CPU speeds of today vs 3 years ago

[bkcci]

I am trying determine if it is possible, and makes sense, to upgrade my Asus notebook's CPU (Pentinum 4 2.80 GHz processor) to a current processor. The notebook is used for processing intense database acitivity transactions (highend accounting system), MS Word, Excel and Outlook and exploring the internet.

Could someone help me understand how the GHz of the processors of today that are rated as 1.8, 1.7, etc., compare with the processor that I purchased with my notebook 3 years ago.

Other than the GHz rating, are there other variables that make the processors different that I should considering one over the other?

Thank you for your replies.

[dragmor]

In "general" an A64 3000+ was equal to a 3ghz P4 with an 800mhz FSB.

Your notebook would be using a 533mhz FSB. Even a AM2 Sempron 3000+ 1.6ghz (the slowest AMD you can buy) would be faster than your P4.

How much faster would depend highly on the tasks. You mention intense database activity which is normal harddisk bound. So a who knows what your limiting factor really is.

If your looking intel then a ultra low voltage 1.2ghz to 1.4ghz C2D found in ultraportable laptops would probably outperform your current setup.

[Beyonder]

Could someone help me understand how the GHz of the processors of today that are rated as 1.8, 1.7, etc., compare with the processor that I purchased with my notebook 3 years ago.

If you're asking how a computer clocked a gigahertz slower could outperform your current PC (I'm not sure if this is what you're asking), the simple answer is that clock cycles have nothing to do with processor performance. Different processors do different amounts of work with each clock cycle, so it's difficult/impossible to compare various processors based on MHz or GHz.

Other than the GHz rating, are there other variables that make the processors different that I should considering one over the other?

The only variable you should consider, IMO, is how fast the processor performs in benchmarks that are pertinant to your workload.

You won't be able to update to something like a C2D without getting a new motherboard. You might be able to get some improvements just by adding memory and a faster disk drive, however. How much memory does your laptop have? And what sort of disk drive?

[jessekopelman]

Actually, I think one can apply general rules of thumb for comparing Pentium 4 against other processors. These rules of thumb come from various benchmark results and actual experience with several of the processors in question. Obviously, YMMV:

Pentium M: 1.5 X Pentium M Speed = Pentium 4 Speed (i.e. 1.6 GHz Pentium M = 2.4 GHz Pentium 4)
Core Solo: 1.5 X Core Solo Speed = Pentium 4 Speed
Core Duo: 1.8 X Core Duo Speed = Pentium 4 Speed
Core 2 Duo: 2 X C2D Speed = Pentium 4 Speed
Various AMD: AMD Speed / 1000 = Pentium 4 Speed (i.e. Athlon XP 3200 = 3.2 GHz Pentium 4)

Again, these are generalities. There are times a C2D is more than 2X as good as a same clocked P4. There are also times where an Athlon X2 4000 is not twice as good as a 2GHz P4.

[revloc8]

Comparing a Pentium 4 to modern processors is almost apples and oranges. As someone pointed out, a lowly Sempron could likely provide similar performance to your P4; however, going with a Sempron means buying a new laptop. And thats exactly what I suggest you do. Trying to upgrade an old laptop can be a real pain in the behind. Save yourself a headache and just get a semi-cheap laptop with a dual core cpu, they are cheaper than you think.
If your still wondering about your P4 vs. modern cpus, Tomshardware.com (although evil) has a great CPU chart for comparing cpus. You cant expect the same results as they got because of all the variables. This should give you an idea though. Hope I was some help...
Here is a 2.8 Ghz P4 520 vs. a cheaper ($140) Core 2 Duo e4400
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html? ... &chart=192

[jaganath]

the simple answer is that clock cycles have nothing to do with processor performance

That's probably an oversimplification. Within the same processor family (ie Athlon 64/Core 2 etc) the CPU with the higher clock speed will have higher performance; but you're right that using clock speed to compare different processor families is a very poor guide to actual performance.

[sjoukew]

Tomshardware hasn't many good reviews anymore, but their cpu charts can give some insight in how all those cpu's compare to eachother. CPU Charts
They also have some other charts from older cpu's. CPU Charts 2005 CPU Charts 2004