Core2Quad Q9705 3.16 GHz vs. Core i5 3450 3.1 Ghz... which is faster?

[austenwhd]

I had a core 2 duo e7500 which i upgraded to i5 3450 (after consulting users of tomshardware.com - and thank you guys, the processor is zillion times faster than e7500) but what surprised me while i searched all over web for suitable cpu options, that processors with same speed are so varied in prices and even generation after generations of innovation doesn't guarantees in giant leap in speed as far as Ghz for cpu goes, so my question is...

as i understand Ghz is Ghz, and no matter what generation/model/ architecture etc. cpu belongs to it will be same as far as calculations per clock cycle goes (i hope i am saying it right!). Now then, how is a Core i5 3450 3.1 Ghz faster then a Core2Quad Q9705 3.16 GHz. in this case even cores are equal in number. Even certain sandy bridge's certain 2.x chips are faster than my cpu. Without overclocking (like 2600k) is the difference that significant.


If i throw the additional sizzling gimmicks like HD 2500 and HD 4000, the company is recycling same quality at higher rates. What is the point of producing cpu after cpu if the speed doesn't go from 3 to 6 in next generation, the 32nm to 22nm and now to 14nm... why so much waste of dye surface if there is no significant addition in performance.

Don't tell me if i am a troll, i already know. I am sparking a conversational topic, who knows we come up with some amazing realizations here.

 

[13thmonkey]

performance isn't measured in GHz, do some research. It's all about instructions per cycle.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=363
I5 2400 is slower than the 3450 and 9650 is a little slower than the 9705.

 

[loneninja]

Clock speed comparisons only work within the same CPU architecture. Every generation of processors from Intel is a new and improved architecture, capable of processing more instructions per cycle meaning they do more at the same clock speed.

Intel learned with the Pentium 4 there are diminishing returns for continued increase in clock speed. The more you increase clock speed the more voltage the chip requires, and the more power it draws and heat it produces.

 

[austenwhd]

performance isn't measured in GHz, do some research. It's all about instructions per cycle.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=363
I5 2400 is slower than the 3450 and 9650 is a little slower than the 9705.

2500K is faster than i5 3450, what is the point of taking one step ahead in technology, when there is no improvemnet in speed. Sandybridge model beat Ivy Bridge??? That's not fair.

 

[austenwhd]

Clock speed comparisons only work within the same CPU architecture. Every generation of processors from Intel is a new and improved architecture, capable of processing more instructions per cycle meaning they do more at the same clock speed.

Intel learned with the Pentium 4 there are diminishing returns for continued increase in clock speed. The more you increase clock speed the more voltage the chip requires, and the more power it draws and heat it produces.

what i meant was, shouldn't they make some criteria that clearly explains a consumer how much more fast one chip is from other, 3.x in two different quads look the same to any normal person.

 

[payturr]

Gentlemen. Simple enough. Core i5 3450 has a better architecture which allows the instructions per clock to be much better. GHz doesn't matter these days unless we're deciding who's 3570K is faster (overclocking). The reason why the 2500K is faster is because it has a higher clockspeed, which cancels out the 15% performance increase with Ivy Bridge. Now, if we compared the 2500K to the 3570K, you'll see that the latter is faster. With GHz, it doesn't show which chip is faster, it just shows how many instructions are done in a cycle.

 

[austenwhd]

Is there any article that explains exactly what i am asking here. I have a i5 3450 and i have seen how a Quad core works, so i know first hand... the all performance increase business. I want to know the science of it, that's what matters. As a consumer... i am saying this for folks who buy core 2 duo @ 3.x Ghz believing its the same as i3 two core at the same speed.

 

[austenwhd]

for example once a dear friend of mine came back fuming at home, thinking the seller was duping him into buying expensive new cpu when it was all...

as he said 'core 2 duo is i3, core 2 quad is i5 and i7 (the six core) was the combo of the two' that is what it looks to a ignorant consumer.

 

[13thmonkey]

2500K is faster than i5 3450, what is the point of taking one step ahead in technology, when there is no improvemnet in speed. Sandybridge model beat Ivy Bridge??? That's not fair.

boo hoo its not fair.

ffs

the 2500K is the top i5 the 3450 is not the top i5, the 3570K beats the 2500K by 5-10% for the same clock speed, ergo it has gotten faster.

 

[13thmonkey]

for example once a dear friend of mine came back fuming at home, thinking the seller was duping him into buying expensive new cpu when it was all...

as he said 'core 2 duo is i3, core 2 quad is i5 and i7 (the six core) was the combo of the two' that is what it looks to a ignorant consumer.

i7 is not six core.

simply put every generation will get either quicker for similar power or just slightly quicker but use less power. My Q9550 was about 60% of my 3570K in terms of the performance, and used about 50% more power.

 

[austenwhd]

i7 is not six core.

simply put every generation will get either quicker for similar power or just slightly quicker but use less power. My Q9550 was about 60% of my 3570K in terms of the performance, and used about 50% more power.

Core i7-3960X, Core i7-3930K Processor, Core i7 990X Processor are all six core...

does that show i have done research? i know what i am talking about, 'instructions per cycle' something like a IPC value should be the advertised criteria for selling CPU and not the Ghz, its misleading. All i am asking is somebody to provide me link to an article that explains it in 'English'.

 

[casper1973]

I get where you are coming from.

More than a few times we have priced up a build for a customer only for them to come back claiming to have found something elsewhere which is faster and cheaper. It turns out they have seen something like an fx-4100 build compared to our machine using an i5-3450.

Of course on here we all know the i5 wipes the floor in performance but in the eyes of a novice:
- both chips are quad-core
- AMD runs at 3.6Ghz
- Intel only runs at 3.1Ghz
- AMD is clearly faster!.... sigh

I have fun trying to explain this to people on a weekly basis Along with graphics cards... average Joe sees a 2GB card and in his mind it's automatically better than any 1GB card in existence because it has double the memory.

 

[13thmonkey]

Core i7-3960X, Core i7-3930K Processor, Core i7 990X Processor are all six core...

does that show i have done research? i know what i am talking about, 'instructions per cycle' something like a IPC value should be the advertised criteria for selling CPU and not the Ghz, its misleading. All i am asking is somebody to provide me link to an article that explains it in 'English'.

The majority of i7s are 4 core + HT, i7 3770K etc.

 

[casper1973]

The majority of i7s are 4 core + HT, i7 3770K etc.

I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise.

Some i7's are 4 core + HT (eg. 3770k)
Some i7's are 6 core + HT (eg. 3930k)
The one he was referring to just happened to be 6 core.

 

[austenwhd]

I get where you are coming from.

More than a few times we have priced up a build for a customer only for them to come back claiming to have found something elsewhere which is faster and cheaper. It turns out they have seen something like an fx-4100 build compared to our machine using an i5-3450.

Of course on here we all know the i5 wipes the floor in performance but in the eyes of a novice:
- both chips are quad-core
- AMD runs at 3.6Ghz
- Intel only runs at 3.1Ghz
- AMD is clearly faster!.... sigh

I have fun trying to explain this to people on a weekly basis Along with graphics cards... average Joe sees a 2GB card and in his mind it's automatically better than any 1GB card in existence because it has double the memory.

casper1973, i am not one of those people you are talking about, trust me, i am not, if you read the entire thread, you will realize, i am only pointing at the fact that cpu manufacturing companies understand the common people mentality so even if they couldn't get the number to look like 10 Ghz for a processor, which trust me will look good next to a dual core to a 'novice'. I am saying isn't it better to use IPC (Instructions per cycle) instead of Ghz. I am sure a faster processor will have more IPC, no matter what year/ brand/ architecture or Nano Meter it is based on. So instead, they make a 'next' generation model, that runs at 3.x Ghz, and people are like WTH mine runs at 4.x Ghz. I think if IPC becomes the standard, nobody will ever need to go to a sites and check benchmark to know what CPu is fastest. True story!


You say a cheetah runs at 140 Kmps, misleadingly impressive, do you really think he runs all the way to a hundred and forty kilometer to prove that.

 

[austenwhd]

'Core2Quad Q9705 3.16 GHz vs. Core i5 3450 3.1 Ghz... which is faster?' i Know the title is misleading but i will appreciate if you read this thread before commenting. Informative posts expected.

 

[jaguarskx]

Assuming the same clockspeed an Ivy Bridge Core i5 CPU is about 30% more powerful than a Core 2 Quad CPU.

If you are doing financial or scientific modelling (statistics) then the increase in performance should be even higher because of the AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) instruction set which more or less can theoretically double floating point calculation performance.

 

[austenwhd]

Assuming the same clockspeed an Ivy Bridge Core i5 CPU is about 30% more powerful than a Core 2 Quad CPU.

If you are doing financial or scientific modelling (statistics) then the increase in performance should be even higher because of the AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) instruction set which more or less can theoretically double floating point calculation performance.

Read the question's description, please, this is not what i am here for. I am asking for information on the topic, not asking which one is faster. I made a mistake not pointing it out earlier, instead, replied to replies unrelated to my query.

 

[casper1973]

I wasn't trying to say you were one of those people, just giving an example of how this problem effects me on almost a daily basis. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

I suppose you could have a figure where the IPC is multiplied by the clock speed, and then by the number of cores. But even that wouldn't be accurate. I done the calculations and an FX-6100 thrashes an i5-3450 according to the numbers... which in reality is quite the opposite.

So I'm no further forward with a solution! But I do agree something should be done.

 

[13thmonkey]

we've given you information, yes perhaps rating a processor at ipc x Ghz might be nice, but what about hyper threading, what about AMD's weird shared functionality between cores, sometimes is great sometimes not. IPC is not a clean measure.

 

[mycutefairy]

It's actually the power consumption / heating that they are more concerened about. I think it is not by pumping the clock speed to 5Ghz or higher that makes the difference, rather the architecture itself. Just like the transition from a single core CPU to dual then to Quad Core. It is more important to process threads at the same time rather than processing them faster. ..Having a Faster FSB( although they are not using FSB anymore) then clock speed.

Overall, I think it has evolved. That it is not just Ghz that is important.

 

[austenwhd]

Okay something like 'n bits of bite processed in a n of time' there should be a standard of universal performance benchmark, its like saying there are two types of forces, one is gravity and the other is magnetism... duh!

 

[taxemicshadow]

Gentlemen. Simple enough. Core i5 3450 has a better architecture which allows the instructions per clock to be much better. GHz doesn't matter these days unless we're deciding who's 3570K is faster (overclocking). The reason why the 2500K is faster is because it has a higher clockspeed, which cancels out the 15% performance increase with Ivy Bridge. Now, if we compared the 2500K to the 3570K, you'll see that the latter is faster. With GHz, it doesn't show which chip is faster, it just shows how many instructions are done in a cycle.

Don't forget the 50% increase in heat production!

 

[13thmonkey]

but it depends on the type of bytes its processing... floating point vs non-floating point, vs encode decode vs compression, all give different answers. thats why there are suites of benchmarks.

 

[13thmonkey]

Don't forget the 50% increase in heat production!

???