Advantages and disadvantages of Pentium 3 processor and Pentium 4 processor?
406214
The most obvious would be speed and processing power.  P4 has speeds of 1.4ghz to 3.6+ghz while P3 has speeds of 500mhz-1100mhz.  Some P4 also has hyper threading capabilities which gives it more processing power.
43735
A Celeron processor is cheaper than a Pentium, but at the cost of speed. It is slower, but cheaper.
323347
Currently the AMD CPUs give you better performance at a slower click speed as well as at a price point too.\nI've used AMD and Intel chips right from the type of my first 386. As I obeserved, the Intel Pentium I from the 90s were really good. They out performed my AMD K6 at the time... but eventually I found the K6-II and K6-III giving similar performace to an Intel Pentium 2 or 3.\nAnyway, that old news... check out the link below to see come comparisons.
326554
Disadvantages\nMany of the disadvantages of overclocking can be mitigated or reduced in severity by skilled overclockers. However, novice overclockers may make mistakes while overclocking which introduces many avoidable drawbacks.\n\nGeneral disadvantages\nThese disadvantages are unavoidable by both novices and veterans.\n\nThe lifespan of a processor is negatively impacted by higher operation frequencies, increased voltages and heat. However, the effect of operation frequencies and voltages has not been proven to be a major factor in processor lifespan. An experienced overclocker would have taken steps to ensure operation within safe temperature ranges. Moreover, with the rapid obsolescence of processors coupled with the long life of solid state microprocessors (10 years or more), it is argued that the processor will be replaced before any threat of failure. \nAn increase in clock speeds and sometimes voltages results in higher power consumption and a higher power bill. \nWhile systems may be thoroughly tested for stability before usage, stability problems may surface after prolonged usage due to an unusual workload or untested portions of the processor core. Although this is rare, such incidents may result in data loss. \nAn easy method of managing heat is the use of high performance fans which produces a high amount of noise. A popular make of fan for overclockers, the delta focus flow, can produce 50 decibels or more. This is unacceptably loud for a desktop computer for prolonged use. Properly managed, this issue can be reduced by utilising strategically placed larger fans which deliver more performance with less noise, or by the use of alternate cooling methods. Quieter options for overclockers include liquid and phase-change cooling. \nOverclocking will not necessarily save money. Non-trivial speed increases often require premium cooling equipment or running components at an unacceptably high temperature. It can also become an expensive pastime. Most people who consider themselves overclockers spend significantly more on computer equipment than the average person. As always, it is important to spend money prudently, by purchasing components that would alleviate the greatest bottlenecks or roadblocks to higher frequency operation. \n[edit]\nDisadvantages of overclocking by novices\nIncreasing the operation frequency of a component will increase its thermal output in a linear fashion, while an increase in voltage causes an exponential increase. Furthermore, semiconductor physics dictate that higher temperatures results in a higher resistance. Improperly managed, a novice may cause chip temperatures to rise so quickly that a permanent decrease in life expectancy or irreversible damage is caused to the chip. \nWith the advent of ever wider ranges of voltage options on motherboards, the risk of fire or burns is not tiny. The chip itself, or power mosfets may burn and capacitors may burst. \nMore common than hardware failure is instability. Although the hardware is not permanently damaged, this is inconvenient and could cause data loss. In rare, extreme cases entire filesystem failure may occur, causing the loss of all data. (If specialized recovery tools are not used) \nThe indiscriminate use of powerful fans usually creates a lot of noise. Novices may add too many fans in incorrect positions. Without proper thought to placement, turbulence and vortexes may be created in the computer case, further aggravating the situation without much increase in cooling. In addition, improper mounting may cause rattling or increased vibration. Some people do not mind the extra noise, and it is common for overclockers to have computers much louder than stock machines. Quieter options for overclockers include liquid and phase-change cooling. \nImproper installation of exotic cooling solutions like liquid or phase-change cooling may result in failure of the system, which may result in water damage or damage to the processor due to the sudden l
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.
547851
I would say the Pentium 3 would be better. But for games I wouldn't really try to play much at all with either of those CPU's.
265469
It depends on which processor and what you mean by ‘better’. There are many aspects that can contribute to a processor’s superiority, such as performance (which is what you are probably referring to), reliability, power consumption, and heat. If by ‘better’ you mean a combination of all aspects, it is impossible to say; different people value different aspects more than others. \n\nThe AMD Sempron competes with the Intel Celeron, but the Celeron is so poorly constructed that it offers little to no competition. The AMD Turion competes with the Intel Centrino (or Pentium M). The AMD Athlon competes with the Intel P4. The AMD Athlon X2 competes with Intel’s dual core processors. In all categories, the AMD processor is generally better in every aspect than the Intel processor it competes with. Once you start comparing processors of different categories however, it starts to get interesting.\n\nThe Sempron is generally better than the P4 in the aspects of reliability, power consumption, and heat (not to mention that they are MUCH less expensive). As for performance, the P4 has the edge... usually. There are many different Semprons and many different P4s; a P4 will usually be faster than a Sempron, but some Semprons can outperform some P4s. What’s more, performance itself has many aspects. AMD is generally better at gaming and all-around performance. Intel’s Pentium processors are generally better with multimedia and down-right number crunching. \n\nI hope this clears things up.
138011
You know this topic is too extensive to cover here. \n\nThere is some good reference material covering both types of processors here: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/r_harvey/doc_cpu.htm \n\nIn Pentium class processors, there also model-specific registers  http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/r_harvey/doc_cpu.htm
26067
We are talking about levels of cache here.  The previous post is talking about the amount of level 1 cache as compared to what the original poster is talking about which is level 2 cache.  Am I wrong?\n\n\nBottom line, the pentium is faster.  This is due to the pentium's amount of cache that is "closer" to the processor.
419664
Definitely go for a strong Pentium 4....however, in my opinion, AMD processors are better for gaming. Also, it's not just the CPU you have to worry about. Flight Simulator runs best with at least 1 GB of RAM. That's what I use, and it runs fine.\n\n\nHope this helps!!!
53353
A pentium 4 is a 32-bit processor.
920544
Pentium 4 is a much more sophisticated and modern system than a Celeron and according to your specs, which seem wrong, I would hazard a guess of 1.8Ghz though that could be because it is being overclocked from 1.5Ghz
371207
well it really depends on what you are going to do with the machine... Every processor has it strengths and weaknesses, sometimes they are designed that way to provide for a specific market.  You could ask and get so many different answers based on peoples personal opinion from thier personal uses of the processor.  A math or physics student, programmer or graphics artists would tell you that the pentium 4 is the best.  Someone who does a lot of wireless stuff and general computing would most likely say the Centrino and someone who does home computing with no real stress in any particular way for the system would say the celeron, but then of course for price those would be different.  Buy a system that does what you need for a good price and is competetive as far as upgradeability.  After all no nead buying a jetski if you don't go to the lake.
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.
389880
A pentium 4 is a single core single threaded processor. This is the normal kind of processors we have been seeing for a while now. \nA Dual core actually contains two (nearly) independent processors in a die i.e. it is as good having two processors on one chip. These chips typically have a lower frequency rating. But they are designed to provide higher throughput. \nHT stands for Hyper Threaded. In technical jargon called Multi-threaded, this processor gives a notion of two processors even the most of the individual components of the processor are shared. (The Functional Units are shared. My understanding is that Pentium 4HT implements coarse grained multi-threading, so the pipeline is the same but the register file will be duplicated.)\n\nWhich one is better depends on the kind of application you are looking at.
200599
Basically, the difference is price, speed, and quality. Intel Celeron processors are cheaper that Intel Pentium 4s, but they are generally slower and will slow down further after a few years (if they last that long before breaking) due to poor construction. The difference between the Celeron D and the Celeron M is minimal, if not non-existent. A Celeron M is designed to be used for laptops (M stands for mobile), so it may take a little less power and run a little cooler (in exchange for a little less speed) than the Celeron Ds--which are designed for desktops where power consumption and heat isn't as big of an issue. In my opinion, Celerons (of any type) are the worst processor you can buy.\n\nHowever, AMD makes faster, more reliable, less expensive processors. The AMD Sempron competes with the Celeron, the AMD Turion competes with the Centrino (or Pentium M), the AMD Athlon competes with the Pentium 4, and the AMD Athlon X2 competes with Intel’s new dual-core processors. In all categories the AMD processors are superior in all aspects; especially the Sempron. Although the Sempron competes with the Celeron and is considerable less expensive, the Sempron is not poorly constructed so it does not have any reliability issues; not to mention that, in some cases, it has the speed to outperform Pentium 4s.
578108
ill make it uber simple for you! \n\nthink of the CPU as a train station \n\nthe Pentium 4 has 1 train track coming in and two coming out\n\nso it can only service one train at a time \n\nthe Pentium 4 HT's have two rails coming in and two coming out  so now they can service two trains but it still can only use the same amount of people as the regular Pentiums to get the train loaded or unloaded\n\nnow the Pentium 4 DC's have two tracks coming in and two tracks coming out with two work crews to service each train. \n\n\nnow in geek talk\n\nthe Pentium 4 ht benefits over the regular Pentium cpus by using a advanced l2 cache and supplements that with another l3 caches that service a 2nd data pipe line, while that is effective the Pentium 4 dual cores have two central processors compared to the older single core processors while this is somewhat of a advantage our current north bridges are not effective to supply each core with enough data to process at the moment. so you may be better getting a single core CPU rather then a dual core and waiting on a dual NB or joint NB motherboard\n\n\nBwhahahaha\n\nlmao hope this helped