Pentium Dual-Core vs Core 2 Duo

I'm in the research stage of building my first computer. I'm relatively certain that I don't want to go overboard on spending. I'd like to use this as more of a learning experience, and put something together that's much nicer next year. I'm wanting to put together a computer for general purposes mostly (homework, work), but with some light gaming (GTA SA, Knights of the Old Republic 1/2, etc).

I got some help from a friend, and they recommended something like this: Intel Pentium E2220. (Apparently I cannot post links?)

Operating Frequency 2.4GHz
FSB 800MHz
L2 Cache 1MB

I was browsing Newegg, and noticed some of the Core 2 Duo's, specifically the E4500.

Operating Frequency 2.2GHz
FSB 800MHz
L2 Cache 2M shared

I have two questions.

1.Will there be a noticeable performance difference between the two processors? And if so, is that much of a difference worth the $30 extra?

I can see the difference in operating frequency and cache, but am not knowledgeable enough to know how much of a difference that makes. It would seem that the Pentium would be faster (2.4 vs 2.2), but I am assuming that the Core 2 has some advantages over it given that it is newer.

Either way, I am planning on buying a motherboard that will support the Quads, as well as the Core 2's, Extremes, and Pentiums, in the event that I want to upgrade.

2. Are either of these processors suitable for some light gaming? I have to admit, building for that purpose is one thing I haven't learned much about yet.

1) depends on the game, if it's older, it probably won't run any better then a single core. You might see a little bit better performace with the core 2 duo if the game utilizes the extra cache. Chances are at best it's going to be like 1-2 FPS more

2) I have a E2140 and it does games well.

I would go with the Pentium Dual-Core CPU, I have a E2140 that is overclocked to 3.2 GHz, and can fly. IDK how well the core 2 duo will oc, probably similar, but I have seen most dual core Pentiums get near or break twice the clock speed.

I'd definitely take the E4500, Core 2 Duo; without hesitations. And here's why.

I'd bet one hundred bucks that if you were given two processors with the same cache size but different clocks speed, say, one with 2.2GHz and the other with 2.4GHz you wouldn't notice any difference in real-world applications and herein including games and processing/rendering apps. I am not saying that the processor with the higher clock speed won't act faster, it certainly will, and this makes sense architecturally, however, you as a normal human being wouldn't notice the difference in these days between those two modern CPUs.

The times when moving from a K6@300MHz to K6-2@400MHz was considered a huge step are behind us.

Now as an extension to my previous scenario, on the other hand, if you were given two processors running on the exactly same clock speed frequencies, say, 2.2GHz, but with different cache sizes, one having 1MB and the other 2MB, I'd bet that amount of money that you are going to notice the difference in real-world applications starting from multi-tasking in windows up to rendering/processing and gaming.

As a British guy posted on a random forum, the following analogy applies the most: “If the clock speed is the engine and the cache is the fuel tank. With a small fuel tank, all the speed in the world won't help much if you have to keep stopping for fuel every few miles, a large fuel tank means you can floor the pedal and appreciate the speed for quite a while.”

Therefore, doubling the amount of L2 cache is damn worth those $30 bucks. Unfortunately, nowadays, the cache is between the most underrated factors when choosing processors. It surely matter, it's all about cache size. Ask any hard drive, how does it ran with 8MB compared to 16MB. Doubling the amount of information that can be stored means less overall disk access, ultimately, less "time" is spent on redundant tasks that can be saving up thanks to the higher amount of cache. The same applies with your processor. The cache is ranked on the 2nd top level of the memory hierarchy. As a result, they are the most often used after the registers.

The L2 cache is entirely built up by transistors (SRAM). As a result they are very expensive but they are damned faster. Just to think of it, the access time of the L1 cache (on-chip) is 2-8 ns (nanosecond) and of the L2 cache (off-chip) is 5-12 ns. How do they compare with the main memory (DRAM) that sports 10-60 ns (sometimes even more) access time or with hard disk drives having 3,000,000 - 10,000,000 ns access time? Now I hope you do understand why is it critical to have large amounts of cache storage because it certainly doesn't matter how much it takes to fill it up with new stuff. And always remember, 2MB is 2x1MB, thus, it is double. As a result, you can place twice as much data than you could with the 1MB. And all of that for just an extra 30 bucks.

The CPU doesn't like to wait doing nothing (idle) until the memory I/O is done. As a result, it does multiple things at once (superscalar execution, pipelining, and all that). Since it is impossible to fit everything in the cache, the processors requires data thousands of hundreds of times each second. We call these cache misses, it tries to locate something in the registers, they don't have it, then it checks the cache, it doesn't have either, so it slowly gets loaded from the RAM (which was loaded from the HDD).

Now, after this usage, sometimes the cache must be also cleared. The frequency of clearing the cache (emptying) happens much often with a smaller cache (hence top priority tasks have access/storing priority). Then in case of redundant tasks (usually anything is redundand excluding streaming media) chances are the data that was located once in the cache might be required later on, but since the cache is small, it was wiped off in order to make space for the new data to come in, but the processors needs the previous data again, so it gets refilled, again much I/O access time, and so forth. In case of a larger cache due to branch prediction, parallel processing, and other hi-tech microprocessor architecture technologies, the data may stay in much longer in the cache. As a result, you save up large amount of I/O time.

All in all, I'd personally say that doubling the cache amount is worth much more than those extra 200 MHz and here we haven't mentioned the other microprocessor architectural benefits coming from the E4500 which aren't in E2220. In pure raw mathematical calculations, FFTs, calculating PI with 2^32 digit precision, perhaps the higher clocked processor might outperform the another. But in everyday usage, general purpose, multitasking, gaming, basically anything that you can think of, the extra cache will make a notable difference.

Remember, millions of those extra nanoseconds do add up...

Thanks for the help.

I think I'm going to go with the Core 2. Maybe a more expensive one than the E4500 if I can afford it. I can always upgrade later and put that one into a different build.

I've noticed that in at least 2 different performance charts (3DMark06 CPU, Passmark CPU), the T2370 (Pentium Dual Core) appears to be slightly better than the E5470 (Core 2 Duo), although they have approximately the same clock frequency. The Core 2 Duo has a higher FSB freq. and the L2 cache is double in size (2 M). Still, the figures favoured the Dual Core. A mystery...

Interesting. I wonder why that is. I ordered a few days ago though.

I ended up going with the Core 2 Duo E7200. They dropped the price, so it was only a few bucks more than E4500.

When i bench mark my computer using 3d mark 03, i score a low 902 mark. The spec of my com is pentium dual-core t2370 1.73ghz,533mhz FSB, 1 MB Cache intel GMA X3100 128MB ,1GB DDR2. My bro bench mark his and he got 1823 marks! is com spec is pentium M 1.83Ghz,800Mhz FSB, 2mb cache,ATI radeon X600 128 mb,1GB DDR2. i dun understand why his com can score so high,athough he got good grafics card and a fast FSB, the old pentium M should pull the progress down... pls reply. By the way i am using Vista and my bro uses XP. PLS HELP AND TELL ME!!!!!!!!!! And what is the differents between core duo and pentium dual-core?

3DMark03 is very graphics-card dependent. The old pentium M's are also really very good at gaming for what they are, and his higher bus speed is only going to help him get a higher score.

Your Intel graphics are also famously bad for anything 3D, which would pretty much explain your lower score

As for what is the difference between Core Duo and Pentium Dual-Core, here's a little reading:

Core Duo
Pentium Dual-Core

i have a laptop with a pentium dual-core processer t370
it has a 1mb L2 cache and a 1gb ddr2 ram , 533mhz fsb. but it has a lousy GMA X3100 252MB shared grapfics card. when i run 3d mark 03, i score only 902 while my bro laptop ( pentium m 1.86ghz,800mhz fsb, 1 mb L2 cache,ati x1600 128mb delicated) scored 1920marks. it there a problem with my 5 months old laptop?


by the way, take the core2duo processer, pentium dual core heat up to 62 c everytime when i use it over the safe 8 hrs.
Core 2 duo is also faster than the pentium dual core processer.

3d mark is totally vide card based s that is why the x1600 would be kicking the 3100's ass

the E7200 is an excellent modern mid range CPU

Core2 should be a bit better, but in gaming graphic card may mean much more.

Many people are confused what exactly the difference between Intel Core 2 Duo Processors and Between Intel Pentium D or Intel Dual Core processors….

I would try to explain from a END user point a view rather not going in to details architecture over view…

The Simple facts are,

All Core 2 Duo Processors are Dual Core Processors..
All Pentium D Processors are Dual Core Processors..
All Intel Dual Core Processors are Dual Core Processors…

Pentium D is nothing but 2 Prescott Processors side by side… runs very hot, not a good OverClocker…

Intel Core 2 Duo processors are next gen processors from Intel on 65 nm platform… developed from Ground up with new Architecture called Core… so they are whole new Processors just Jump like Pentium 2 to Pentium 3 or Pentium 4… Expect one Core 2 Duo Lowest End Processors like E4400/E4300 taking up and beating Intel Pentium D 3.8 GHz ones with ease … runs damn cool and super over clocker…

a bit of extra info on kshav's post:

Relating to quads, the Q6600 (and similar ones from this generation) is 2 core2 procs under a single heat spreader just like the PentiumD's were 2 single cores under a single heatspreader.

IF Core 2 Duo, Pentium D and Dual Core processors are all Dual core processors i.e. all same. then what will define their performance? Does this mean that all well work at the same level?