🚀 go-pugleaf

"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
>

Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
how to use google.

Do a search with these terms:
Multi Core
dual core vs quad core
dual core, gaming

Then there is the issues of compatibility - appropriate slot!
Cooling, overclocking. Etc
Do your own searching.

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:56:09 -0800 (PST), muzician21
<muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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


The answer to the question you didn't ask is "yes", if you
feel your 2.4GHz is getting slow at the tasks you do, it's
worthwhile to upgrade the system or buy a new one.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
news:pb05r4lojl341lnkinskv4a26i3do7laqb@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:56:09 -0800 (PST), muzician21
> <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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

Why don't you try a search engine ?
 I just tried one (Google) on your behalf. Entering "history of processors 
to present day" which produced a return of:
 Results 1 - 10 of about 1,650,000 for history

of processors

to present day

. (0.27 seconds)

Why don't you try it as well ?

 

"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

any good A+ certification book will have a history of cpu development
depends on how deep you want to go. Michael Meyers A+ book is extremely
comprehensive very detailed on all subject matter including cpu history
Just make sure you get the latest if you want the latest info
here's a free study guide page showing up through the dual cores
http://www.mcmcse.com/comptia/aplus/notes/aplus_processors.shtml
A+ has 2 parts hardware and software. Cpu history will be in the hardware
section

-- 
Tommy

All of you mucking forons could have dropped alt.windows-xp from the 
address, but...........


"Band" <invalid@witheld.invalid> wrote in message 
news:0tSdneWToLM19C_UnZ2dnUVZ8uGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "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
>>
>
> Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
> how to use google.
>
> Do a search with these terms:
> Multi Core
> dual core vs quad core
> dual core, gaming
>
> Then there is the issues of compatibility - appropriate slot!
> Cooling, overclocking. Etc
> Do your own searching.
>
>
> 

On Mar 7, 12:33 pm, "Band" <inva...@witheld.invalid> wrote:
> "muzician21" <muzicia...@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
>
> Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
> how to use google.
>
> Do a search with these terms:
> Multi Core
> dual core vs quad core
> dual core, gaming
>
> Then there is the issues of compatibility - appropriate slot!
> Cooling, overclocking. Etc
> Do your own searching.

"Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
how to use google."
Favourite expression of yours, "strange person".
It's maybe just as well you change your name so often, shit-for-
brainz.
That Troll & UnWise One, Ronnie Kray, Nancy, Ken.......is Barbie Next?
Do you have a "gender" problem? Like it's "that day of the month"? Hit
out at all "definite" males/females? Jealous? What a prick(less?) cunt
you are. I haven't yet seen ONE helpful suggestion issued from your
gaping shit-hole you use as a mouth. "Talking shit" takes on a whole
new concept after your crap. Don't be a total arsehole ALL your life.
Have a day off. :-)

"sandy58" <aleckie68@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:22ee4793-92d0-46d3-894a-f724f1030398@u1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 12:33 pm, "Band" <inva...@witheld.invalid> wrote:
>> "muzician21" <muzicia...@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
>>
>> Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
>> how to use google.
>>
>> Do a search with these terms:
>> Multi Core
>> dual core vs quad core
>> dual core, gaming
>>
>> Then there is the issues of compatibility - appropriate slot!
>> Cooling, overclocking. Etc
>> Do your own searching.
>
> "Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
> how to use google."
> Favourite expression of yours, "strange person".
> It's maybe just as well you change your name so often, shit-for-
> brainz.
> That Troll & UnWise One, Ronnie Kray, Nancy, Ken.......is Barbie Next?
> Do you have a "gender" problem? Like it's "that day of the month"? Hit
> out at all "definite" males/females? Jealous? What a prick(less?) cunt
> you are. I haven't yet seen ONE helpful suggestion issued from your
> gaping shit-hole you use as a mouth. "Talking shit" takes on a whole
> new concept after your crap. Don't be a total arsehole ALL your life.
> Have a day off. :-)

How's sandy58 today :-) 

"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. 


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
	     ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Mar 7, 4:45 pm, "El.Plates" <pi...@thebar.com> wrote:
> "sandy58" <alecki...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:22ee4793-92d0-46d3-894a-f724f1030398@u1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:33 pm, "Band" <inva...@witheld.invalid> wrote:
> >> "muzician21" <muzicia...@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
>
> >> Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
> >> how to use google.
>
> >> Do a search with these terms:
> >> Multi Core
> >> dual core vs quad core
> >> dual core, gaming
>
> >> Then there is the issues of compatibility - appropriate slot!
> >> Cooling, overclocking. Etc
> >> Do your own searching.
>
> > "Sigh, you're a google grouper who typically doesn't know
> > how to use google."
> > Favourite expression of yours, "strange person".
> > It's maybe just as well you change your name so often, shit-for-
> > brainz.
> > That Troll & UnWise One, Ronnie Kray, Nancy, Ken.......is Barbie Next?
> > Do you have a "gender" problem? Like it's "that day of the month"? Hit
> > out at all "definite" males/females? Jealous? What a prick(less?) cunt
> > you are. I haven't yet seen ONE helpful suggestion issued from your
> > gaping shit-hole you use as a mouth. "Talking shit" takes on a whole
> > new concept after your crap. Don't be a total arsehole ALL your life.
> > Have a day off. :-)
>
> How's sandy58 today :-)

Me, El Plates? I'm just a lowdown google grouper. <sigh> :-)

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:42:18 -0000, "El.Plates"
<pints@thebar.com> wrote:

>
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
>news:pb05r4lojl341lnkinskv4a26i3do7laqb@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:56:09 -0800 (PST), muzician21
>> <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>
>Why don't you try a search engine ?
> I just tried one (Google) on your behalf. Entering "history of processors 
>to present day" which produced a return of:
> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,650,000 for history
>
>of processors
>
>to present day
>
>. (0.27 seconds)
>
>Why don't you try it as well ?
>
> 

I suppose the OP could (Keeping in mind, you replied to the
wrong person), but a comprehensive overview of processors
seems likely to be scant on details that are relevant, like
specifics about how the OP's present CPU fares compared to
modern alternatives on the specific jobs the OP needs run.

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. 

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.
> 

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:48:13 -0400, "deerslayer"
<ds@noemail.com> wrote:

>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. 
>


Actually, the short answer is performance always has to be
relative to the actual jobs ran, the specific application
and version of that app.  No benchmark, including Sandra,
matters when the actual use can be scrutinized because we're
writing directly to the person wondering what best suits
their needs.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 21:37:58 -0400, "Sinner"
<sinner@gatesofhell.org> wrote:

>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!!!!


1) learn to stop top-posting when you are replying to
something already written.  If you have something that needs
no quoting, by all means post the only info at the top,
since there is no bottom.

2)  You're right, it shouldn't be in alt.windows.xp, but
it's not the bandwidth waste that matters as much as the
waste of time from the people participating, THEY are the
valuable resource.

3)  It's not hard to tell t he difference if one uses modern
bloated OS and apps,  the difference between a 2.4GHz P4
which had long pipes, and a modern dual core CPU.

4)  Did  anyone claim an upgrade would be to run Word
faster?  Doubtful, if that was the use there wouldn't be any
perception an ungrade was needed.

5)  I dislike cross-posting too, but 3 derogatory words in
your reply tend to offend and cause rebellion, not encourage
the OP towards your intended  goal.

So ironically, even though you are right, you still fail.

"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

My E7300 dual core is about 6 times quicker than my old system using an 
AthlonXP 2.4Ghz on pure processing tasks like RAW conversion and video 
encoding.  P4s were only a little quicker generally, so perhaps there's a 
5:1 ratio in performance approximately. 

"Steve" <sbrads24DELETETHISBIT@ukfsn.org> wrote in message 
news:gp3n87$v11$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
> "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
>
> My E7300 dual core is about 6 times quicker than my old system using an 
> AthlonXP 2.4Ghz on pure processing tasks like RAW conversion and video 
> encoding.  P4s were only a little quicker generally, so perhaps there's a 
> 5:1 ratio in performance approximately.
>

Stupid Bastard! 

kony wrote:
> "Sinner" <sinner@gatesofhell.org> wrote:
> 
... snipped ...
> 
> 5)  I dislike cross-posting too, but 3 derogatory words in
> your reply tend to offend and cause rebellion, not encourage
> the OP towards your intended  goal.

Hear hear.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 18:30:33 -0000, "Steve"
<sbrads24DELETETHISBIT@ukfsn.org> 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
>
>My E7300 dual core is about 6 times quicker than my old system using an 
>AthlonXP 2.4Ghz on pure processing tasks like RAW conversion and video 
>encoding.  P4s were only a little quicker generally, so perhaps there's a 
>5:1 ratio in performance approximately. 
>


In something like video encoding with modern software and
codecs, sure, but you really have to look at the uses.  Much
legacy software isn't even multithreaded so if one wants the
max gains they'll have to spend quite a bit of money on
replacing software... the hidden cost to reach performance
seen on typical review benchmarks.

On Mar 8, 9:37 pm, "Sinner" <sin...@gatesofhell.org> wrote:
> 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.


Inasmuch as the apps will be run in Windows XP, it seemed it might be
cogent.


> 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!!!!


And you're so incensed you figured you'd contribute non-informational
screed not once but twice. You apparently consider that a valid use of
"bandwidth".

And note how effective your self-appointed netkopping is.