Elmer,
The CPU is not all of the equation. I'm thinking that if he has a dual core
cpu, either an AMD X2 series or an Intel Core-Duo (or even D series) then he
may also have a faster SATA type interface for his hard drives. SATA drives
can be anywhere from 2 to 6 times (or more) as fast as EIDE drives such as
probably came with the P4 system. Also, the clock speed on the dual core
system is probably a lot faster than on the P4 - so the dual-core CPU has at
least two advantages over the P4: it just plain runs faster, and being of a
later architecture, it gets more done during a single clock cycle anyhow.
Toss in SATA drives, and I can believe that the dual-core setup is faster
than the P4. But I'm not sure about his claim of 2 seconds at all.
Other factors: how full is your hard drive? A drive that is very full
and/or very fragmented can cause it to take longer to read or write a file:
the system has to hunt for places to put/get the pieces and physically move
the drive heads to those places. A drive with lots of empty space and that
is relatively unfragmented will give better performance also. Another
factor: the cache size on the disk drive itself. Because a disk drive is so
much slower than the CPU, it cannot physically write data to the drive as
fast as the CPU can send it to the drive. So drives have on-board cache
memory and a controller to act as a go-between for the CPU and the drive.
Older drives had on-drive cache memory usually on the order of 2 MB, while
newer drives can have 4 times that much ... and THERE may be where he gets
the speed advantage. If your drive has only a 2 MB cache, then it has to be
emptied and filled 3 or more times to get the 6 MB file to the drive. If his
drive has an 8MB or larger cache on it, then all 6 MB gets written "to the
drive" in one push.
But I've seen some strange behavior. I was working with someone else in
these groups and eventually we had a 6+MB .xls file to mess with. It would
take a minute or more for me to open it (on an AMD X2 4800+ dual-core setup
with 2GB RAM and SATA drives) and the person at the other end said it was
under 30 seconds for him, and yet his setup was "weaker" than mine, at least
on paper.
I kind of get the feeling that you're thinking that it's time to upgrade
computers? Don't let anyone else's claims of performance drive you into
junking a perfectly good system. Question #1 - is it getting the job done?
Question #2 - if you hadn't heard that there was something faster, bigger,
flashier, shinier, with a better warranty that they got 2 weeks before you
bought yours, and paid less for, would you be happy with what you have? If
the answers are Yes, then stick with what you have that works for you, is
paid for, and that you're generally happy with.
