Intel processors

[Ian in Northampton]

Can anyone tell me the likely performance difference between:

* an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 running at 1.86GHz and
* an Intel Pentium Dual Core E5300 running at 2.6 GHz

all other things being equal?  Both are dual core and, of course, the E5300 has a much higher clock speed.  But given that they are, I assume, very different architectures, it's not clear to me that the E5300 is the 'better' processor, given the aging nature of the Pentium architecture and the more modern Core 2 architecture.

[Jon]

Well, the Core 2 Duo you reference is at end of life, having been introduced in 2006. The Pentium Dual Core processor is still in production (and is designed for use in embedded systems,which suggests that it's a lower-price option for the computer maker). Beyond that, the Front Side Bus speed (how fast it talks to memory and peripherals) for the Core 2 Duo is 1.066 GHz while the Pentium Dual Core FSB is only 800 MHz. So the Core 2 Duo, while obsolete, will be the better performer.

[Ian in Northampton]

Many thanks Jon - interesting stuff.  So, 70% (or whatever) higher clock speed counts for nothing relative to a ~20% reduction in FSB speed?  You live and learn.  I'd always been somewhat conscious of the importance of FSB speed, but hadn't realised its role was so significant.  And yes, your surmise is right - this is an el cheapo PC I've bought just in case my current one (which is E6300-based) goes tits up.  But Windows 7 HP, 3GB of memory, 320GB disk, dual layer DVDRW, card reader and so on for 280 of our British pounds was a price I was prepared to pay (from a manufacturer I have a certain amount of faith in - Medion.  Yes, I'm aware of their 'cheap and cheerful reputation, but they won PC World's customer service aware last year, I think, and their systems are mostly well-reviewed for offering outstanding value). I couldn't get close to it on eBay (which is where I've bought all my previous PCs).  I'll also be using it as a test bed to see how many of my current apps will migrate to the W7 environment prior to possibly moving my main PC to W7.

Can I have a follow on question (hopefully, Michael won't see...).  Can you connect a regular flat panel monitor to an HDMI port (which this has as well as its D-Sub port)?

[Jon]

Clock speed only has meaning within a processor family; you can compare Pentium Dual Core processors by clock speed, or Core 2 Duo processors by clock speed, but you can't compare a Pentium Dual Core to a Core 2 Duo based on clock speed. The clock speed tells you how fast the given processor can execute one step of an instruction, but ti doesn't tell you how many steps the typical instruction will take. And the different processor architectures will need different numbers of steps for different instructions.

If your computer and monitor both have HDMI ports, you can use the HDMI ports to drive the monitor. If you really want to. I don't think there'll be a big advantage to it, and it might just complicate things since on power-up the self-test and initial boot activities will typically be driven to the video out (VGA, or maybe DVI) port. Maybe there's a BIOS setting to let you choose what the default video port should be, but you'd still need monitors connected to both to be able to make that setting.

[Ian in Northampton]

Thanks again Jon.  I think you've confirmed what I somewhat believed, which is that you can't necessarily compare the two processors, given their different architectures.  On the HDMI thing: I'm used to working with a dual monitor set-up, and was thinking about how I might achieve that with the new set-up.  I've done some more research on this now.  Monitors with an HDMI connection are still rare - and expensive.  I'd been kind of thinking about some kind of HDMI-out to D-sub in (on the monitor) but, of course, that would need the VGA in on the monitor to recognise a digital signal - which it won't.  So, it looks like it's back to Plan A, which is to fit a cheap, VGA plus DVI graphics card. 

[Jon]

Dunno about there, but over here we can get TV sets with HDMI, VGA, DVI, etc. inputs. Might be a cheaper route to take . . .

[Ian in Northampton]

Yep, same here.  Three HDMI ports is now considered about the basic minimum for a reasonable TV.  No, I think I'll go the graphics card route - gonna be cheaper and probably more practical in the long run. 

[Ian in Northampton]

Many thanks Jon - interesting stuff.  So, 70% (or whatever) higher clock speed counts for nothing relative to a ~20% reduction in FSB speed?  You live and learn.  I'd always been somewhat conscious of the importance of FSB speed, but hadn't realised its role was so significant.  And yes, your surmise is right - this is an el cheapo PC I've bought just in case my current one (which is E6300-based) goes tits up.  But Windows 7 HP, 3GB of memory, 320GB disk, dual layer DVDRW, card reader and so on for 280 of our British pounds was a price I was prepared to pay (from a manufacturer I have a certain amount of faith in - Medion.  Yes, I'm aware of their 'cheap and cheerful reputation, but they won PC World's customer service aware last year, I think, and their systems are mostly well-reviewed for offering outstanding value). I couldn't get close to it on eBay (which is where I've bought all my previous PCs).  I'll also be using it as a test bed to see how many of my current apps will migrate to the W7 environment prior to possibly moving my main PC to W7.

Can I have a follow on question (hopefully, Michael won't see...).  Can you connect a regular flat panel monitor to an HDMI port (which this has as well as its D-Sub port)?

Just an update.  Much to my surprise and delight, everything I've tried to install thus far has - apparently - worked fine (which is to say, it launches - I haven't actually exercised the software).  Office 2003, Adobe Premier 1.5, Adobe Encore, Adobe Photoshop, IrfanView - and even Money 97!  I haven't yet tried to install HP's ImageZone, which drives my scanner, and some research has indicated I'll need to run that in some kind of compatibility mode - but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.  I haven't also yet tried to install various bits of DVD ripping and audio conversion software that I use frequently - fingers crossed.  As for Windows 7: it is, as I suspected, rather like Vista in that it doesn't seem to do much useful that XP didn't do - it's just hidden it all in different (and inaccessible...) places.  But I plan to persevere.  As I recall, I had similar misgivings moving from Windows 98 to XP...  Oh, and I'd also say - ref my original question - that the speed of the PC is very comparable with the E6300/XP based system I have.