Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 vs Pentium 4 2.4GHz

Hi i just wanna to know if i have a Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.00GHZ processor can I paly a game which basic requirement is Pentium 4 2.4GHz ?

 

Yes,GHZ doesn't mean a thing between different platforms.In addition,it also depends more on the video card

 

Sure...a Core2 is much faster than a any P4.

The rule of thumb is:
Pentium M ~ 1,5-2x faster at same speed as a P4
Core ~ 2 - 2,5x faster
Core2 ~ 2,5 or more faster
Core i7 ~ don't even ask

 

the t7300 will eat the p4

 

Hi, yes the core2duo t7300 is a far better processor than the pentium 4

 

You are comparing architectures miles apart. Have a look here for the P4. Not the most accurate but easy to understand.

You can find the Core 2 Duo architecture here.

Oversimplified and not very helpful. There are so many variables for the differences that any change in one of them might alter this so called rule of thumb.

 

T7300 is faster than the pentium 4, because it is based on a new architecture. The pentium 4's were based on netburst technology, which is pretty old, whereas the new core architecture increases cycles per MHz clock speed.

Just match the T7300 with a decent gpu, like a 9500M GS or better and you should have a great gaming experience on your laptop.

K-TRON

 

If you read the specs you will see it was ahead of its time. The components used to create it were, for the lack of a better word, "old". It had more potential than the current architecture, proof that they brought HT back. The manufacturing process was not on par with the specs and design. As a consequence, they pumped up the Hertz on that pipeline.

 

Let me show you their raw performance values.


Desktop: Pentium-4 (2.4GHz, 533 MHz FSB, Northwood Core)
SuperPI-1M: 1min 14 sec

Old Laptop: Pentium M-770 (2.13GHz, 533 MHz FSB, Dothan Core)
SuperPI-1M: 36 sec

New Laptop: Core 2 Duo T9400 (2.53GHz, 1066 MHz FSB, Penryn Core)
SuperPI-1M: 17 sec

 

Yap, really no brainer.

I need to upgrade my laptop.

 

My old intel c2d 1.5ghz 2mb cache 667fsb outperformed my
intel p4 3.2ghz 800fsb 1mb cache greatly.

 

Not quite. Hyperthreading has nothing to do with Netburst. Of note, they haven't made any Netburst chips since the Pentium D. Netburst was essentially a deep (20-31 stages depending on exactly which Netburst based CPU), fast pipeline for instructions. If it stalled, it was a HUGE penalty for flushing and re-filling the pipeline. Great for streaming data, not so much for random-access like we get in most applications. The Core architecture has superseded the Netburst architecture, and it's based on the Pentium M chip, which has very little other than the instruction set in common with Netburst/P4.

Hyperthreading on the other hand is a very viable technology. It simply takes the unused units of a CPU and puts them to use. Most CPU's have an FPU (Floating-Point Unit) and an ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit). If one is busy, the other is idle. The idea behind Hyperthreading is to use the idle unit to get some more processing done, and isn't related to the general architecture being Netburst or Core.