[dieKatze88]

Originally Posted by Blackraven

Typically, newer is always better but by how much? In my case, I was trying to measure as to how much superior would Intel's Core 2 processors be when I compare to my old-ass Pentium 4 machines here at home (which are more than 5 years old).

Most would say that it one Core 2 = Twice the performance of even the last gen P4 or Pentium D and I do believe so. Yet is there a way to measure such a thing? And not just for processors but also in other hardware such as graphics cards, RAM memory, motherboards, physical storage drives, optical storage drives and the like....

Anyways, I do have a comparison and I was hoping that you guys could help me answer it:

Would the processor used in the NVIDIA Ion platform (which is basically Intel Atom processor + Geforce 9400 M Graphics Card Module) beat the highest-possible processor found in the Nvidia Nforce2 Ultra 400 chipset (which is AMD Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.33 Ghz)? And by how much of a degree if possible?

Points to consider:
-Point of Clock speed wars (good for marketing; not the whole story for processor comparisons)???
-Dual Core Diamondville supports SSE3 and 64-bit SIMD instruction sets whilst the AMD Athlon XP did not support any of these (references to level of calculations permitted and stuff)
-Intel Atom processors are designed for mobile use so performance maybe be hampered in order to lessen its TDP & power consumption whilst AMD Athlon XP was not hampered on this and uses the most amount of performance that it can produce (though since the former has a newer CMOS process shrink, such may not serve as a disadvantage anymore over the latter).
-Newer and faster system memory over the nforce2 Ultra 400 platform

What do you think?

Well. My Core 2 Duo is ancient and gets a 5 in Vista. My older P4 Northwood gets like a 2.

You be the judge.