Pentium 4 CPU Comparison Question

Hello, I've been wondering if a Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz HT would load windows XP Home and applications faster than Intel Pentium 4 2.0GHz processor.

I'm not really an expert on CPUs, but I think it's more the ammount of RAM and the speed of you HDD that affects how fast XP and other aplications load. Also, given the choice, I would get a AMD processor over an intel; from the benchmarks I have seen they seem to do better for similar prices.

[prh99]

You're probably not going notice a whole lot of different. If you want make Windows XP load faster look in to tweaking what runs a start up and disabling unneeded services. You can find some idea here(PDF document) you can find a list of services and recommended settings here. I recommend you go with the columb labeled "Safe". How much memory are you running? If it's below 512MB definitly upgrade, if it's 512MB you might consider it.

As far as CPUs go. Personally, given the choice I to would go with an AMD processor over a P4, since comparable AMD processors tend to win over the P4 in the benchmarks (As holt mentioned). If you want an Intel processor I'd look at their Core Duos.

I'd save your money for a more substantial upgrade.

Well I have no way of changing anything since I bought my new CPU and my new motherboard off Ebay a while ago and is arriving soon, I also been wodering if the new motherboard would absolutely make the computer a little faster.
If you wan't to check my system information please visit my site at: http://www.animecrate.ca.tt/pcinfo

[aceman67]

Just a little info on how Intel made their CPU's before the Prescott came out.

To get the speed they wanted, they just crammed more and more transistors onto the CPU in the same small space untill heat became such an issue (that 3.2 GHZ proc can actually cook an egg overeasy if you turned off the cooling fan, and with the fan turned on, keep your coffee warm, thats how hot they run). They kept doing this until they got to the 3.5 ghz mark when they actually realized that a slower processor (About 2.8 ghz) ran the same speed as their new 3.5, and realized that they had gone compleatly down the wrong road in processor design, so they turned to their mobile chip, which ran pretty dam fast for a Labtop Proc, infact, Asus sold adaptors so that people could put them on their PC's, and poof, the Core Duo was born, and when they Dual cored it, it kicked the **** out of AMD, which held the crown for fastest proc for almost 2 years.

If you're a hard core Intel fan, and have the money to upgrade your motherboard for a new Proc every generation, get the Core Duo, its currently the fastest proc on the market.

However, keep an Eye on AMD, they got something up their sleve. Their recent buy out of ATi, and several proprietary RAM companies (Who made ram for game consoles) while having money issues (They recently cut production of their higher L2 cache procs for their lower mid range ones to save money in production), has to ammount to something for such a gamble.

and PRH99, when MaximumPC built their Ultiment gaming Rig in one of their previous issues, they went with the Core Duo, and it Kicked the pants off all the AMD rigs they had in every benchmark, which surprised and saddened them, the AMD Fanboys they are.

and before you start calling me an Intel fanboy, I'm a proud owner of a AMD Athlon 64

[vincent_10_27]

It's definitely recommended to go over AMD now than Intel if I don't have much money to put out.

and PRH99, when MaximumPC built their Ultiment gaming Rig in one of their previous issues, they went with the Core Duo, and it Kicked the pants off all the AMD rigs they had in every benchmark, which surprised and saddened them, the AMD Fanboys they are.

Yeah, this is true, but with Core 2 Duo, you mean. Cause Core Duo's were designed as mobile processors.

Anyways, you're news were already outdated. Benchmark tests shows that Athlon64 FX beat the crap out of Pentium D. But after Core 2 Duo, it just went below.

here is a benchmark result the processors.