Faster? P4@3GHz or CoreDuo@1.73GHz

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Standard office functions plus Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004
(and X). When used with the sim software, the laptop will be
driving a good quality 19" LCD panel.

The P4 Northwood laptop is a vanilla HP on XP Home, 1GB RAM, and
a 5400RPM drive. Video card is the integrated Radeon 9100 with
shared memory.

The CoreDuo laptop is a vanilla Dell on Vista Premium, but with
a Core Duo processor T2080, 2GB RAM, also a 5400RPM drive. Video
is Dell's integrated, to support the WXGA+ display.

I need to advise a colleague which of these two laptops will be
used in evaluating/using his flight simulator software, which he
is modifying for a specialized purpose. There are substantial
differences in the programming required by the two laptops, and
reverting later will be costly and time-consuming, so a decision
must be made in advance. In this application, speed is important.

Are there benchmark tests I can do now to estimate which of the
two laptops would be more suitable?


Re: Faster? P4@3GHz or CoreDuo@1.73GHz

The answer is - "it depends".

If the application is single threaded, then the faster processor will be
the winner. Multi-threaded applications can use both processors and may
end up running the asme as the faster processor.

Differences in processor architecture will also effect the results. The
general rule is that more modern processors, even at slower clock
speeds, may actually run A SPECIFIC PROGRAM faster than a faster, older,
processor. You've got to try both to see which will be better for your
specific application.

This is not a new question. The earliest case of this I know of was
differences between Amdahl and IBM mainframes when running CICS, a
single threaded (at that time) application.

Phil Sherman

Ike wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Faster? P4@3GHz or CoreDuo@1.73GHz (Phil Sherman) wrote in

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Assuming any variety of Windows or U*IX, what of the dozens of
processes running at any time, each of which may also be

Unless you're running a single non-threaded app with no operating
system, I think you'll always be able to make use of more than one

Besides, it's nearly impossible to write a Windows application that's
not multi-threaded :-)

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Re: Faster? P4@3GHz or CoreDuo@1.73GHz

Bert Hyman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
It's not the number of processes running; its the distribution of
processing cycles that's important. You are correct that all modern
operating systems are multithreaded but if you look at distribution of
cycles when running, for example, a blur/sharpen operation in a photo
editing program, you'll see that 98%+ of the cycles are going to the
application program. If the application has multi-threaded these cpu
intensive tasks, then a multiple cpu system will be able to complete
these tasks much faster than a single processor at the same speed.

Multiple processors may also a great boon if you have to always run
monitor/scan software that continually checks for viruses and other
malware. Of course, if you have a good dispatcher and prioritizing
system, you may be able to setup this code to only use idle cycles.
Unfortunately, on a laptop, this can keep the processor running full
speed when on battery, significantly decreasing battery run time.

Phil Sherman

Site Timeline