Which CPU is faster?  A 286 or a P4?
448476
Your friend is either playing a joke on you or is trying to cheat you.\n\nA 286 is ancient technology and is worthless to you.
704645
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0424_lt2800.html\n\nYou can make your own decision by looking at the comparison\nthe shootout did.
1092115
Speaking from architectural point of view Pentium III and Pentium 4 are entirely different creatures.  Pentium III core is based on the Pentium Pro core that was introduced many years ago.  Pentium III is the evolution of that core with added features like SSE and etc.\n\nPentium 4 however was a completely different core based on the NetBurst architecture.  The architecture was designed to assist higher clock speed through its longer stages of execution.  It's perfect for multimedia applications that are repetitive and require a lot of data to be pushed out in a repetitive manner.  The downside to this is that, it is less efficient than Pentium III processors because of the length of the stages Pentium 4 does less work per clock than Pentium III.  So a Pentium 4 at 2.8 Ghz may only be able to perform at the level of a Pentium III at 2.0 Ghz.\n\nIn an interesting move by Intel, the latest cores, Core2 based, are a return to the Pentium III philosophy of doing more per clock and complete abandonment of Pentium 4 core.  Core Duo and the Core Technology based on the Pentium M core developed by Intel's Israel Research center brought the focus back to efficiency in thermal heat and also instruction per clock back into vogue.\n\nPentium 4 is on its way out.  Now the chic thing to do is package multiple processor cores in 1 die and have multicore processors.  (It offers absolutely no performance advantage if the software is not able to use the additional cores.)\n\nFor multimedia, Pentium 4 is an impressive platform.  For general usage, Pentium III provides a better balance of performance.  In either case, they are both on their way out.
512562
basically it depends on ones need.\nits the processor cycle speed and RAM size which really matters.\np4 2.66 ghz can work slow compare to amd 3.0 ghz.\nbut i feel for one desktop machine 256 mb RAM and p4 2.66ghz is better.
1114568
Hey, if your laptop is performing well than there wouldn't really be any need to switch. But if you want to switch, yes the duo is faster and will give you a  longer battery life. The duo runs like two processors running to separate threads. Just as if you had to processors in it. I have read an article that says a duo overclocked to 3.4ghz beat a P4 overclocked to 7.2GHZ that says power to me with better battery life. If your willing to shell out the dough i say go for it.
894741
dual cores are best for multitasking and p4s are best for gaming. \n\nif you dont already have a pentium motherboard though, please consider getting an AMD brand instead. they are cheaper and less resource intensive.
95524
There is one constant you can always depend on with Intel: Anything outperforms a Celeron. There are many reasons for this, all of which can be traced to the physical differences between the two processors. The most important differences between the two lie in their Front Side Busses (FSB), their cache, their clock speeds, and their internal instruction sets. Pentium 4 processors support up to an 800Mhz FSB while the Celeron supports a maximum of 533Mhz. What is the difference? Well, the FSB is the physical connection between the processor and the system's memory. At 533Mhz, the data transfer rate is theoretically 4.2 gigabytes per second. At 800Mhz, it goes up to 6.4 gigabytes/second. When dealing with applications that process intensive graphics or audio files, this makes a HUGE difference. Now, let's look at clock speeds. The Celeron's maximum clock speed as of right now is 3.33Ghz, and the Pentium 4 is 3.8 Ghz. In today's world, a 500Mhz difference won't impact performance as much as, say, 3 years ago. But still, 500 more Mhz won't at all hurt you! Now, let's look at perhaps the most important thing of all--cache. Cache is memory that is stored on the processor itself. It is used ALL THE TIME. The processor stores files/instructions in it's cache for instant access (the data transfer rate of the cache in the Pentium 4 is over 30 gigabytes/second!) and uses internal logic to decide which things to store in there. Obviously, the more cache the processor has, the more things it can store. The Celeron has 256 KB of cache which, in today's world, is horribly low. Most Pentium 4's out there now have 1 MB of cache, and the latest ones have 2 MB! This is either 4 or 8 times as much as the Celeron, and this translates to ASTRONOMICALLY HUGE performance increases! Every single thing you do on your computer becomes faster with more cache, and this is the number 1 reason why the Celeron is a slower performer when compared with an equally clocked Pentium 4 (and it's also one of the main reasons the Celeron is so much cheaper!). Lastly, the internal instruction programmed into the processors themselves are different. All currently produced Pentium 4's support a technology called "Hyper-Threading". Currently, processors are only able to process one thread (or instruction from a program) at a time. Hyper-Threading allows the Pentium 4 to process 2 threads at a time. In theory, this means it is twice as fast. But hold on, it's not as simple as it sounds. If you go onto a computer that has Hyper-Threading technology and look at the Device Manager, you will notice that there are 2 processors. If you look at the Task Manager, you will see 2 CPU's. But there really aren't 2 processors. One is virtually, and unfortunately it is hardly ever taken advantage of. Multi-threaded applications are not dominant in the market. Most everything out there is written for single-threaded processors because manufacturers don't expect a majority of the computers out there to have processors that can handle more than 1 thread at a time. Therefore most applications see no performance gain from having Hyper-Threading. However, those applications that DO support multi-threading will take advantage of the Pentium 4's technology and the performance is awesome! The Celeron would never be able to take advantage of that, and programs that are written for multi-threading are usually processor-intensive programs, and those types of programs perform sluggishly on processors with little cache. The definitive answer is that the Pentium 4 is by far the better processor, but with quality comes the price. If performance is what is driving this question, undoubtedly choose the Pentium 4. If price is the deciding factor, TRY to go with the highest-priced Pentium 4 your budget allows and if all else fails, get a Celeron.
624456
More directly.\n\nhttp://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html\n\nTo save you some time I would say Athlons are for the most part are a better CPU. It is a much more efficent and effective CPU with low energy consumption/heat dissipation, high preformance per watt ratings, nativley desined for dual core and 64bit capacities, hypertransport bus technology. The pentium 4 has been a dog from conception, and the netburst technology from which its based is on its way out. Its in fact intel thats playing catch up with athlon.
919869
No such thing as Pentium (R). You must be thinking of Pentium M, which is a low-power variant of Pentium 4. \n\nA 1.6 GHz Pentium M is about a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. So Pentium 4 3.8 Ghz will be quite a bit faster than 1.73 GHz Pentium M.
769423
Okay always remember this: 64-bit Processors are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY better than a 32-bit processor becuase they have faster data transfer rate so I always recommend AMD processors with 64 in the title, I don't really care for Intel Processors. Even though this is a bit of topic, heres a question.... Which is better an Intel Pentium 4 with 1. ghz or an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, well the answer is the 1800+, even though the processor speed will be lower than the Intel Pentium but because of higher data transfer speed in AMD CPU's you notice higher speeds in AMD processors, so I recommend always go with the AMD.
215411
Well it depends if you want something mobile but..celeron processors suck... They have alot of problems.. I would stick with a p4 processor all the way much better.
222271
the 3.06 p4 run quite a bit hotter than the 1.6, so yes get at new cooling fan rated for the processor you have. Tiger direct has them cheap, so does Spartan Tech. I believe both ship world wide. Maker sure your 3.06 is really a 775 socket CPU as Socket 478 cpu's wont fit in a 775 motherboard. Then buy the appropriate fan.
136709
Core - The Celeron chip is based on a Pentium 4 core. \n\nCache - Celeron chips have less cache memory than Pentium 4 chips do. A Celeron might have 128 kilobytes of L2 cache, while a Pentium 4 can have four times that. The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big effect on performance. \n\nClock speed - Intel manufactures the Pentium 4 chips to run at a higher clock speed than Celeron chips. The fastest Pentium 4 might be 60 percent faster than the fastest Celeron. \n\nBus speed - There are differences in the maximum bus speeds that the processors allow. Pentium 4s tend to be about 30 percent faster than Celerons\n\nBut yes you should have no problem running a game needing a 1ghz processor with a 2ghz celeron processor.
466120
is very simple get a normal motherboard and cheap and it works thats all..p4 would be better..
646936
Yes, it'll work just fine. Games aren't dependant on the CPU. If it'll work on a P3, it'll definitely work on a P4, as P4 can handle more than a P3.
583794
There is the P4 which has many different versions such as the Pentium M (mobile cpu - centrino), the core duo, the Xeon, the standard P4 which ranges from a 400mhz bus to an 800mhz bus, and then the Pentium D which is the dual core CPU.\n\nThe very top chip I think they have on the market right now is the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition which is a dual core chip with 2x2mb of cache and a 1024 bus.\n\nAs for the AMD, there is the sempron which is AMD's answer to the celeron (but better IMHO) and then the Athlon 64, which is a pretty awesome chip, but not as awesome as the AMD Athlon 64 X2 which is the dual core version of the AMD line.  The opteron is the name of AMD's server chip line, and they do come in both single and dual core.  Then, of course, is the Turion CPU which is the mobile chip.\n\nI like both chips, I usually sell more AMD than INTEL chips.  You can pick up a dual core AMD Athlon 3800+ X2 for around $300 and it runs sweet when paired up with a gig or two of RAM.\n\nHope this helps!
168815
AMD..it runs cooler and faster.