Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Pentium 4 VS Dual Core


  • Please log in to reply

#1
Clinetyme

Clinetyme

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
I guess i need a little education, I havent had the Privilege to try out a dual core processor, really never had the need to. I do alot of gaming on my PC and i havent had a game yet that i cant run on medium/high defenition. Alot of the newer games out call for a dual core processor to run. One game inperticular is "Silent Hill 6 Home Coming", here are the min. stats for this game...


Minimum Configuration:

OS : Windows� XP (with SP2) or Windows Vista� (with SP1)
Processor : Dual Core CPU such as Intel� Core 2 Duo E6400 or AMD Athlon? 64 X2 4200+
Memory : 1 GB Windows XP / 2 GB Windows Vista
Hard Drive : 10 GB Free
Graphics : DirectX 9.0c compatible Video Card such as ATI? Radeon HD-series graphics card (minimum 256 MB) or NVIDIA? GeForce 7800-series graphics card (minimum 256 MB)
Sound Card : DirectX 9.0c compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers


NOTE: those are the min requirements.....here are the stats of my PC


OS : Windows xp SP2
Processor : Pentium 4 3.0 gig ( overclocked/rated to 4.49 gig )
Memory : 4 gigs of Kingston DDR SDRAM ( only 3040 MB detected )
Hard Drive : 500 gig Western Digital WD Caviar Blue WD5000KS 7200 RPM/16 mb cache, Sata
Graphics : ATI Radeon 2400 HD pro 256MB/with directx 10 ( overclocked by Rivatuner )
Sound Card : Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium/directx 9.0c compatible w/ the latest drivers


I bought the game....and im running it w/ 80% of the graphic details on high and the other 20% on Medium. Is it really that necessary for me to update to a dual core and strip my pentium 4 if im running all the latest games in medium/high to high defenition w/o any problems, sure im overclocked but im running a cool 30 to 50 degrees at all times even during hrs of hard gaming. Im still trying to figure out why dual core is getting all this hype and my Pentium 4 is running fast enough to handle the dual core games......
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
charge06

charge06

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
If you like the way its running, and does good with the games you play mostly maxed out, then i wouldn't worry about it now, but some day you will need to upgrade. You should just upgrade when your cpu cant handle the games you want to play.

Dual cores are faster because it has 2 cores doing the work instead of just one, I have a intel core 2 duo e8400, at 3.0 ghz, that is 2 cores that is 3.0 GHZ. yes ur is overclocked 4.49, but i believe if i read right somewhere, the E8400 will still outperform that, Mainly cause of 2 cores and the better architecture.
  • 0

#3
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts

I guess i need a little education, I havent had the Privilege to try out a dual core processor, really never had the need to. I do alot of gaming on my PC and i havent had a game yet that i cant run on medium/high defenition. Alot of the newer games out call for a dual core processor to run. One game inperticular is "Silent Hill 6 Home Coming", here are the min. stats for this game...


Minimum Configuration:

OS : Windows� XP (with SP2) or Windows Vista� (with SP1)
Processor : Dual Core CPU such as Intel� Core 2 Duo E6400 or AMD Athlon? 64 X2 4200+
Memory : 1 GB Windows XP / 2 GB Windows Vista
Hard Drive : 10 GB Free
Graphics : DirectX 9.0c compatible Video Card such as ATI? Radeon HD-series graphics card (minimum 256 MB) or NVIDIA? GeForce 7800-series graphics card (minimum 256 MB)
Sound Card : DirectX 9.0c compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers


NOTE: those are the min requirements.....here are the stats of my PC


OS : Windows xp SP2
Processor : Pentium 4 3.0 gig ( overclocked/rated to 4.49 gig )
Memory : 4 gigs of Kingston DDR SDRAM ( only 3040 MB detected )
Hard Drive : 500 gig Western Digital WD Caviar Blue WD5000KS 7200 RPM/16 mb cache, Sata
Graphics : ATI Radeon 2400 HD pro 256MB/with directx 10 ( overclocked by Rivatuner )
Sound Card : Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium/directx 9.0c compatible w/ the latest drivers


I bought the game....and im running it w/ 80% of the graphic details on high and the other 20% on Medium. Is it really that necessary for me to update to a dual core and strip my pentium 4 if im running all the latest games in medium/high to high defenition w/o any problems, sure im overclocked but im running a cool 30 to 50 degrees at all times even during hrs of hard gaming. Im still trying to figure out why dual core is getting all this hype and my Pentium 4 is running fast enough to handle the dual core games......



Yeah your limitations are due to the (Pentium 4 single core) and the video card. The other poster is correct about the pentium 4 as the architectures on those CPU's are pretty crappy this day in time compared to the amd x2, amd phenom, amd phenom II, intel core 2 duo, intel core 2 quad, intel core i7 etc..

Thats a pretty dang good overclock for a pentium 4 but the architecture is just to poor on those in todays gaming society. They do have pentium D processors which are dual core but they still run on the same pentium 4 architecture which is not good as well.. I'd say if the game runs fine by your eyes then there is really no need to upgrade as it is up to you.


Well, above you said you do a LOT of gaming so maybe it is time for you to upgrade to a newer platform chip. If you start to play any of these newer games such as GTA4, Crysis, Stalker etc that machine will not be able to handle them well at all and the pc will cripple.
  • 0

#4
Clinetyme

Clinetyme

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
jrm20, i have Crysis warhead on my PC, i also have Stalker Clear Sky and Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl i run Crysis on medium settings and both stalkers on high w/ no problems. Both Stalkers only need a 2 GHz processor, 512 megs of ram and a 128 MB plyable video card thats directx 8.0 ( thats right..Directx " 8.0" ) compatible, Crysis can run on a pentium 4 2.8 gig, 1 gig of ram, 256 MB directx 9.0c card ( providing ur card has vertex shader and pixel shader both at 2.0, mine is 3.0 ) I also have Bioshock, Left 4 Dead, Gears of War, Overlord, Quake 4, Tomb Raider underworld, Doom 3, Guitar Hero 3, Guitar Hero Aerosmith, Silent hill 6 Home Coming, Call of Duty 5 World At War, Dead Space....amoungst others, no game that i have run under a medium setting, most on high, and these are set to the default auto-detect for the computer by the game its self. I understand the dual core probably works 1/2 as hard....but is that the only real reason to upgrade to a dual core....?

Edited by Clinetyme, 20 January 2009 - 11:54 AM.

  • 0

#5
jt1990

jt1990

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
Because the dual-core only "works 1/2 as hard" it enables me to get far better performance out of my Core2 Duo 2.0Ghz then I ever got out of my P4 2.8Ghz. The few games that I play run sooooo much better on my new laptop then they did on my old desktop it's not even funny. Even with a P4 overclocked that fast, a Core2 Duo at a slower speed would far out perform it.
  • 0

#6
Clinetyme

Clinetyme

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
I understand that it "works 1/2 as hard", but were back to the fact that my P4 is still fast/strong enough to run even the newest games at almost any setting even w/ the ATI Radeon HD 2400 xt pro video card that i have. Correct me if im wrong, but gaming will put every component in your PC to the test, and if my P4 set up the way that it is hangs w/ the dual core (gaming wise) is it really that critical to upgrade, especially if i got a high range video card instead of the mid range one that i have now. Im not argueing the fact that the dual core is made to run alot better and smoother, what i want to know is why it does, and is it a real necessity to upgrade.
  • 0

#7
charge06

charge06

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
If you like it and is happy with it, and works good for you, and handles the games you play. Then there is no need to upgrade .


You should only upgrade once it can no longer handle the games you will play. I mentioned earlier, u dont need to up grade now, but you will have to upgrade in the future.
  • 0

#8
Clinetyme

Clinetyme

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
that still doesnt answer my question about how the dual core actually runs, works and is more efficient.........
  • 0

#9
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts

I understand that it "works 1/2 as hard", but were back to the fact that my P4 is still fast/strong enough to run even the newest games at almost any setting even w/ the ATI Radeon HD 2400 xt pro video card that i have. Correct me if im wrong, but gaming will put every component in your PC to the test, and if my P4 set up the way that it is hangs w/ the dual core (gaming wise) is it really that critical to upgrade, especially if i got a high range video card instead of the mid range one that i have now. Im not argueing the fact that the dual core is made to run alot better and smoother, what i want to know is why it does, and is it a real necessity to upgrade.



I'm not trying to be mean or argue with you but don't take any offense to this. The ati 2400 xt is not a high performance card by (Today's Standards) it is actually a low end video card to be honest. Now if you had the 2900xt that would be considered a mid level video card barley hanging on because of all these newer video cards coming out so fast.

The 2900xt is about on the same performance level as the OLD 8800 320mb models were and those cards are considered outdated by (today's gamers).

I've been doing gaming and pc setups for AWHILE now and I know what works and about what performance it gets in games with what settings.

I know that crysis warhead can be ran on lower end pc's but it will not be a "pretty sight" to everyone maybe to your eyes, definitely not my eyes. I won't agree with you on the settings for crysis as I know better for your pc, not with all the eye candy on.

However I strongly recommend that you upgrade to a new cpu/ mobo /memory/ video card and probably new power supply if you really want to be playing all those games at high/ very settings with high resolution and possibly aa and af.

If you think your system is fast or plays at medium settings you are in for a big surprise.

If you want a core 2 duo/ core 2 quad you will need a socket 775 mobo. By looking at your ram and speed I determined you have a socket 478 board as you have DDR SDRAM. The 775 boards are ddr2 standard.. Some 775 boards do offer DDR3.

So you will pretty much have to get all new parts if you want to upgrade the right way. Like I said it is all up to you but I will promise you if you get some kind of core 2 duo (minimum) with around 2.4ghz-3.0ghz with a newer video card such as a gtx 260 (216 core shader model recommended) Your gaming will be so much better you will not know what to think and those cpu's are very affordable and cheap now with a ddr2 mobo.. Even with a cheaper ati 4850 video card for $140 + a core 2 duo would be a major difference... (this isn't set in stone yet just some examples but if you want to upgrade (I or we) will direct you in the right path if you have the budget. Id try to get the fastest video card you could afford though.

A core 2 duo even @ 2.4 ghz is way faster than the pentium 4 oc to 5ghz lol because the p4 has such a bad architecture with only 1 core also. I see you stated your p4 is (overclocked/rated to 4.49 ghz) what does that mean really? Is the true speed currently overclocked to 4.49 ghz showing in the system properties or what are you rating it off of as you said "rated".

Even a PENTIUM D (dual core) 5ghz which is essentially a dual core using the pentium 4 architecture and it still wouldn't perform as well as a core 2 duo @2.4ghz.. See where I am going now?

The ghz is meaningless when you are comparing 2 totally different generations of processors as the core 2 duo is far superior in the architecture + dual core VS the Pentium 4 series..

P4 OLD, Core 2 duo is newer just remember that.

I'm just trying to help you here. Personally it is time to upgrade to a new pc if you really want a good gaming experience as you do have outdated hardware.

Even my q6600 (quad core) 4gb ram and 8800gts (g92) is outdated by this day in time and it is many generations ahead of your rig..

If you are a hardcore gamer you will want to upgrade every 1.5 years LOL as I try to by then.

I am already working on a core i7 quad core with 6gb ram and a gtx 295 system.. The core i7's are the newest chips to come out for intel.

Good luck.


your p4 has a 800mhz front side bus also which is 1 reason why its slower. It is being choked by that low bus speed.

Core 2 duos have 1066mhz or 1333mhz front side bus, + a newer architecture.

The core 2 duos put out more clocks per second (instructions per clock) than the pentium 4's even if you disabled 1 core on the core 2 duo CPU it would still severely beat the P4..

Core 2 duos have a larger cache on the CPU..

Its like comparing the first carb engine to the new fuel injected engines seriously.. It is all about the design..

Hope this is enough info..

Edited by jrm20, 20 January 2009 - 07:35 PM.

  • 0

#10
Clinetyme

Clinetyme

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
Finally...lol...yes thats the info that i was pretty much looking for, thx again for the input. I did a little research about my card...and u r right, it is a low end card, but it wasnt when i got it, things r moving pretty fast, but it gets the job done for now. Looks like im gonna be doing some upgrading.


But i have to disagree w/ u about Crysis, i do have most of the "eye candy" on and it runs fine, smooth and crystal clear.
  • 0

#11
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts

Finally...lol...yes thats the info that i was pretty much looking for, thx again for the input. I did a little research about my card...and u r right, it is a low end card, but it wasnt when i got it, things r moving pretty fast, but it gets the job done for now. Looks like im gonna be doing some upgrading.


But i have to disagree w/ u about Crysis, i do have most of the "eye candy" on and it runs fine, smooth and crystal clear.



LOL while it MAY LOOK clear there is always room for way way more improvements. Might look smooth and clear to you, for others it wont. Some think 20fps or 25fps is acceptable for crysis and that looks horrible. You will see more than double the fps (frames per second) with just about everything maxed out if you get a gtx 260 (216 shader core model) + a core 2 duo cpu.

I know how your setup would run and no way you can run it high as your saying with acceptable fps in my eyes. Do you have AA and AF turned off? If so that is not most eye candy on.. Try maxing out AA and AF plus put the resolution up no minimum than 1280x1024 which isn't that high by today's standards then report back lol..

If you run a low resolution and AA + AF OFF I could see medium settings Like (1024x768).
  • 0

#12
Clinetyme

Clinetyme

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
altho your input was very helpful, i see that reading isnt one of your stronger points....if u scroll up u'll see that i said i play Crysis on Medium, not High...none-the-less, the main reason for this topic was to see if me upgrading would be worth it....from your information looks like upgrading is gonna come alot faster than i thought it would.....thx again.
  • 0

#13
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts

altho your input was very helpful, i see that reading isnt one of your stronger points....if u scroll up u'll see that i said i play Crysis on Medium, not High...none-the-less, the main reason for this topic was to see if me upgrading would be worth it....from your information looks like upgrading is gonna come alot faster than i thought it would.....thx again.



I saw that you said medium setting but the thing is its to technical for me to explain to you I guess. If you have the game auto configure for your pc and you say its on medium, more than likely the resolution will be super super low and AA + AF will be turned off (especially on the low end hd 2400xt) so it is almost like it is on LOW settings. IDK if you follow what I am saying though.

I think you misunderstood the way I explained it.


I know how your setup would run and no way you can run it high as your saying with acceptable fps in my eyes.


Didn't say that you run it on "HIGH" I said high as your saying.. Meaning MEDIUM as it really is not considered Medium with super low resolution and no AA + AF on at all..
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP