I'm running MCE 2005 in a Gateway micro-btx box. Recently got a deal
on a motherboard which will allow use of a Core 2 Duo chip. I'm
replacing the board and chip primarily as a "quiet-pc enthusiast" who
wants to lose his fire-breathing P4. However, any performance gains
and extended useful life of the system arising from the new CPU will
also be welcome. Hence, the question- Noticed that there's a
processor-speed overlap between the bottom-end Conroe chips and the
top-of-the-line Allendales. A good example would be the E4600
Allendale at 2.4GHz and the E6320 Conroe at 1.86GHz. Although the
Allendale is rated at a higher processor speed the system bus is
800MHz vs. the Conroe's 1066, and the L2 cache is halved at 2MB vs.
the Conroe's 4MB. So where in practice would the benefits of the
higher processor speed come into play compared with the benefits of
the faster system bus and larger cache? For what it's worth, the
current system sometimes gets a bit overloaded when MCE is recording
and/or playing television shows and I run a somewhat
processor-intensive program on the XP side. Not into overclocking or
gaming however. Thanks very much! Bob

See Tom's Hardware for benchmark results:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

JS

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm running MCE 2005 in a Gateway micro-btx box. Recently got a deal
> on a motherboard which will allow use of a Core 2 Duo chip. I'm
> replacing the board and chip primarily as a "quiet-pc enthusiast" who
> wants to lose his fire-breathing P4. However, any performance gains
> and extended useful life of the system arising from the new CPU will
> also be welcome. Hence, the question- Noticed that there's a
> processor-speed overlap between the bottom-end Conroe chips and the
> top-of-the-line Allendales. A good example would be the E4600
> Allendale at 2.4GHz and the E6320 Conroe at 1.86GHz. Although the
> Allendale is rated at a higher processor speed the system bus is
> 800MHz vs. the Conroe's 1066, and the L2 cache is halved at 2MB vs.
> the Conroe's 4MB. So where in practice would the benefits of the
> higher processor speed come into play compared with the benefits of
> the faster system bus and larger cache? For what it's worth, the
> current system sometimes gets a bit overloaded when MCE is recording
> and/or playing television shows and I run a somewhat
> processor-intensive program on the XP side. Not into overclocking or
> gaming however. Thanks very much! Bob

Thanks for the link. Haven't checked out many of the benchmark
options yet, but the comparison tool seems like it will be informative
and is kind of fun as well. Bob

You're welcome.

JS

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for the link. Haven't checked out many of the benchmark
> options yet, but the comparison tool seems like it will be informative
> and is kind of fun as well. Bob