Which is better and newer ? The Intel Pentium 4 640 or the Pentium D 840 ? They are both 3.20 Gig in speed. And also even though the Pentium D 830 is slower than the Pentium 4 640 is the 830 a better chip. I'm trying to decide which computer to buy . Thanks
THe Pentium D is better because it has dual core processing. Here's a blurb off the internet. For people who run multiple demanding applications simultaneously, the Intel® Pentium® D processor is Intelâs preferred desktop processor. Because it is powered by two execution cores in one processor it offers exceptional functionality and performance so consumers get the most productivity and enjoyment from their PCs when one or more people are running multiple applications at the same time. In todayâs usage environment, processor speed alone is not enough to ensure a great experience. Today users require the power of simultaneous computing found in a dualcore processor. The Intel Pentium D processor brings this power to the desktop at three performance levels [3.20, 3 and 2.80 GHz]. An Intel dual-core processor delivers consumer value by providing additional computing resources that expand the PCâs capabilities and provide platform-level advancements for consumers in the form of higher throughput and simultaneous computing. With an Intel Pentium D processor users may perform multiple tasks such as digital rendering and gaming all while running virus scan or other background tasks seamlessly.
Hehe, That's all true if the user programs it so that it does indeed do all these things. In a typical environment, using everyday software, OS and applications this is more likely not going to be the case. Remember all that hype about hyperthreading? In some cases it could even slow you down.
Nonon, While on the subject of hyperthreading, I've got a question. Sorry op for this ot post. Is hyperthreading (and in question to a lesser extent 64bits on intel p4) worthy, when programming your own (number-crunching) sw in "C". IOW, can one take advantage of HT via customized programming, or is HT essentially worthless hype? thanks, ktm'r
ktm, Long time ago when this came out, there have been some posts about performance of HT. I remember seeing benchmarks where HT actually slowed things down, if I recall in database tests. In truth, I have not paid much attention to it anymore. I don't think it really mattered so much as the hype around it seemed to suggest. These benchmarks must still be around if you do a search. I can also recall some bug in XP causing random (infrequent) blue screens with HT turned on which disappeared when off. Certain SMP versions of linux didn't work with HT. This is no longer the case.
If you're getting ticks pushed to you from Esignal or Realtick and at the same time you're calculating indicators that seems like dual processing.
Yeah, that may 'seem' so. Who says that processor #1 did the work for Esignal and #2 for Realtick? More likely: #2 slept while #1 worked for both. That's what the man meant with 'MAY'. PS: You can read more in the reference posted in the other thread: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39233885,00.htm "Dual core and the office Relatively little multithreaded software is used on standard office and home computers, so the purchase of a high-end dual core processor is rarely justified."
Benchmarks are totally misleading in this case. Who cares if zip compression or rendering are a couple ms faster. You'll never notice that in real world tasks. Though, what you'll notice is that the OS prioritizes and sends off workloads to several cores when you're running several applications which is always the case especially with machines that you trade on. It gets even better when applications are designed for multi-threading. So, for me the D is the far better choice because I actually can do number crunching on the one core and still can continue working with my machine without anything stalling .. which wouldn't be the case on a single core machine
If you don't have auto trading, CPU utilization is usually low. I doubt dual core will do you any good. However, for upgrade purpose, my next computer should be dual core. My choice is AMD vs. Intel, that's another topic.