Pentium 4 2.53 GHz 533 MHz Processor

Is there a reason that my Pentium 4 2.53 GHz with 512 MB RAM runs just about as fast as my friend's 2.8 GHz dual-core Pentium D with 1 GB RAM?

Is it mabye possible that the 2.53 GHz was taken off the line because it was like extremely overpowerful?

anthq11 wrote:

Is there a reason that my Pentium 4 2.53 GHz with 512 MB RAM runs just about as fast as my friend's 2.8 GHz dual-core Pentium D with 1 GB RAM?

Is it mabye possible that the 2.53 GHz was taken off the line because it was like extremely overpowerful?

1: 2.53 is pretty close to 2.8.
2: His second core may not be getting used efficiently.
3. Memory only matters in certain applications; i.e. they'll probably both run Freecell about the same speed. What applications are running "about the same"?
4. Try some benchmarks, such as SiSoft Sandra or 3DMark.

What do you expect to see? ...

Tell your friend to go to:

My Computer -> Tools -> Folder Options... -> View [Tab] 

Find a  option called: "Launch folder windows in seperate process"
and then tick the box.

Manip wrote:

What do you expect to see? ...

Tell your friend to go to:

My Computer -> Tools -> Folder Options... -> View [Tab] 

Find a  option called: "Launch folder windows in seperate process"
and then tick the box.

I've tried that in the past, it seems to hurt performance too much for the reliability boost.

anthq11 wrote:

Is there a reason that my Pentium 4 2.53 GHz with 512 MB RAM runs just about as fast as my friend's 2.8 GHz dual-core Pentium D with 1 GB RAM?

Is it mabye possible that the 2.53 GHz was taken off the line because it was like extremely overpowerful?

WOW where to start?

for example as was said "what programs seem the same" and "2.53" Vs. "2.80" are not that far apart but also:

hard drives: are both systems using the same atachment (IDE Vs. SATA) ?  SATA is normaly faster for disk io.

Video Cards:  if the app is a game or other Gfx program then the slow pc with a better Gfx card will out do the faster one in  many cases.

MoBo :  do they have different system boards?? one may have better parts that cluld make a difference.

disk defrag?? has one system been defragged and the other not??

windows settings:  if the fast pc has GUI Eye candy on and the slower one does not that can make it seem faster.

the list of things that could make the "slow" pc faster or the reverse could go on for a while.....

SlackmasterK wrote:



Manip wrote: What do you expect to see? ... Tell your friend to go to: My Computer -> Tools -> Folder Options... -> View [Tab]  Find a  option called: "Launch folder windows in seperate process" and then tick the box.

I've tried that in the past, it seems to hurt performance too much for the reliability boost.

He has a duel core CPU...

If the friend uses Windows XP Home Edition the dual core will be going to waste as it doesn't support dual core porcessors if I remember correctly.

Angus Higgins

HD - he has a WD 250 GB SATA, Ive got Seagate 250 GB SATA

Gfx - he has ATi FrieGL 3100, Ive got ATi Radeon 9250

Mobo - yeah different - i built mine, he bought from dell - mine is a Soltek, hes got whatever is in a Dell precision workstation.

Disk defrag - i actually just helped him install xp pro again..so neither of us have defragged.

window settings - ive got A FEW diabled in xp, but am using a bunch in ATi hydravision, hes obv. ot them all on, he just installed xp.

os - we both have xp pro sp2... 

Angus wrote:

If the friend uses Windows XP Home Edition the dual core will be going to waste as it doesn't support dual core porcessors if I remember correctly.

Angus Higgins

XP Home supports dual core CPUs. It doesn't support 2 physical CPUs.

Angus wrote:

If the friend uses Windows XP Home Edition the dual core will be going to waste as it doesn't support dual core porcessors if I remember correctly.

Angus Higgins

XP Home doesn't support SMP systems no, but dual-core processors aren't SMP (IIRC)

W3bbo wrote:

XP Home doesn't support SMP systems no, but dual-core processors aren't SMP (IIRC)

They are from a software point of view, and Windows will need to use the Multiprocessor HAL to make use of them (it even needs that for hyperthreading). However, unlike Windows 2000, Windows XP can make the distinction between logical and physical processors. If you put two dual core CPUs in a Win2k Pro box, it'll only be able to use the first core of either physical CPU. XP Pro in contrast can use all four cores because it's limited to two physical processors, which can have an arbitrary number of logical processors (well, max 32 but that's a technical limitation).

Similarly, XP Home can use both cores in a dual core CPU because it's constrained to one physical CPU, not one logical CPU.

W3bbo wrote:


XP Home doesn't support SMP systems no, but dual-core processors aren't SMP (IIRC)

SMP = symmetric multi processing = identical CPUs

Dual-core processor machines are inherently SMP systems, however Windows treats them as a single entity for licensing purposes. XP Home only supports a single Processor but that doesn't necessarily have to be a single core.

I think that you might be interested in this:

Computers that are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 and that are equipped with multiple processors that support processor power management features may experience decreased performance.
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896256

Good luck,

Ilya