🚀 go-pugleaf

This might be a good discussion for alt.comp.hardware, but it's so far off 
topic in alt.windows-xp as to be wasted bandwidth.  I can guarantee that the 
typical user cannot tell the difference between the speeds of machines 
running P4's or Dual-Core processors.  Word will look equally quick on both.

So, quit your fucking cross-posting you stupid moron!!!!


"deerslayer" <ds@noemail.com> wrote in message 
news:TWWsl.13283$9a.9779@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Colon Terminus wrote:
>> "muzician21" <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:2b848985-e443-4f11-ae06-b40d51ce5419@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Trying to understand the breakdown of things as far as dual core
>>> systems. Things got a little murky for me since it isn't simply
>>> Pentium -whatever- and an ever higher gig number.
>>>
>>> I've got a 2.4 gig P4. How does that compare both to early dual cores
>>> and to whatever the current fastest processors are?
>>>
>>> Is there good a site that shows the breakdown of things as far as the
>>> history of processors to present day?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Download, install and run Sisoft SANDRA.
>>
>> You can see a comparison of your systems actual performance versus
>> thousands of other systems.
>
> This was an excellent suggestion unlike the several entries prior.  The 
> short answer of course is that the 2.4GHz P4 is much slower than dual core 
> CPUs even those at slower clock speeds.  SANDRA will show this graphically 
> in its performance module, rating the subject system to average 
> performance of several other CPU types.
>