|
by Just a guy 04/19/2005, 2:54pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
laudablepuss wrote:
Ray of Light wrote:
laudablepuss wrote:
By architecture, are you talking about hyperthreading? I believe only the P4s have that (as opposed to the Celerons), so yeah, if you had an app that took advantage of that you might see an improvement. I don't really know what hyperthreading is supposed to do, so it's hard to say. Hyperthreading . . . maybe the CPU reaches into another dimension to retrieve future instructions which it can subsequently execute in the past. That'd be a pretty cool feature.
"No."
Check this out. (Also here.)
Hyperthreading is apparently not bad. The new dual core Pentium D XXXTREME!@!#!@! or whatever has hyperthreading also, for a total of 4 logical CPUs. Huh.
The question wasn't, "Is hyperthreading a desirable technology," it was whether MM would see a significant improvement by upgrading from a 2.5 Celeron to a 2.5 P4. Ray is right, the answer is No. Besides, I am currently hating all of Intel's pinless CPUs, waiting to see AMD introduce their dual-core chips, hyperthreading or no. The ability to run seti@home and antivirus more harmoniously does not tweak my nobs.
The new dual-cores will cost much and need a new board entirely. Not to mention that there exist no games written to take advantage of multiple-cores, to which you must ask yourself if, for gameing, an AMD64 solution wouldn't offer much more value. Value coming from spending at least $300-$900 for the CPU and $150+ for a top-shelf mainboard. Which I don't believe MM had in mind. The answer to the original question is still. No.
If MM wanted to spend money on a new CPU but keep his current MB, a 3.0+ GHz 478 chip ($180-$300, $900 for the 3.4 EE chip) would indeed demonstrate noticeable speed improvements, but that wasn't the question either. Also, 478 chips are poised to be paperweights sooner than later, spending new money on them hurts my brain.
The answer to the original question is, "No". |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
How much difference is there between a Celeron and a Pentium 4? by Mischief Maker 04/18/2005, 10:16am PDT 
Re: How much difference is there between a Celeron and a Pentium 4? by Ray of Light 04/18/2005, 10:33am PDT
Re: How much difference is there between a Celeron and a Pentium 4? by laudablepuss 04/18/2005, 1:48pm PDT
Summary by Ray of Light 04/18/2005, 1:52pm PDT
Well . . . by laudablepuss 04/19/2005, 2:20pm PDT
Re: Well . . . by Just a guy 04/19/2005, 2:54pm PDT
Dear just a total genius guy by laudablepuss 04/19/2005, 3:48pm PDT
Minor correction by laudablepuss 04/19/2005, 4:16pm PDT
Whoops nevermind! I thought I was mistaken but I was wrong. by laudablepuss 04/19/2005, 4:18pm PDT
So the answer is still, No, right? NT by Just a guy 04/19/2005, 4:40pm PDT
You should just stick with ragging on me guy. NT by Worm 04/19/2005, 6:29pm PDT
Maybe you aught to figure out what your talking about first, retard. NT by Just a guy 04/19/2005, 6:36pm PDT
No. NT by Worm 04/19/2005, 6:46pm PDT
You're right either way NT by Entropy Stew 04/19/2005, 4:44pm PDT
Wow (the new SB) NT by I need clarification 04/19/2005, 6:54pm PDT
Hi, how's it going? by laudablepuss 04/19/2005, 7:04pm PDT
Quake 3 runs better on any AMD 939 than on dual Xeons, we are talking game box. by Just a guy 04/19/2005, 4:48pm PDT
I THINK YOU ARE STRAYING FROM THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, SIR. NT by laudablepuss 04/19/2005, 4:50pm PDT
|
|
