| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2024 7:15 pm Post subject: Wondering about i5/i7... |
 |
|
| Anyone know of some good performance comparisons between i5/i7 and Core2? I'm thinking about upgrading my system and if day-to-day office type Linux usage isn't going to scream on iX series compared to Core2, then I'd save a bundle by not tossing this current box (it accepts C2D as Pentium D 960 but is presently running Celeron D unicore).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2024 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, this is almost moot. As usual, one link arrives after I post, where the new link explains quite a bit.
Wikipedia for Pentium D says it is not really a "Core 2 Duo" part, more like 2 cores on one chip. | Wikipedia entry for Pentium D wrote: | | The Pentium D[2] brand refers to two series of desktop dual-core 64-bit x86 processors with the NetBurst microarchitecture manufactured by Intel. Each CPU comprised two dies, each containing a single core, residing next to each other on a multi-chip module package. The brand's first processor, codenamed Smithfield, was released by Intel on May 25, 2024. Nine months later, Intel introduced its successor, codenamed Presler,[3] but without offering significant upgrades in design,[4] still resulting in a relatively high power consumption.[5] By 2024, the NetBurst processors reached a clock speed barrier at 3.8 GHz due to a thermal (and power) limit exemplified by the Presler's 130 W Thermal Design Power[5] (a higher TDP requires additional cooling that can be prohibitively noisy or expensive). The future belonged to more energy efficient and slower clocked dual-core CPUs on a single die instead of two.[6] The final shipment date of the dual die Presler chips was August 8, 2024,[7] which marked the end of the Pentium D brand and also the NetBurst microarchitecture. |
Therefore, I'm not going to be getting C2D performance on this motherboard. That is not saying a dual CPU system is not better than what I have, I'm sure that 2 cores can be made to perform better than my one core, but it does mean that I'd really need to see performance between Pentium D and i5/i7, which probably won't exist since Pentium Ds are somewhat lower volume and thus are relatively rare compared with C2D.
I'd still be interested in Pentium D versus i5/i7, but I'm not expecting there to be any such comparisons.
_________________
-Kubuntu 10.04 LTS Beta2 on Celeron D desktop
-PCLinuxOS 2024 LXDE on EeePC 900A with Atom n270 (modded with 32G SATA drive and 2G ram).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2024 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, here is one area that seems to offer some ideas, but I'd need to investigate what is involved in their testing:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
My Celeron D is near the bottom of http://www.cpubenchmark.net/midlow_range_cpus.html with a score of 405.
The i7 I would love to own is the i7-960, near the top of http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html with a score of 6706.
Reality says I'd probably want to get i5-660, near the middle of http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html with a score of 3102.
Huh. That i7-960 is 16.56 times my current Celeron D? In what way is the i7 that much better?? My Celeron is pretty quick, compared to the Athlon I used to run. How do these Passmark tests compare to real world user functions? I find no explanations on that site.
_________________
-Kubuntu 10.04 LTS Beta2 on Celeron D desktop
-PCLinuxOS 2024 LXDE on EeePC 900A with Atom n270 (modded with 32G SATA drive and 2G ram).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
masinick
Linux Guru
Joined: 03 Apr 2024
Posts: 8615
Location: Concord, NH
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2024 8:41 pm Post subject: Thanks for the info! |
|
|
Wow, when it comes to hardware and the latest chipsets, I am not one in the know, but I definitely appreciate your links and conversation about it; maybe I can learn something about this end of things!
I have not owned a single 64 Bit Intel based system, yet ironically enough, over a decade ago I used to run 100% 64 Bit Digital AlphaStation and AlphaServer systems, all running the Digital UNIX that I worked on during the Version 4 and Version 5 code bases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord.DragonFly.of.Dawn
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2024
Posts: 607
Location: South Portland, Maine, USA, Earth, Sol System
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2024 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Historically AMD has treated me better in the processor department, although the C2D and Atom processors are doing me no disservice...
_________________
ArchLinux x86_64 - Custom Built Desktop
ArchLinux x86_64 - Compaq CQ50 Laptop
ArchLinux i686 - Acer Aspire One Netbook
ArchLinux i686 - Dell Presario ze2000 (w/ shattered LCD)
PuppyLinux, CloneZilla, PartedMagic, DBAN - rescue thumbdrives
Windows 7 (x86_64 desktop alternate boot)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
VHockey86
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Dec 2024
Posts: 988
Location: Rochester
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2024 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Huh. That i7-960 is 16.56 times my current Celeron D? In what way is the i7 that much better?? My Celeron is pretty quick, compared to the Athlon I used to run. How do these Passmark tests compare to real world user functions? I find no explanations on that site.
|
You won't notice 16 times the speed by any means with regular desktop use, but the benchmark is still meaningful.
Pentium D's was still back on the old Pentium 4 netburst architecture, when Intel still thought that the most important thing was clock frequency. The microarchitecture is terrible compared to any of the newer "Core" series. The Pentium D was really nothing more than 2 processors inside the same package. They did not communicate through a shared cache / cache coherency structure like all modern multi-core desktop systems - they had separate caches and had to communicate through the FSB and the OS.
Interesting story really, the majority of Intel's processor R&D was working with NetBurst. A small development team in Israel at intel that was working on trying to create lower power devices for laptops decided to screw netburst and revamped the P3 architecture signficiantly - which turned into the Pentium-M. Then they made the jump to "real" multi-core devices and the rest is history.
In short they have more cores (and many more functional units), much more cache, faster cache, a much more streamlined pipeline, embedded point to point memory controllers, higher FSB clock rates, etc.
I'm still using an "older" 45nm Q9600 Quad Core, before the Nahalem architecture came out and I don't really have any deserve to upgrade soon, although my 8800GT is feeling a bit dated.
_________________
Main Desktops : Kubuntu 10.4. ArchLinux 64-bit. Windows7 64-bit. Windows XP 32-bit.
MacBook: OS X Snow Leopard (10.6)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2024 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm kinda backing away from AMD for now, mostly based on the motherboards I've been using. Current system uses an ATI north/south chipset with integrated graphics (chipset was intended for laptops, this is a desktop motherboard), a chipset that people have never heard about. It works ok, but it was not very common. The system before that had a VIA based north/south motherboard, and that VIA system gave me big issues with data transfers over the IDE bus, many many many times. Odd chipsets just ... just freak me out. So, when I think of AMD, I think of the ATI chipset that I have right now and I get the feeling that the future AMD motherboard will not likely be using an Intel chipset, since the AMD/ATI merger brings the ATI chipset closer to the CPUs from AMD. Yeah, I know, the same situation exists with Intel chipsets supporting Intel processors. I don't know. Given compelling information, I'm open minded, but I'm behind the 8 ball. I'm not shopping for a new system every 8-12 months, so I have nothing for information right now... I've almost missed Core2 completely since I bought my last system!
Still and again, I have no idea just how much i# processor I'd want to get. I'm not gaming to any real extent (running Command & Conquer Gold edition as standalone under Wine, and running The Mana World online under native linux for MMO), I run soho type stuff: Open Office, flatbed scanner via HP all-in-one, surfing/stumbling, and lightweight text editing. Might try to do more video editing, but that already works pretty well on the Celeron D, I could possibly just stay put for zero dollars.
I keep seeing no reason (other than price) to head to higher or lower benchmarked processors. If I had a meaningful value for the benchmarks, that information could allow me to see what is happening. Right now, the bigger bottlenecks are that I want compatibility with Linux, and I'm seeking USB 3.0 support. Those are common motherboard features, but I need to settle motherboard selection with firm CPU choices. I see the triple core AMD products, but price for performance is not substantially different versus intel. That leaves me with my history as a means of direction, and my recent history is one of decent experience, but 5 years old.
I wonder if I could bring a Live CD or flash distro to Best Buy and have them let me play for a few minutes.... can't think of a better way to get apples to apples comparisons, but the sales floor people tend to be weaklings at conceptual stuff like Linux, so my running Live distros would probably look like black magic, or worse, they might ask me about Linux, and we can't be having any of that, especially since I own one of the Best Buy generated abominations called the Asus EeePC 900A/Linux.... Best Buy deserves to be slapped for what they did there. 4 Gigabyte disk capacity - BAH!!
Well, now I'm thinking about just skipping upgrading the desktop and instead upgrading the EeePC 900A; 16 or 32 Gig SSD and 2G sdram.... hmm. By the time I get the current bills paid down, i3/i5 should be long obsolete and i9 (my guess of a fictitious sequential improvement of the line odd-numbered ix series CPU) that would then be a few years old.
_________________
-Kubuntu 10.04 LTS Beta2 on Celeron D desktop
-PCLinuxOS 2024 LXDE on EeePC 900A with Atom n270 (modded with 32G SATA drive and 2G ram).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
tlmiller
Ultimate Member
Joined: 01 May 2024
Posts: 2432
Location: MD, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2024 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I just recently built a budget Athlon II x4 desktop. Basic run of the mill board, AII x4 620, 4 GB ram, Nvidia 9600 GT graphics. Nothing expensive, just wanted to go quad core. Everything on this works REALLY well in linux. From onboard sound, graphics, my webcam, etc.
_________________
Debian Squeeze, Arch, Kubuntu mostly. Some Mandriva. Some Windows.
Desktops: shadowdragon, medusa
Laptops: bluedrake, banelord, sandwyrm, aardvark.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2024 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How high was the 'budget'?
_________________
-Kubuntu 10.04 LTS Beta2 on Celeron D desktop
-PCLinuxOS 2024 LXDE on EeePC 900A with Atom n270 (modded with 32G SATA drive and 2G ram).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
