Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectCore 2 Duo Reply to this message
Posted bysdplayer
Posted on08/27/07 05:57 PM



I've just gained possesion of an Apple MacBook Pro on which I've installed windows XP. I have an older laptop with a Pentium P4 3.2ghz processor. The MacBook has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor clocked at 2.4ghz. Although having a superior graphics card than my older laptop, I worried that the Mac's slower clock speed would have an impact in applications such as MAME.

How wrong could I have been.

The increase in performance is astounding. Games like Tekken 3 and Ridge Racer, which struggled to reach frame rates of 5fps on the Pentium P4, now run very smoothly on the Core 2 Duo. I'm absolutely amazed by the performance increase.

The MacBook Pro's graphics card is a Nvidia Geforce 8600m GT vs my older laptops Nvidia Geforce FX 5600. I know MAME doesn't use graphic cards for performance but I can't believe a processor can have such a dramatic increase on graphics performance.






SubjectPerformance hasn't been measured purely by clock speed in years... new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on08/27/07 09:33 PM



A core 2 duo at 2.4ghz is twice the computer a P4 at 3.2ghz is.

The Core 2 duo name means it has 2 processor cores instead of just one. So you don't have a 2.4ghz cpu, you have TWO, so if the program is smart enough to use both cores, you actually have a 4.8ghz. But even that isn't true, because the way the cpu works is also more refined, so what you have to look for is the performance name. For example, a core 2 duo at 2.4 is likely an e6600. 6600 is the indicated performance. So, in that case, even two P4s at 3.2, aren't as good as a single 6600.

Have fun with the smooth running MAME now. ;-)

All work and no play makes me..., well, you know the rest.


SubjectNot entirely new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on08/27/07 11:03 PM



> A core 2 duo at 2.4ghz is twice the computer a P4 at 3.2ghz is.
>
> The Core 2 duo name means it has 2 processor cores instead of just one. So you
> don't have a 2.4ghz cpu, you have TWO, so if the program is smart enough to use
> both cores, you actually have a 4.8ghz.

I'd say it's closer to 4.0 to 4.5 equivalent. Yes, you have the dual core working for you, but there's also more overhead with memory, cache, cross-core communication, etc. You generally don't get a doubling (or quadrupling, or whatever) of performance with multi-core processors. Sometimes you do, but not generally.

> But even that isn't true, because the way the cpu works is also more refined, so
> what you have to look for is the performance name. For example, a core 2 duo at
> 2.4 is likely an e6600.

Yep. Conroe 65 nm.

> 6600 is the indicated performance. So, in that case, even two P4s at 3.2, aren't
> as good as a single 6600.

Intel doesn't work that way. AMD does (or at least they used to). The Athlon XP, Athlon 64 and Sempron model numbers are supposed to be relative to the performance of a Thunderbird Athlon (or maybe a P4 (probably a Willamette), although AMD never confirmed it) at that clock speed (so that an Palomino at 1.4 GHz gets the same performance as a TBird at 1.6 GHz, and an A64 Venice at 2.4 GHz is roughly equivalent to a TBird running at 3.8 GHz). They may not be using this scheme anymore, though (and they don't at all for Opteron and FX processors).

Intel, OTOH, assigns somewhat arbitrary model numbers. In general, yes, as the number gets higher, the processor gets faster, but it's not relative to any given processor, so you can't simply say that a E6600 runs like 2.1 P4 3.2s or a P4 at 6.6 GHz, or whatever (even though it may be true). All you can say is that the E6600 performs better than an E6550, but not as well as an E6700.




SubjectI knew somebody would call me out on that... new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on08/28/07 00:04 AM



Yeah, i kinda overstreched it a little with the number/performance indication. Sorry.

But i would say that for applications coded to work with threads and multiple cpus, the dual cores could perform double. The bigger overhead is lessened by faster and larger cache memory and a faster fsb (and hyper transport in AMD's case).
Sure it's not 100% double the speed, but it's close enough.

All work and no play makes me..., well, you know the rest.


Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode