# Can someone explain processors for dummies to me?



## airmcnair06 (Jan 8, 2005)

Hey, I'm pretty knowledgeable about computers, but processors is one thing I dont quite understand. I am looking to buy a new laptop. I had a simple question at first, but I want to expand it into a larger scope:

1 - Is having 1.6ghz intel core 2 duo/intel dual core processor relatively the same as a pentium 4 2.5ghz ?

Reason being that I have pentium 4 2.5ghz processor, but my roomates says only 1.6ghz, but his pc is obviously faster at processing requests than my computer is, IMO. Also, it is SPANKIN NEW, and even has vista, so I think he has core 2 duo(still not sure)

thats why my question comes up, because i am looking for a new pc, and need to know what to look for. I use my pc fo the normal stuff, but occasionally I do video editing, photoshop, audio editting, and gaming, though not too heavy.

2 - Can someone explain what all these processor names mean, and what they were designed for? Also, which is better in your opinion, AMD or Intel?

Thanks!!


----------



## Alex Ethridge (Apr 10, 2000)

At one time it was easy to tell. There were 386, 486, Pentium, etc. Intel realized they were easy to compare so they decided they would bob and weave and dance faster and hope they could win more of the competition's customers with confusion and hype. I have the same problem you do; but, here's a comparison chart. They have different charts for different years so dig in and see if this helps:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html?modelx=33&model1=18&model2=70&chart=21


----------



## airmcnair06 (Jan 8, 2005)

Thanx, but I dont even see "core 2 duo" in the list?


----------



## ARTETUREN (Dec 2, 2007)

The Formula 1 isn`t faster car in the town. Clock of CPU is the only one of parameters. If you want to work forget Vista, if you want to play use AMD. For video editing Intel is the one with Intel MB or boards with Intel S & N bridge.


----------



## horsecharles (Jul 24, 2005)

Think of it this way:

You have shopping at both supermarket & department store to get done-- will it be done faster if you attempt both by yourself on your Lamoborghini... or maybe if both you and your wife simultaneously do one each on your matching Humvees...
I think ATI is coming out with a dual graphics comprised of lousy invidivual cards no gamer would ever want... but together they beat quite a few decent standalone cards....

For work purposes get XP... will run way faster than Vista.

If gaming is most important to you, go AMD.... you'll save a lot of moolah. 
Otherwise Intel beats the pants off AMD.

Also, if you were going to be Photoshopping a lot, i'd say get as much ram as possible: 4 x2GB for a total of 8... PS is able to utilize unlimited ram, over and above 32bit OS limitation of 4(which is actually less than that in practice-- subtract video & other memory address spacing from that maximum)... that ram amount will also help you if you try 64 bit... in which case Vista Ultimate, Business, Enterprise might make sense to get, as they include both 32 & 64bit versions for you to choose from(but not Home Premium & below!).
Newegg has OEM Ultimate Upgrade for $179 btw.

If you have some extra bucks, think about getting a large memory stick to use while enabling ReadyBoost: Vista's SuperFetch and ReadyBoost: How Does it Affect You?

You could get a quad core system & go the 64bit route, but the performance gains won't be justified by the price premium + to boot all the hardware will need to be top of the line in order not to hold back performance-- from quad-core processors to the fastest hard disks to the fastest memory to high-end graphics. 
It would make NO sense to buy such a system and skimp here or there-- but after considering the final price tag, it would make NO sense to buy such a one either(for the majority of us)... that money would buy 2-3 regular systems.

While 64 bit is faster, it's also not really worth doing getting yet, esp. on Vista-- because you'll just be a guinea pig-- and paying thru the nose for that privilege.... and anyway, most applications have not been retooled to take advantage yet.
As soon as they are though, then today's higher-end systems(like the one you are about to purchase) will be totally underwhelmed. But I don't see that happening in widespread fashion before 2010... maybe some games first...

Good Luck.


----------



## Waldo_II (Apr 13, 2007)

When it comes to processors, clock speeds don't mean _anything_. Too many people think that higher clock speeds = faster CPU. There are many other factors in determining the speed of a CPU.

The Core 2 Duo series is far more advanced than the Pentium series processors. Previously, AMD made its name by making faster processors than Intel but slower clock speeds. Imagine Intel CPUs being like little elementary kids hopped up on sugar (high clock speeds), and AMD CPUs being laid-back college graduates who land high-paying engineering jobs (low clock speeds, accomplishing more)

Now, Intel now has made more advanced cores (Like the brain of the CPU) than AMD, so it is a bit like the opposite. I expect AMD to make a comeback soon.

Tons of factors affect the speed of a CPU- how advanced the core is, FSB, 64-bit vs 32-bit, RAM bus, cache sizes, etc. Mostly in how advanced the core is, though.


----------



## Alex Ethridge (Apr 10, 2000)

> Thanx, but I dont even see "core 2 duo" in the list?


The link is to the 2004 page.

Like I wrote above, there are different charts for different years. You may have to actually read some of the page to find the link to the 2007 chart. That link very visible at the top. It says "More Charts" and has the years below those words.

Core 2 Duo is there.


----------



## airmcnair06 (Jan 8, 2005)

Umm, thanx

I'm still REALLY confused, but thanx, at least I do know which is faster. I was trying to get a better understanding.

Can anyone lead me toward a document I could read or some kind of explanation?

Thanx again


----------



## ARTETUREN (Dec 2, 2007)

airmcnair06 said:


> Umm, thanx
> 
> I'm still REALLY confused, but thanx, at least I do know which is faster. I was trying to get a better understanding.
> 
> ...


Hai, don`t worry about that. If you don`t converting video, everything is ok. Live your life with optimum speed.


----------



## vivekv (Dec 16, 2007)

Processor frequency has nothing to do with performance. A core 2 duo processor with 1.6GHz can give you much better performance than a pentium 4 2.6GHz. The basic architecture is different in core 2 duo and later processor. 
http://www.intel.com/technology/arc...?iid=technology_coreproducts+tabs_description


----------



## MysticEyes (Mar 30, 2002)

vivekv said:


> Processor frequency has nothing to do with performance. A core 2 duo processor with 1.6GHz can give you much better performance than a pentium 4 2.6GHz. The basic architecture is different in core 2 duo and later processor.
> http://www.intel.com/technology/arc...?iid=technology_coreproducts+tabs_description


Well you could _almost _'pretend' that a core 2 duo processor with 1.6GHz is 3.32Ghz (1.6 X 2= 3.32Ghz) when comparing to a Pentium 4 at 2.6GHz.


----------



## Alex Ethridge (Apr 10, 2000)

> Processor frequency has nothing to do with performance.


Nothing?

Although processor frequency is only one factor, to say it has "nothing" to do with performance is (to be kind) a very, very, very uninformed opinion.


----------



## ARTETUREN (Dec 2, 2007)

Be merciful, don`t "format" the new one 
bye


----------



## Alex Ethridge (Apr 10, 2000)

Multi-core chips may be built for programs that won't exist for years yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/technology/17chip.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## calvin-c (May 17, 2006)

MysticEyes said:


> Well you could _almost _'pretend' that a core 2 duo processor with 1.6GHz is 3.32Ghz (1.6 X 2= 3.32Ghz) when comparing to a Pentium 4 at 2.6GHz.


Not that I dispute your comparison, but 1.6 X 2 = 3.2 IMO. Perhaps there are synergistic gains in having a dual core? (Although in other places I've heard the opposite.)


----------



## horsecharles (Jul 24, 2005)

airmcnair06 said:


> Umm, thanx
> 
> I'm still REALLY confused, but thanx, at least I do know which is faster. I was trying to get a better understanding.
> 
> ...


I don't have a url for you, but other factors that come into play:

The more tasks a processor can do 'by itself- on dye, w/o having to send to OS/software/ram thru the bus'(think of the pci bus as a backed-up with traffic tunnel that slows everyone down)........<as well as when increased intruction sets are added to it-- that allow it to perform more tasks by itself, w/o OS / software>, the more tasks get done in a period of time.
Remember how AMD beat Intel a while back-- even though its processors were markedly slower?
So now, today's multi-cores, while being a smidgen slower, carry increased ram & instruction sets on dye: you on your Humvee can therefore outperform your co-worker on his Lamborghini by lunch break--
yes, he got to work quicker, but you were able to perform some work tasks while inside your vehicle driving to work... additionally, your brain was re-programmed to teach you to type, file, and hold unlimited phone numbers in memory-- you now don't have to wait on subordinates to fetch you documents, start phone calls, etc. before you can even begin to work on a lot of different tasks.

PS SUN has been sitting on a patent for years now-- which supposedly allows stringing together many, many multiple processors & ram modules w/o the need for a bus.

HTH


----------



## deuce (May 26, 2001)

MysticEyes said:


> Well you could _almost _'pretend' that a core 2 duo processor with 1.6GHz is 3.32Ghz (1.6 X 2= 3.32Ghz) when comparing to a Pentium 4 at 2.6GHz.


Not to be critical, but 1.6 x 2 = 3.2, not 3.32.

Second, while it is true that a dual core processor will have much better performance than a single core of similar or moderately higher clock speed, there is no approximate formula to compare clock speeds like that. In fact, to say that a dual core is almost the same as a single core twice it's clock speed, is not, I think, a good statement.

As has been noted, a lot of factors determine ultimate performance. In fact, my notebook has a 1.6 Ghz AMD dual core, and before building my recent desktop build, I was running a P4 HT 3.0 Ghz, both machines running 2 GB of ram, and the P4 HT had a slightly noticeable lead. Of course, the core 2 duo in my desktop now is OC'd to 3.5 Ghz and beats the pants off both, but that's a stupid comparison.

A note on HT; while still a single core processor, HT is meant to simulate or mimic a dual core, and will show a boost over a similar non-HT single core. That would be one of the many factors.


----------



## Alex Ethridge (Apr 10, 2000)

> to say that a dual core is almost the same as a single core twice it's clock speed is not a good statement


The only systems I've seen that came close to that being true were the true dual-processor boards.


----------



## MysticEyes (Mar 30, 2002)

deuce said:


> Not to be critical, but 1.6 x 2 = 3.2, not 3.32.
> 
> Second, while it is true that a dual core processor will have much better performance than a single core of similar or moderately higher clock speed, there is no approximate formula to compare clock speeds like that. In fact, to say that a dual core is almost the same as a single core twice it's clock speed, is not, I think, a good statement...


I use words like 'almost' and 'pretend' and end the statement with a smiley Santa and you folks argue the point.  <- that's an EEK! (no *Duh* to be found).


----------



## deuce (May 26, 2001)

MysticEyes said:


> I use words like 'almost' and 'pretend' and end the statement with a smiley Santa and you folks argue the point.  <- that's an EEK! (no *Duh* to be found).


Well, a lot of people think that. Whether you were joking or not other people I'm sure will read it and believe it. (The point of this thread is to explain this stuff, afterall)


----------



## MysticEyes (Mar 30, 2002)

deuce said:


> Well, a lot of people think that. Whether you were joking or not other people I'm sure will read it and believe it.


Sorry to have confused you.


----------

