>>> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is 
>>> significantly
>>> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same 
>>> clock
>>> speed.
>>
>> Yes, by a long way IIRC.
> 
> Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed. 
> But, I suppose as technology improves ..

According to PassMark, a 3.00 GHz Pentium IV is rated at about 479 "pass 
marks", while an Intel Core 2 Duo at only 1.86 GHz is rated at 1,220 
pass marks. In other words, 2.563x faster. Now, it's 2x faster because 
it's dual-core, but what about the other 56%?

The Core 2 architecture has a faster FSB (so the CPU spends less time 
waiting around for data to arrive from RAM), bigger caches (so there's 
fewer cache misses => less time waiting around for data), better branch 
prediction (=> fewer pipeline stalls), more execution units (=> it can 
execute more instructions simultaneously - assuming the program in 
question is amenable to it)... it all adds up.

> In that case a Core2 Quad should be a screamer. Then I can sit back and 
> impatiently wait for 3.7 to become a final release :-D

What do you have? Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83 GHz? That's rated at 4,160 pass 
marks.

(Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which measures 
CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you assume all 
your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4 gives you 
1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)

Source:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Post a reply to this message