.
Ok so I had a look, I can see the options, BUT they are greyed out. Now with a Nvidia card I do get all the monitoring features...
As expected. When i switched from my p4 to a phenom II x6 i had twice the performance in single thread and those phII were comparable in ipc to the core 2 series so i recall that overall i had x12 the power.
That Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.5GHz is still my main machine after almost 10 years 24/7 😊
Recently retired my 1045t for a R7 2700.
Amazing longevity with 6 full cores. It's now my backup/test board and will likely find new life running my oscilloscope and usb microscope and other assorted PC based tools.
Do you also plan on testing the E6700, the fastest C2D at launch?
I could do that, also that X6800 :)
My QX9650 is still lying on my table as a decoration.
Still owning a P4 1.7GHz with 512MB Rambus and a Geforce Ti4200, running WinME. It's for retrogaming only.
I had a core 2 duo e6300 with 4GBs of DDR2 dual channel ram and a 850watt psu and I added in a gtx 9600 1gb then later a palit 2Gb gddr3 gtx 560 ti dual fan and it was good enough for me to do ALOT.
It would be interesting to see a Pentium D thrown into the mix.
which is best reply fast
Pentium 4 "HT" x2 threads or was the
p-4 3.8 just the single core, single thread?
Yes HT means it can do 2 threads but still only single core.
@@philscomputerlab Ya , that's what I was getting on about . Did the CPU you tested have Hyper Threading ? I had a P-4 _3.0ghz Socket 775 with HT in EGVA N-FORCE 780i , 4gigs 2 dim ddr2 6400/1033 primary WIN-XP-PRO-LITE 64bit dick was 10,000rpm V-raptor SATA , and two 500gb WD 7200rpm SATA one for 4gb of V-memory/ page file directory in it's own partition formatted in FAT32 and program files on the reminder of the 500 gigs. The remaining drive was partitioned in halve one for Acronus True Image continuous BK-up image and the last for raw data storage like program install files ,music, movies . { summery: C:/--80gig V- raptor 10,000 rpm REGEDIT program files and common file dir moved to D:/ . D:/ &E:/ ( E:/ letter removed and changed to Z:/ containing 5gig partition formatted in FAT 32 and REGEDIT windows page file /v-memory to Z:/ ) remaining 245gigs = D:/ all software and program files and game installed files as well as local user info like desktop background images and common file save directories . XP-PRO-Lite was about 1 gig installed on disk had ALL unnecessary bloat removed not even media player survived the cut. E:/--500gig wd 7200 rpm 2 partitions E:/ - acronus system contentious BK-up image set to event apon admin sign-in with 7 min delay , partition letter removed and set to X:/and D:/ assigned to remaining 250gigs for storage optical DVDRW drives occupies E:/&F:/ leaving mounted virtual drives or removable storage card readers or usb drives to be assigned a letter by Windows starting with G:/ -- GPEDIT.MSC was used to set prefetch preemptors to 4 , and enable system reserve able bandwidth from unconfigured by default with a value of unlimited to "0" denying the OS any ability to use the systems bandwidth at will for windows priorities leaving 100% available to the user. } All presented in glorious 1080p on a Philips 32 inch TV @60htz Signal being pumped out from 2x16 in SLI NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT's ( only 32 inch TV on the market in 2009 that would do above 1080p and only if it was connected to a PC also happened to be a return at my local sams club , no sound and no remote perfect for 1/4th the price which let me acquire a gold plated 6' DVI to HDMI cable from Walmart for $99.99 I still have that cord to this day . ) Ya so the P-4 w/ HT has a special spot for me In my PC shenanigan rich history Not long after i put together that system the Phenom-4 BLK quad cores had been released and a month after that I was inside the case and bumped the giant air cooler and it caused a shirt of Dim -3 and frying the ram stick the mother board and the CPU . Oh it was snappy while it lasted though , I think the OS ,and my OS tweeks and the 10,000rpm drive helped make up for 1 core and 2 threads . would be a cool test just the drive anyway in a retro system , still won't match an SSD R/W times though .. But ,they where super spendy back then .. Thank for sharing your retro hardware adventures!
You should do a video named can the lowest pentium 4 beat the highest pentium 3
Lowst that you had right? because i'm pretty sure that the Core 2 Duo E4300 is slower, it is 1.80ghz and it uses 800mhz fsb
Lowest available at launch. Did you miss the launch lineup list at the start of the video?
I got misled by intel Ark, on the page they both mention Q3'06, i have the E4300.
ark.intel.com/products/28024/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E4300-2M-Cache-1_80-GHz-800-MHz-FSB
ark.intel.com/products/27248/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E6300-2M-Cache-1_86-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB
I remember upgrading from a D950 to a C2D E6300. My friends went mad because I went from a 3,4 GHz CPU with one with 1,86 Ghz lol! As I also "upgraded" my GPU from a X1950 Pro to a 8800 GT, I used the "old" PC for when one of my friends came over to play. Great times (but I really had too much money on hand back then lol!).
I remember how everyone was buying some Athlons X2 because it was cheap, but my E8200 was superior compared to their Athlons X2 😀
The P4 670 has only one core (with HT), while the C2D E6300 has two cores - this would also explain a bit the smoother framerates you noticed.
Do watch the recent video on the Pentium D! The second core had a bit of an impact, but the 3.8 GHz single core with HT was just as fast.
nah, all tested games hovered around 50% CPU utilization.
You are right, thank you. :)
But can this play cs go at 2gb ram and this procesor and without any graphic card
Thanks Phil. The E6300 was a great Overclocker. A few years later 2009 they also made a dual core Pentuim under the same name.
www.anandtech.com/show/2775/3
I like your videos.
I have still my Prescott P4 HT 3,2GHz with it's original box i bought from local store.. Runs 4,7GHz on air
Humm I was wondering if my 2GHz Pentium Dual Core (1MB cache instead of 2) could be faster than my faster P4 at 3.2Ghz. Now I'm pretty sure it will be. 😊
Alberto Martinez pentium dual core are 2 Pentium 3 on the same die. Core 2 is 2 P4
No man, the Core architecture is a remix of the P6 arch, which is what the Pentium 3 used. Pentium 4 used Netburst and the only things to use Netburst were Pentium 4 and D and its mobile cousins. The difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo is the first is only 32bit, Core 2 is 64.
There are three types dual pentium, core duo and core 2 duo. Awkward isn't it !
What are you talking about? The Core architecture has nothing to do with the P4, it's more close the the Pentium 3 than to the P4. The Pentium D was just 2 P4 die in 1 CPU, not the Core 2 Duo.
Conroe Pentium Dual Cores are Core 2 Duos with less cache, eg. E2180
Pentium Ds (800, 900) are Netburst
Pentium D-C E5000 and E6000 are also c2ds with less cache, but this Time it's Wolfdale and E5000 series is 800 FSB, instead of E6000's 1066
Or a video named can the highest core 2 duo beat the lowest core i3 i5 and i7
its been 14 years..... i still dont know how the cops up front threw CJ out of the car...
God damn that opening scene of GTA looks terrible.
There is no lighting whatsoever except when he's picking up his suitcase wtf.
Oh but I'm so glad we added in some lousy tone mapped HDR (lighting--not the display tech) when there's no damn lighting on the characters on the ground.
It's a good thing this version of the game has mods because I don't know why you'd bother otherwise.
hi phil . slowest c2d i think is Core 2 Duo E4300 . if u have it please benchmark it and compare with 2 cpu in this video . thanks
Hi Nima. We looked at launch line up from 2006. Thanks.
c2d vs pentium D
Watching this at Pentium 4 640 (Prescott) Ht @ 3.20ghz
And is it normal that it runs a little bit slower than stock speed? it runs 3191.81 and 3192.32 mhz all the time? I know its just a little difference but is it normal?
Yea if the Bus is just a bit off, then you get off numbers. You can fix this by overclocking the bus by 1 MHz or something like that.
why is my pc crashing? i just increased the Bus into 202.00 (setfsb) and why there is no overclocking option in bios? tnx for the help!
No way omds you included far cry 1 friggin loved that game by far the best far cry hands down idc
My current PC has the intel core 2 duo e6650 2.33ghz
Real proof that the P4 was an expensive piece of shit, even within Intel itself
never had those, i was a Pentium 3 user hehe
it's obvious even weakest core 2 duo will demolish fastest pentium 4, architecture of c2d does the great job here.
3:41 lovely
Yeah!
I have intel pentium with 4 cores is that illegal?
Yes
Lowest core 2 duo v.s highest pentium D?
So what's the lowest C2D in your opinion?
The Pentium 4 had such terrible IPC- you're also getting an extra core too. You should try pentium D vs Core 2 at same clock speed
We did in a recent video, the Pentium D wasn't any faster!
because stuff back then wasn't multithreaded I'm guessing?
Up until the p4, amd was king. After the release of the core architecture intel got the upper hand with its massive ipc increase.
AMD got close to intel with the Athlons II and Phenoms II but then Intel released the Core iX series and AMD needed years and years of developement to release something to compete with that (Ryzen)
hmm es gab einen intel pentium 4 extreme
bei den 3.8 ghz p4 gab es einen mit mehr und weniger cache der mit den weniger cache war der schnellere komischer weise
2 megabyte cache und 1 megabyte cache
dazu der sockel 775 da wo auch der core 2 quad läuft und auch einige boards die DDR3 haben anstatt DDR2
3 modelle haben 3,8 ghz 570J, 670, 672
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Pentium_4#Prescott_2M
sogar eine neuere variante gab es wohl mit 2 threads und 65 NM anstatt 90 nm
die letzten ein-kerner
ahh hier ist er ja:
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition verwendet. Dabei kam ein Modell mit 3,73 GHz
den gabs deutlich seltener
FSB1066 (anstatt 800mhz)
Im on team core 2 duo
Back in the day I went from a 3 GHz Socket 775 Pentium 4 to a 1.86 GHz Pentium Dual Core (pretty much a Core 2 Duo with less L2 cache), and the performance difference was brutal, not only on gaming or video editing but also on day to day tasks, like web browsing.
Yep, I did a similar upgrade and it kept me going for a while until I eventually built a new system around a Core 2 Quad. I was playing RTS games like Supreme Commander that benefited from more cores for the AI and such.
it is the same when you compare a Pentium D vs Core 2 Duo, every Core 2 Duo beat those Pentium D, being clocked a whole gigahert below Pentium D counterpart
@@DualPerformance This aint my case as I cant overclock my core 2 duo over a pentium d
I wish I knew this 16 years ago, I wasted such a money by upgrading my sc478/AGP build. 😀
@@Pidalin oof
IPC went up three times between the Pentium and Core 2 Duo.
This is the time when PCs really started to take off in my experience. So many good things happening in a short period of time: Intel got their act together for real with Core 2, we got DDR3 memory, PCI Express, SATA, Nvidia grew up and gave us the 8800 series, ATI still made great cards and so on.. Really, really good time to be a PC nerd. :)
I like to say that Core 2 launched Intel's dominance, and Sandy Bridge cemented it. Although aging nowadays, the 2600k is likely the strongest product Intel has made so far.
Excited for future episodes!
osgrov
Nahalem (or however its writen) was another big jump with the i7 920. Then AMD went great depression up until recently with the zen chips.
Yeah true, I forgot Nehalem in my excitement. =)
Indeed those were very fine processors. The 920 in particular was an overclocking beast as I remember it. Great value!
Still on a 2600K right now! 4.2 ghz @ barely more than base voltage, this thing is incredible.
Only 4.2GHz? I buttkicked my i7-2600k to 5GHz and been running it like this for years. Still not as impressive as my cheapo "sub-100-bucks-when-new" Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz that ran at 3GHz for years till I replaced it with a Q6600 (which also ran OCed at 3.6GHz till I replaced it with the Sandy Bridge i7)
I honestly still don't see a solid reason to upgrade the 2600k. I'll probably just throw a faster GPU than my current lowly GTX970 at it at some point
Another 2600K user here. Four cores @ 4.5GHz on air for the last 7 years. No need to upgrade yet. Was running a Core 2 Quad Q6700 before that. Both were beasts in their day and the 2600K is still going strong.
Core 2's were awesome in their day. Was when I finally abandoned AMD after years of loyalty but performance was too hard to ignore
Same. I'd always used AMD until I had to get a q6600
th3d3wd3r I would have been jealous then, as I had an E4600. Though it was a dramatic improvement over my old Athlon 2600+!
ive always used intel but my next cpu will definitely be a ryzen
XraptorzX I am tempted by Ryzen but my primary use is gaming. Although they have caught up quite a lot Intel still has the best gaming performance in most cases and I play competitive games on high refresh monitor so every fps counts
MaTtRoSiTy yeah That’s true but I’m still on i5 4460 and I don’t think I could ever justify the cost of a new i5 or 7
Dual/quad core CPU's pretty much killed P4 almost immediately, I remember when Xbox 360 PC ports started coming out Pentium 4 just couldn't handle them, it was already obsolete.
It's not about more cores, it's about more instructions per clock. Core 2 duo/quad chips handle three times more IPC than any Pentium (even the Pentium D).
Well... It depends actually. You can run doom2016 in it.
But anyway, most of these xbox ports were pretty badly optmized
Dalle Smalhals Actually the old athlon xp's and duron's awready awmost killed the p4. A 1.2ghz duron had better performance than a 1.8ghz p4. The p4 architeture was pretty bad.
A 2.8ghz athlon xp would simply be better than most of the p4's, basically any under 3.4ghz.
+Dat Boi
I highly doubt that. this would mean the A64 IPC would be more than three times better than the core 2 IPC.
I remember the core 2 to be quite superior for some time, only Phenom had a similar IPC again.
As did Athlon XP... and Athlon 4... and (etc)
The e6300 was one of the best budget processors because of the high overclocking potential. The e6300 could be overclocked with standard voltage at 2800-3000 mhz.
Dat Boii the difference between the 2 mb and 4 mb Core 2 Duo's was not very big in most games. The 2 mb Core 2 Duo's were still exceptional for their price / performance ratio.
Yeah I only paid a dollar for my whole E5200 PC. I thought that was a great price performance ratio when I got it. That system had one problem though. But I managed to fix it.
Indeed. Mine was running at 2.8GHz from day one on standard cooler and voltage.
i had e6300 xeon certanly didn't hit 3ghzwith /o overvolt
E2160, E4400, E6300, Q6600, E7200, E8400, Q9550 is basically what to get back then. Depending on budget of course.
Ah yes, the E6300, the heart of the first PC I've ever built after too many summer jobs. AND YOU EVEN START WITH GTA SAN ANDREAS. Love it
The E6300 was also just a massive overclocing champ. I had an E6400 back then and got it from 2.13GHX to 3.2GHZ 24.7 stable no problem. I had a friend with the E6300 who was able to get it to a whopping 3.6ghz stable all the time and I was just blown away by the versatility of this chip, was a fantastic time to by a computer enthusiast and overclocker. You just don't get 50%+ overclocking gains out of CPUs anymore.
Man, looking back, I don't know how I survived being stuck on a Pentium 4 platform for so long. I remember the experience of chugging along doing basically ANYTHING, let alone trying to play games. Without a graphics card, gaming was out of the question; single digit fps was the norm, or if i was lucky, I might break into the double digits. I don't know how, but at some point I acquired a gpu and I was able to play some games. Back when COD4 was new, I remember I got it on PC even though I knew I was way under minimum spec. I played it anyway, it ran like trash, if it wanted to run at all, and it was great. Man, those were the days when I would salivate over the thought of having my own new gaming pc... and yet, it wasn't until the end of 2010 that I finally had that opportunity. My ambition got the better of me, you could say, and I skipped right over the Core 2 series and went straight for a new first gen i7. It was way more than I ever needed and it put me into debt for a good few years, but I never regretted it for a second. You couldn't even say the difference was night and day; more like if you'd been living in a dark cave your whole life and finally stepped out and saw the sun for the first time.
I had Celeron D until 2008 and I finished even Crysis on that. 😀 I don't know if I am crazy, but it looks like socket 478 Prescotts were actually better than later socket 775 Pentium 4, I am testing it right now and I remember my score and fps in 3D Marks and I can't match it with 775/PCI-e equivalent. For example I had Celeron D (prescott) clocked to 3.33 GHz + 7600GT AGP (that version with DDR2) and in the first scene of 3D Mark 2005, there was even more than 50 FPS and score was around 5500. Now I am testing the latest Pentium 4 (cedar mill) 3.4 GHz with PCI-e version of 7600GT and there is only 30 FPS in the first scene, how is that possible? I tried even several drivers and no improvement. Is it possible that later updates of 3D Mark 2005 give different results? It's hard to believe that socket 478 and AGP was actually better for Pentium 4.
@@PidalinI would say the issue with 775 based systems and lower was that it's performance depends a lot on the chipset, bios and memory quality. I had a 550MHz Athlon (slot A) paired with 768MB of RAM on a Soyo VIA-based Chipset, and it would start windows XP faster than a later Pentium 4, for whatever reason. Same goes for an old Toshiba laptop of mine that for god knows reason runsfaster on a 7200rpm HDD than an SSD.
@@CLUBNEON-m6i I think there is pretty big difference when you compare pure Win XP to Win XP SP2 or SP3, especially when you install service packs and other updates later when it's not integrated to installation CD.
Yeah, the magical huge performance increases I got from my shitty Dell Optiplex using a Pentium 4 was a huge leap when I finally built my first gaming pc in 2006 with a Core 2 Duo E6300. Night and day difference in performance because I was stepping up to a dual-core processor too. It was also a similar jump in performance when I upgraded from an HDD to an SSD - night and day performance difference.
yeh there's a reason the P4 architecture was killed off. the core line was basically an evolution of the P3 architecture. IDK if they used anything from P4 after that
Hyperthreading maybe??! I think you're right though, the P4 was a technological dead end!
They did, Pentium D, Pentium M, pentium 4 isn't a architecture, netburst is, Pentium 4 is a name.
Slowest Conroe based Pentium Dual Core vs Fastest Pentium D would be interesting. Back then, I had a single core Conroe based Celeron at 2Ghz. I'd love to see that matched against a Prescott P4 with double the clock speed.
Yep, good Idea. Overclocked pentium (D) EE against overclocked E6600 or another conroe.
Toasty
We just recently checked out the Pentium D and it wasn't any faster than the 3.8 GHz Pentium 4.
Whaaaaat? You mean on a per core basis right? Because... even the lowliest Pentium D is more useful than a P4.
Not An Uploader Watch the video :)
I used to have a 3.8 ghz pentium 4 processor and it could play games like GTA San Andreas, Resident Evil 4, Elder Scrolls 4, Far Cry 1 and 2, Assassin's Creed 1, Crysis, and even GTA 4 (barely though for GTA 4). It had Windows Vista and then Windows 7 installed, 512 mb video ram, 3 gb ram, a DVD-drive (forgot the speed though). It was a fast computer for the 2000's decade. But, even the lowest Intel Core 2 Duo processor is slightly faster than the highest Pentium 4 in terms of processing speed.
Loved the E6300. It was my first dual core and the performance boost it provided was kind of mindblowing. Especially since it was clocked so much lower! It didn't make any sense! Hah. Add to that the fact that you could overclock it and I had that CPU in my main rig for quite a few years. With the stock cooler you could bump it up over 2Ghz no problem (think I did 2.2). Put a fancier cooler on it like you showed and it can do 3hz easily. Even on a cheaper motherboard. Good times.
my first dual core was E8200 and after I switched from Celeron D and saw results in 3D Marks and games, I was like 🤸🤸🤸🤸♂🤸♂🤹♂🤹♂🤹🤹🤹🤸♀🤸♀🤸♀
Strange, perhaps you can try a Pentium D instead of the Pentium 4 3.8, then we'll have two dual core CPU's to compate against either other.
Look here: th-cam.com/video/EsnWWIVsjWc/w-d-xo.html
I remember that one now, I'm still a little confused because my memories are slighlty different, then again perhaps it was drivers back then and some later game were optimized for dual core CPU's instead of single.........
Nope, even the Pentium D couldnt compete. Core 2 Duo basically destroyed all previous Pentium 4 / D models. Back in the day i had a Pentium D 925 and i was eager to switch to C2D ASAP. There is also the fact that most games of that era did not take advantage of multicore, so its all a mater of IPC
What shocked me when switching from a Pentium D to a Cord2Duo was the tempreture, it was so cool!!!! Pentium 4 was an embarassment to Intel really, they were pinning on VLIW to be the next big thing in CPU architecture, but ending up shooting themselves in the foot and letting AMD get the upper hand for a while.
i remember upgrading from 3.4ghz pentium d to a 2.2 ghz pentium dual core , the dual core was much better , now i'm running an overclocked core 2 duo E7600 running @3.75 GHz
The lowest core 2 duo is the e4300 at 1.80ghz fsb 800
athlon 64 x2 vs core 2 duo?
WIn for a Core 2 Duo. The real vs would be Athlon II X2 and Core 2 Duo (very close in performance)
I remember going from my P4 OC’d to 4 GHz to an E6750 OC’d to 3.5 GHz...undeniably the biggest CPU upgrade I’ve made to this date.
I remember switching from Celeron D and AGP 7600GT to E8200+9800GTX, it had like 5 times more FPS in games. 😀 I miss those times when upgrade after 2 years was such brutal like that.
wow what an improvement core 2 was.
Cool Grand national profile pic
I had that E6300 best cpu ever for OC, ran that baby on 3GHz for 24/7 config prime95 stable for 8 hours. What a bargin for monster performance.
I have so many good memories from the Core 2 series due to how my first PC I built by my self had a Core2Duo which I later upgraded to a quad. Still it was only a few years ago but It was really nice creating something by yourself and now since I've upgraded to LGA1155 it's mainly used for older titles on both Windows XP and 7, still it's always a blast using it!
LGA1155 was excellent. Sandy Bridge especially.
Google Is Fucking SJW Scum my i3 3240 never passes 50%usage at CSGO the gpu is GT210
thats because your GPU is shit, my grandads i7 2600 never goes above 30% in GTA V at high in 1080p, but the GT 1030 is constantly at 100%.
Google Is Fucking SJW Scum damn so offensive i know the gpu problem tho its so weak battlefield 2 max 768p can crush it
Sergeant Daffy used for 4yrs and no issue
p4 lessgooooooooo
I can hear the little Simpsons kid screaming at the Core 2 Duo saying STOP! He's already dead!
The evil professor from RTCW disliked this video.
The P4 doesn't save him though!
Ah! Yes Yes...
I don't know if the slowest Core 2 Duo can beet best Pentium 4 because my friend had a Medion PC with Core 2 Duo 3 GHz and Geforce 6700 XL and 1024 MB DDR RAM
and in Need For Speed Underground 2 in 1280x1024 with max Details and Effect he coudn't get constant 60 fps sometimes it dropeddown to 38 fps. And on my old Pentium 4 3,2 GHZ I also have similar fps with the 6600 GT 256 MB but with less Clock and Memory spped than 6700 XL (overclocked 6600 GT)
in Need For Speed Most Wanted its similar that it didn't run smoother than on my system.
But I have noticed that in follow games it rum definetely better:
Need For Speed Underground 2 in 1280x1024 and maxed out with Full AA and Effect he got 30 fps! and on my systems I get only around 22-24 fps. Its strange although the game is older than Most Wanted. GTA San Andreas laggs on my system in 1280x1024 with 3x AA and maxed Details sometimes i have 40-50 fps but sometimes only 12-20 fps especially insinde in town LOS Santos and Outside in Villages why? Normally GTA San Andreas have already run smooth with 3 GHZ Pentium 4 and 1024 MB DDR RAm.
My friend could play GTA SAn Andreas very well with maxed out Details and the highes Resolution with 50-60 fps.
And the Game Boiling Point he could play very well by 1280x1024 and maxed out and Full Anti Aliasing and All Effects.
And on my system it only runs with around 20 fps its strange that the processor makes so big difference.
I think that my HDD is maybe to slow for big open World games for loading textures maybe.
My Mainboard is ASUS P5GD1-FM LGA775
before core2duo, pentium M with half the clockrate and consume half the power is able to match pentium 4. but it was too expensive. then intel developed the dual core version of it which we know as core 2 duo. remember centrino?
Should have used E2140 for lowest clocked C2D :)
If Intel had made a 65nm Pentium 4 could we have reached 4Ghz speed?
This processor have his history