Core i7

[Glow of fire]

So if you don't use programs that utilize the processor to its fullest potential, then what's the problem?

 

So the P4 IS faster than the i7 with only one core? Dang, I feel like the only thing I get for spending $650 on a mobo/RAM/CPU is the ability to play FSX...

 

Now I'm upset because they don't make many programs that utilize an i7 to its fullest potential. 16 Ghz sounds nice, if only software developers made multi-way parallelism.....

[Andrewr05]

How? Why? I'm unsure about what I can compare except the Ghz?

Compare models, and compare benchmarks from reputable websites.

 

A Pentium II is faster clock for clock than a Pentium I.

 

As is a Pentium III to a Pentium II and a Pentium IV to a Pentium III.

 

It is all in the number of transistors/the architecture of the processor.

 

Your friends Pentium IV is running about 8-9 yeas old now?

 

 

Even a Pentium IV at twice the Mhz of a Core 2 Duo just can't keep up, like we've been saying it all has to do with the processor series, its architecture and what technology it has.

 

The Ghz rating on a processor is only an effective comparison unit between processors of the same series and make.

 

For instance if you have two Pentium IVs (of the same model) and one is 1400Mhz chip and one is an 1800Mhz chip then is is completely acceptable to assume that the 1800Mhz is better.

However, Even within models you start to get some variations though.

Like an original Pentium IV compared to a Pentium IV from the last of the Pentiums (such as a Pentium "4E") is quite slow.

 

Also you can not compare a 1000Mhz Athlon "classic" to a 1000Mhz Pentium III, nor can you compare an I7 to a Phenom 2 (or 3?) solely by their clock frequency.

 

There are enough differences between inter company models to bother starting to compare the vast differences of different manufactureers...

[Glow of fire]

Even a Pentium IV at twice the Mhz of a Core 2 Duo just can't keep up

 

But How, if the C2D is only loading 1 core?

 

I'm not saying you guys are all wrong and P4s>I7's, I'm just wondering why. Clearly, in 5 years, technology has advanced, but how? what has changed? I'm not getting any of these answers and thats about all I'm looking for.

[Bizzlenitch]

But How, if the C2D is only loading 1 core?

Because, as said before, your bro's PIV has some 150 odd million as opposed to the Core i7 having 700+ million. Do the math. More transistors, more computational power. Even Core 2 Duos and Quads vastly outperform your bro's setup, I'd bet. Anyway, the web is your friend, there are tons of articles floating around aimed at answering these kinds of questions from people with more experience and know how than myself. Check it out.

[Andrewr05]

Its magic...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I don't know...

 

But the Pentium 4Es (which your brothers is) have only 169 million transistors packed into a chip about 1.5 times the size of your i7 which has ~730 million transistors.

Now if you want proof that your computer is exponentially better then get something like SiSoft Sandra (make sure you both run the same exact versions) and do benchmark runs on both computers and compare the scores.

Do these tests:

• CPU/FPU (Arithmetic/Floating Point)
  
• CPU/XMM (Multi-Media)
  
• Multi-Core Efficiency
  
• Video
  
• Memory (Bandwidth)
  

 

I'm willing to bet that your stock i7 will destroy his 6Ghz P4.

You could even do something like PassMark.

 

I just came across this on wikipedia, Megahertz Myth.

[Kash]

Let's visualize. Say you have two tubes, one is two feet long and the other is one foot long. You have water hoses hooked up at the ends of each, and both hoses pump water at the same speed. Given the size of the tubes, which one is going to have the water coming out first?

 

That's a VERY basic way of understanding why smaller fabrication (45nm as opposed to 90nm) results in a performance benefit. Note that this also has a relevance to processor architecture. Pentium 4s have MUCH longer "tubes" than the current generation of Intel processors. It was this longer "tube" that allowed the Pentium 4s to have such high GHz, so you can see why it's not an effective benchmark when you're trying to compare long tubes to short tubes.

 

As for the transistors thing, let's do another visualization along the lines of the water pipes. Say you have a bucket full of 30 gallons of water that needs to be pumped somewhere. One option is to have a single hose attached to five pipes to transfer the water. Another option is to have a single hose attached to ten pipes to transfer the water. The second option is clearly faster simply because there are more venues for which the water to get from point A to point B as there is lower latency in transferring the water from the bucket through the pipes. Therefore, having more transistors means the processor can take in and process more information compared to a processor that has a few number of transistors.

 

Now combine the shorter pipes with the increased number of pipes hooked up to a single data stream, and you've got yourself a faster processor. Add in more data streams and you can see how multiple core processors are exponentially faster than their single core predecessors.

[Nekroze]

@ OP

 

mate I'm not being negative here but first you should search the net or Wikipedia at the least with some of these problems mate, here on these forums people generally assume higher knowledge about such things.

alot of more complicated terms ideas and ideology can be or are thrown around here. not implying lack of knowledge but some things people just need to research and and gain some more grounds in order to be fully capable of complete comprehension around here.

 

my advise read lost of things on computers or atleast some basics on how the hardware functions. also hardware reviews can teach you alot both about what is better then what (be it archetectures or just confusing model names) and sometimes even why they are better (and it keeps you up to date(not often are people around here going on about old hardware unless its a kind of lock back at the path technology has taken kinda thing)

 

all and all though mate welcome and i hope you enjoy the OCC.( oh and fold for us lol)

[Kingfisher]

Both you and your brother can downlaod super PI.

Run the test and then maybe you can understand.

 

This thread reminds me of watching an NBA game where the refs call a foul and the player complains about it. The refs are not going to change their mind.

Folks have shown clear examples of why an I7 is faster than a P4.

Sell your I7 and buy a pentium chip if that's what you want to hear.

 

But you really should run the super PI test you will get a good laugh.

[Glow of fire]

Ok, well, the benchmarks say my chip is faster(even with one core).

 

So I'll believe them. Even though I have little explanation why. Thanks guys,

[Bizzlenitch]

Ok, well, the benchmarks say my chip is faster(even with one core).

 

So I'll believe them. Even though I have little explanation why. Thanks guys,

 

To fully understand why your CPU is faster you need to do a little reading into the progression of microprocessor technology, in particular Intel's (seeing as your chip was manufactured by them). Start with a basic wikipedia search on the microprocessor and specify as you see fit. I assure you, no one's pulling your leg. Your computer contains one of the fastest consumer (or otherwise) central processing unit to ever be manufactured. Again, enjoy.

[jhirsch123]

So the P4 IS faster than the i7 with only one core? Dang, I feel like the only thing I get for spending $650 on a mobo/RAM/CPU is the ability to play FSX...

 

Now I'm upset because they don't make many programs that utilize an i7 to its fullest potential. 16 Ghz sounds nice, if only software developers made multi-way parallelism.....

 

It is interesting that you mention FSX, since that is one of the main arguments for getting an i7. If you want to prove you have a better setup, compare the frame rates of FSX setups.

 

The other argument you can make is that your setup will last for a very long time, since, as people point out, programs will harness your chip's potential as time goes on.

[GabrielT]

Ok here how it goes.

Each cpu can process X amount of memory per clock cycle. Some cpu's can process more X per cycle. Faster the clock cycle the faster it will run X amount of memory faster.

Lets say P4 can process X per clock cycle. Core i7 can handle lets say 4X per clock cycle.

 

What it means if the P4 is running at a factor of 6.5, you would be able to do 6.5X over Y amount of time.

If you have a core i7 at a factor of 4.1, it would equal 16.4X operations over Y amount of time.

 

Does this make it any clearer?

Edited May 13, 2009 by gabrieltessin