Can Lowest Core 2 Duo beat highest Pentium 4? Year 2006 Battle
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 08. 2018
- 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.aliexpress.com/e/b6c7Xgiy
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/PhilsComputerLab - Věda a technologie
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
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*
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,
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.
IPC went up three times between the Pentium and Core 2 Duo.
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)
Thank you! I've been waiting for something just like this!
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
Another great video. I love this channel! Just goes to show you what a huge leap the Core architecture was compared to Netburst.
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
Wow, all these games from my childhood, what a nostalgia trip. Thanks for making my day Phil.
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.
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.
@@user-vz4bo1en8x 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.
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?
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!! 😀
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.
Great vid as always.
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.
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!
Thats pretty interesting cause in my office, i still have a Core 2 Duo E6300 and i think its very interesting how it compares. Thanx for the video :)
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.
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.
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.
Good comparison, enjoyed it, one tip when comparing CPU's, use some RTS benchmarks of the day, Command and Conquer Generals for example, or Empire Earth. RTS games are CPU constrained and should really show the differences in CPUs.
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 can hear the little Simpsons kid screaming at the Core 2 Duo saying STOP! He's already dead!
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
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 🤸🤸🤸🤸♂🤸♂🤹♂🤹♂🤹🤹🤹🤸♀🤸♀🤸♀
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.
The E6300 was a really nice cpu to have but it was in one of the few pcs I ever sold. The motherboard was garbage (ECS), the PSU adequate and everything else inside was the minimum someone would need. Well I guess I had proper timing when I sold it as I got $250 for the whole thing and about 2 weeks later the guy said it broke down but he didn't want me to take a look at it when I asked to so who knows how much survived. Anyway I got good money for the E6300 system when I sold it but honestly wished I kept it like I kept the original system I built for my son. It is now my rule of the thumb to run them into the ground as basically I build what I need and get many years out of them and by the time I sell them there is no point in doing so. Anyway great video as usual. Oh and now I see you have PayPal as your way to pay you. I had thought Patreon would be the way you would go but I have no problem using PayPal. I use it all the time. When $$$$ and such gets straightened out I will contribute my 2 cents a month as your show is one of the few I watch on a regular basis. Keep up the good work. : )
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.
I always wanted one of these back in the day, but I ended up going with an Athlon x2 for cost. I always read about the E6300 Conroes and how good they were at overclocking. I think it would be cool if you had a video where you overclocked the E6300, like the video you did on overclocking the P2 era Celeron.
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 :)
Great video
Got an E6300 in the little SFF HP next to me, used it in my main desktop up until 2015 or so because it has VT-x, unlike some of the higher clocked C2Ds. Now it's for the comfy Haiku box.
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.
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 like your videos.
Moving to 2006 era! That's really cool!
Anyway, Can you test the between C2D and Athlon 64 X2? (Both are dual cores!)
The my first had a high-end Gigabyte GA-MA59SLI-S5, Athlon 64 X2 6400+ @ 3.2ghz, DDR2 8GB RAM and GTX 7800 (SLI'd but died and replaced GT430 which mininal improvement performance)
I'd like to see in next video! ;)
Comparing two different systems is a ton of work, so I prefer to compare something on the same system, like two CPUs, or two video cards. But I will definitely do something with AMD, likely AM2+ and AM3+ or something like that.
Hi Phil, can you get your hands on a Pentium-M Dothan in order to compare with these two? Should be close to the Core 2 Duo being a close relative to it, but only has one core of course.
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.
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.
My office PC used to have an E6300. Was miles ahead of my Pentium 4 1.5 Socket 478.Then I bought a Core 2 Duo E8400 and was simply blown away by its performance!
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.
Great comparison as always. Pentium D 960 would have beed fitted nice between these two processors.
We reviewed the Pentium D just recently, the second core did nothing to change the outcome...
wow what an improvement core 2 was.
Cool Grand national profile pic
Whats the gpu used for the test?and for some advice for battlefield 2 test try the special forces expansion pack maps its more demanding especially the ones where you have to capture an airport as the SAS.My GT210 get 19fps at 1360x768 max at 1 occassion
Great video like always, thumb up ... Now I am curious the same happened from core 2 duo to core 2 quad or i7 :)
I could supply him with benchmarks of the best LGA 1156 i7 cpu but i only have one video card currently so unless he had the same the comparison wouldn't be proper. I can tell you that my i875k + R9 270x stock (2.93GHZ cpu 1100/5600 GPU) gets 25%+ higher frame rates than a c2q 6600 overclocked to 3GHz with a GTX 1070. The core 2 lineup was good but it was not even close to the jump they made with the first Core i series, I personally think what made the core 2 line up look as good as it did was how bad p4 net burst was and how much they closed the gap on the Athlon 64, was still behind but it was a whole lot closer. I don't have a whole lot of stock results memorized as I only ran it at stock until my new memory arrived but even stock it ran more than significantly better than a O/C Q6600 with a 1070.
I remember that the fastest core 2 Quads (Q9650) could barely touch an i5 in SOME games when heavily overclocked (3.8 GHz or even more).
When the i5 got overclocked, the core 2 had no chance at all
Yeah lynnfield and bloomfield are still pretty beastly when overclocked. Highest stable O/C I can get on mine is 4.22GHz but I don't like the temps, 70's while gaming and 82c under synthetic stress. Run it daily on a 180MHz bclk base multiplier 3.97GHz 1.36v get 50's gaming low 70's under synthetic stresses. 98.7/122/634 gpu/single/multi CB R15 scores.@ 4.22GHz it gets 104.7/127/658.
Hello Phil, in your Need for Speed tests there are no competitiors ahead of you. I wonder how much performance drop they may cause if they are visible.
I remember when we finally got a new PC back in the days and it had a E6320 which is also clocked at 1,86ghz... Man it felt like an entire world is opening, before I had a P4 HT 2,80ghz on So. 478 and around 1GB RAM for it's time. I used the E6320 for many years until I got a E7200 which was a rock solid beast at 3,5Ghz at stock voltage in combination with a ASUS P5k but in mid 2013 I upgraded to a C2Q Q8200 which was kinda weak in single core performance but since more and more applications were optimized to use multi core, the C2Q was ahead.
More like this please
It's worth noting that this is a single core Netburst vs a dual core Core 2. It would be interesting to disable HT on the P4 and one core on the Core 2 to see the actual IPC improvement between generations. Though your recent Pentium D testing shows that Netburst didn't gain much from the second core in gaming. So the results might end up being very similar to what we saw in this video.
interesting is that you see a nice difference even in games which actually occupy just 1 thread because all those windows shits and backgrounds processes have one extra core to do their mess
I had a C2D E6600 back in the day inside of a Dell Dimension 9200/XPS410. It was a beast of a processor. At that time, my parents had a Dimension E510 with a P4 640 3.2 GHz
Me also! I went from an Athlon 64 to the E6600 :)
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)
Oh when I upgraded to my Core 2 Quad q6600 my 1333mhz DDR3 memory was clocked back to 1066 because of the Q6600's FSB so I know the feeling. But hey it made the RAM last longer since it's underclocking it. Also the E6300 is a very overclockable CPU from my reading and I have heard users getting it to 3ghz. Im willing to bet the the lowest clock Core 2 duo would out perform the highest clock Pentium D chip based on the video you made previously the about the Highest clocked Pentium 4 vs the highest clocked Pentium D.
Man it was a huge upgrade for me when I went to a Pentium 4 3.0ghz to a Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0ghz I was able to watch HD videos without it stuttering.
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.
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 :)
I was very glad to see when Intel came out with the C2D chips. I had always taken baby steps to upgrading and that's exactly what it felt like when going from my 1.2GHz PGA370 to a P4 @ 2.8GHz; faster, but not as fast as I was expecting it to be. When I upgraded from that to any C2D it was noticeable and very satisfactory! Even my laptop C2D T7700 and T9500 units were blowing any P4 away! Intel didn't impress me much with the P4 CPUs, but they did it right when they released these C2D chips!
Your "hey guys" triggered Google assistant on my phone 😁
Hi All, Nice, the P4 was OK, ( OK not Great ) , but it did grow in clock speed and managed to run Win XP fine plus memory often was around 2 to 4 gig on systems, I recall at work that as soon as we installed office or Mcafee all the available resources would be chewed up. Brand new machine would fly, but as soon as office was installed for email users, they became a slug.
There is a Core Duo that was used in 2006, i dont know if it was generally available to the non macintosh public as it was used by Apple when they completed the use of the Power PC systems. - If you test a early Mackbook or Imac, you can install windows in a second partition
BTW my daily driver is a 2013 Lenovo SFF that i bought new, it has Core2 Duo G3220 and 12G ram, i find it runs perfectly well on everything except encoding movies, but i really like it, it is quiet, temperatures are cool, stable ( may run 5-6 weeks non stop with Win 7)
For me the best move away from P4 was a good move for laptops, no more 2-3 hour battery life and the laptop runs much cooler, desktops were a bit annoying but at least you had vents and fans to cool it down, losing IDE cables and floppy drives and going to sata greatly helped the internal air flow and most stock systems with a core2duo only run with a single fan that is basically quiet
RegardsGeorge
This stuff is great, It reminds me of a Tom's Hardware article from 2011 titled "Tom's CPU Architecture Shootout". In the same vein; I'd love to see a RAM comparison DDR1vsDDR2vsDDR3 for 775. I wonder how much the RAM holds back the core2 on the 775i65g.
Such comparisons are difficult, as you aren't comparing the actual memory, but also different motherboards, BIOS implementations, chipsets and so on. With the Core 2 Duo, the memory controller is still in the chipset, so that matters a lot.
There are so many chip sets too, five generations of Intel chipsets and all the 3rd party developers. The 775 wiki page has 99 listed. What a era.
Forgive me but wasn't the lowest clocked desktop Core2Duo the E4300? I had one of these and a 6300 but both of them ran rings round the P4 3ghz I upgraded from!
We looked at the launch lineup, there is a list at the start of the video.
That was an interesting result, looking forward to see more videos like these with the top processor of one generation against the budget model of the next gen
another things those graphs don't show is the power usage difference between the two.
I love my old Core 2 Duo system - E6500, which I ran constantly overclocked at 2.71 GHz for years with the stock cooler and no hiccups or whatsoever. I really want to rebuild it with a better PSU and 2x2GB DDR2 sticks. I still have my copy of Neverwinter Nights 2, that came in the GeForce 8600 GT box when I was putting the system together. \m/
just want to ask, which is much better a core 2duo E4500 or a pentium coreduo @ 2.60 ??
Remember having an E6400, clocked to 3.4GHz and it was great for its price. Back when a dual core was enough for gaming.
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.
You should do a Q6600 vs i5-2400 comparison. Great comparison for those budget builds.
are you able to test the pentium extreme edition 955/965 against lower clocked core2
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.
what are the details that made the core 2 much better than the P4?..was it just purely architectural?
Even tho its a bit unfair, i would like to see a comparison between a c2d e6300 or maybe even a e6700 and a notebook ulv i5 such as the i5 3317u.
Would the dualcore i5 3317u be better for 2008 games and older, than a c2d e6700 with a gt430?
(Both with 4gb of ram).
We'll for sure look at the faster models :)
Yeah!
More end-game testing would be P4 at 4.0Ghz vs E6800 at 4.0Ghz or at least 3.6Ghz if the silicon couldn't achieve that.
Had an E6300 BITD with a 6600GT which I used to play Oblivion, oh happy days
I had/have a Pentium E6300 that was clocked a 2.83Ghz with the same 2MB of L2 Cache. It was in an HP p61200f computer I'd bought in 2009. I ended up replacing the CPU with a 3Ghz Intel Q9650 in 2010.
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.
Can you compare the highest clocked pentium 4 vs. the celeron 450 ? That would be very interesting.
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.
Actually got a laptop recently for $5 with a Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz T5670. So, fun enough it's just a bit slower than their initial line-up. The only part that's actually sad to me is Intel deciding to remove VT-x from various "budget" models. Beyond that, it's actually really great if you want to run something like Lakka off an SD (takes some fiddling with something like plop since various laptop BIOSs don't boot off the sd card) or Windows XP.
you should do the same but with the fastest single-core Athlon/slowest Athlon X2
Do you also plan on testing the E6700, the fastest C2D at launch?
I could do that, also that X6800 :)
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.
You should look for the Asus P5Q motherboard. It supports FSB speeds from 667 to 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM.
The CPU support list is rather long.
It would be a great candidate for testing different speeds and CPUs.
Hey Phil, you OK? You sound like you're a tad ill there.
Still running a Core 2 based rig myself, based on a Q9650 at stock 3.0GHz speed, which is still a good processor to have even 10 years on from it's initial launch.
PhilsComputerLab can you make benchmark of Pentium 4 540 3,2 GHz between Pentium 4 560 3,6GHZ?
And Pentium 4 540 vs. Pentium D 820/ 830?
Just before the GFC i got a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz (3.2 oc) with 4 GB DDR2 800MHz CL4 and 9600GT. This was a massive step in the right direction from a s478 HT P4 2.8GHz and HD3850. FINALLY i could play Crysis! Then i got another 9600GT off Ebay AU and OMG was it good to have SLi again. Then my XFX 680i LT died and the shop disappeared cuz of the GFC. The used 780i i got to replace it was DOA as well... Needless to say this was the first and last time i ever bought a new PC from a store. Or trusted XFX.
I think it was a few years before i got over it and found a Gigabyte EP45, but this is a CROSSFIRE board, NOT SLi. So some bits, hacks and tweaks later and i'm back in SLi action... by now the Dual Core is getting very weak... and then DX11 games came out...
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.
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: czcams.com/video/EsnWWIVsjWc/video.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
Why can't you OC your RAM? I used to run 800MHz sticks at 1600
was that gta san andreas u was using at beginning and end?
My first PC had this processor along with the Nvidia GeForce 9400gt
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?
Did you have hyper-threading turned on in the bios for Pentium 4?
Yup!
could you compare this Pentium 4 to new Pentium Silver J5005 or Celeron J4150?
I installed windows 10 upgrade on a p4d back when it was a free upgrade for a laugh, the p4 was so slow it took a day to upgrade all the windows 7 patches then upgrade to windows 10. Back in the garage it went.
Core 2 architecture was legend