Pentium 4 320: Pentium 4-M 1.40 vs Celeron M 320

Intel Pentium 4 vs AMD Athlon 320GE Benchmarks, Specs, Performance Comparison and Differences

Intel Pentium 4 vs AMD Athlon 320GE

Compare the technical characteristics between the group of processors Intel Pentium 4 and the processor AMD Athlon 320GE, but also with the respective performance in the benchmarks.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.

Specification comparison:

Intel Pentium 4 650 2005 Q1 90 nm 1 2 3. 4 3.4 2 2 16 84 66.6

74 136 60 50

677 304

1045 1094 254 299
Intel Pentium 4 631 2006 Q1 65 nm 1 2 3 3 2 2 16 86 64. 1

69 137 58 48

956 833

989 1110 154 190
AMD Athlon 320GE 2019 Q3 14 nm 2 4 3.5 3.5 4 64 12 35 95

351 1053

1802 4226

730 1463

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.

This comparative table allows us to better appreciate the differences between the various processors. The performance for Geekbench 4 single-core and multi-core are established by default on the Windows operating system, on Linux if there is at least one server processor present in the comparison, on Mac OS X if we make a parallel with at least one Apple branded processor on Linux and Android if a smartphone processor other than Apple is present. Each time, in 64-bit version.

Performance comparison with the benchmarks:

CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score

AMD Athlon 320GE


1. 053

Intel Pentium 4 631



Intel Pentium 4 650



Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.

Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score

Intel Pentium 4 650



Intel Pentium 4 631



Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.

PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread

AMD Athlon 320GE



Intel Pentium 4 631



Intel Pentium 4 650



Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.

Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score

Intel Pentium 4 631



Intel Pentium 4 650



Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.

Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score

AMD Athlon 320GE



Intel Pentium 4 650



Intel Pentium 4 631



Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.


AMD Athlon 320GE Intel equivalent

See also:

Intel Pentium dual coreIntel Pentium GoldIntel Pentium IIIntel Pentium IIIIntel Pentium quad coreIntel Pentium Silver

Dell Optiplex 320 DT 19″ Pentium 3 GHz — HDD 2 TB — 4 GB

About us


  • My account
  • My orders

Student Discount

Good deals







Apple Watch


iPhone 11

iPhone 12

iPhone XR

iPhone SE (2020)


iPhone X

iPhone 12 Pro Max

iPhone 12 Pro

iPhone 11 Pro Max

iPhone 11 Pro

iPhone 13

Samsung Smartphones

5G Phones

MacBook Pro

MacBook Air


Computers and Laptops

Cameras and Lenses

Headphones and Earphones

iPad Air

iPad Mini

iPad Pro

Gift guide

Out of stock

1 — 1

  • Current
  • Current

😰 This model is popular!

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Dell Optiplex 320 DT 19″ Pentium 3 GHz — HDD 2 TB — 4 GB

Dell Optiplex 320 DT 19″» Intel Pentium 4 3 GHz — HDD 2 TB — RAM 4 GB
Our partners are electronics experts who test and verify that each product is 100% functional before it leaves the factory. This is the reason you benefit from a minimum 1-Year warranty with the purchase of a refurbished device at Back Market.

Dell Optiplex 320 DT 19″ Pentium 3 GHz — HDD 2 TB — 4 GB

  • Storage :
    2000 GB
  • Memory :
    4 GB
  • Model :
    Optiplex 320 DT
  • Processor speed :
    3 GHz
  • Processor core :
  • Graphics card :
  • OS :
    Windows XP Professionnel
  • Screen size (in) :
  • Storage type :
  • Rotation Speed (in RPM) :
  • Memory Type :
  • RAM frequency (MHz) :
  • Screen type :
    Ecran plat
  • Screen Format :
    19 pouces
  • Bluetooth :
  • Ethernet :
  • Brand :
  • Weight :
    5000 g

Welcome to Back Market

The best prices for high-quality renewed goods by refurbishers we’ve checked and vetted. We don’t mind if you
Google us

Get to know us

Intel Pentium 4 660 and Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3.73 GHz processors with 2 MB L2 cache:

what to do when there is nothing else to do?

It’s no secret that the frequency growth of modern x86 CPUs has slowed down recently, and neither new cores nor new technical processes help manufacturers. In general, a sad picture for fans of sensations. However, every cloud has a silver lining: on the other hand, Intel managed to do the impossible once again — it released two very interesting desktop processors: eXtreme Edition and a regular Pentium 4 with Processor Number 660. Both of them are based on a new modification of the Prescott core (usually called «Prescott-2M ”), equipped with a second-level cache of two megabytes: a kind of record for desktop CPUs. The reason for achieving such a result lies on the surface: a further increase in the frequencies of the Prescott core can be said to be «officially canceled» (the 4 GHz processor disappeared from Intel’s roadmap), but somehow it is necessary to increase the performance. But we, in the end, do not care, due to what it will grow, right? So let’s find out if the innovation has any effect. And first, let’s see how the technical characteristics of the old (already «old») Intel processors compare with the new ones, as well as with the main competitor. 12 Kuops Size L2, KB 1024 1024 2048 512 2048 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 —

— PS processor bus (Intel), MHz — 800 (4×200) 800 (4×200) 1066 (4×266) 1066 (4×266) PS controller (AMD) MHz 800 (2×400) — — — — Support for expanded sets of commands MMX, 3DNOW!, SSE2 MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2, SSE2 SSE2, SSE3 MMX, SSE, SSE2 MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3 Support 64-bit extensions X86 000

-9000 9000-















-9000 DEP NX — XD — XD Energy -saving control technology Cool’n’QUite —

, Tue 89 115 115 111 115

As you can see, both new processors support the EM64T technology, the AMD64 sister, previously known as X86-64, which is again VNOV for desktop CPU from Intel previously EM64T was present only in server Xeon Nocona. However, despite the fact that AMD’s enthusiasm for 64-bit computing on desktop platforms turned out to be contagious, and even Intel joined it, the main «helmsman» of another well-known company Microsoft, now calling himself the «Chief Software Architect», is in no hurry please us with the official release of the 64-bit version of Windows for AMD64/EM64T. Therefore, today it remains for us to study in the old way those aspects of the performance of new processors that are relevant for most users: the speed of test execution on 32-bit Windows XP and on software similar in bitness.

In addition, it is clear that the eXtreme Edition concept has somewhat discredited itself: now Intel’s XE is no longer «exclusive» in relation to conventional Pentium 4, than AMD’s FX in relation to conventional Athlon 64: new Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3.73 GHz differs from conventional desktop CPUs only by a higher core frequency and a faster bus. And AMD FX differs only in frequency, but the main thing is that both manufacturers have come to make ordinary and «extreme» processors on the same core, «opening» or «closing» some possibilities (someone doubts that Pentium 4 660 will be able to work on the 1066 MHz bus if it lowers the multiplier?). The Pentium 4 6XX line will include four processors: Pentium 4 660 (3.6 GHz), Pentium 4 650 (3.4 GHz), Pentium 4 640 (3.2 GHz), Pentium 4 630 (3.0 GHz). Even judging by the frequencies alone, we can assume that, alas, we will never see a 1066 MHz bus on regular Pentium 4s. At least for quite a long time.

For those who yearn for 64-bit sensations, we will soon offer testing of new processors in SPEC CPU under one of the 64-bit versions of Linux. And for those who are interested in the architectural features of processor cores, we can offer an article by Dmitry Besedin, the chief developer of the RightMark Memory Analyzer package, who traditionally explored new cores using his package and, with his characteristic uncompromising meticulousness, was even able to catch a couple of interesting points. Thus, leaving the future to the future, and the subtle points to their professional researchers, let’s proceed to the procedure, which, despite some hackneyedness, is still the most informative: performance testing in real applications. By the way, in order not to make it completely traditional, not so long ago we quite significantly changed the composition of the test software, which was the subject of a separate article. Accordingly, the tests presented below were carried out according to a new method, and it was somewhat modified even in relation to the one described in the article (we hope for the better).

  • Windows XP Professional SP2, DirectX 9.0c
  • ATI CATALYST 5.2 (Display Driver
  • A small comment on the configuration of the test benches: some may notice that AMD Athlon 64 is used as the basis for the bench FX-55 two boards are listed. The point is that due to the novelty of chipsets for Socket 939 with PCI Express support, we decided to play it safe, so some tests were selectively run on two boards to compare the results. No significant differences were found, so in the diagrams you see only one column corresponding to this processor.

    It is also easy to see that only one CPU from AMD was chosen as an opponent for the new processors. This seems quite logical to us: we are examining the performance of top solutions from Intel, so the fastest AMD processor at the moment will suffice as a guideline. The presence of other CPUs from Intel is also understandable: the new Pentium 4 XE quite naturally opposes the previous one, with the same 1066 MHz bus, and the Pentium 4 660 competes with the Pentium 4 560, from which it differs, in fact, only twice as large. times the second-level cache (the presence of EM64T support when testing under a 32-bit version of Windows is not relevant, and all kinds of advanced energy-saving technologies at 100% processor load, in theory, should not work). Test results «Semi-synthetics»

    CPU RightMark (RMCPU 2004B)

    Recall that CPU RM is, in fact, two tests combined into one. The solver module calculates the physics of interaction between bodies, and the render module displays this interaction on the screen. In addition, the rendering module is able to use up to 16 processors, as it is multi-threaded, while the solver module, regardless of the number of CPUs in the system, uses only one processor. As we have seen many times before, the correlation between the speed of processors of different architectures in the solver and renderer modules does not always give the same picture.

    Quite the usual distribution of results depending on the task, we have repeatedly encountered it before: the Intel platform is the leader in rendering (including due to the multi-threaded module), the AMD platform is in the computational part. The «old» Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition based on the Gallatin core (Northwood + L3) is slightly out of the picture. CPU RightMark is clearly «not his» test: both in calculations it is in last place, and in rendering (the traditional domain of Intel processors), it almost lost to Athlon 64 FX-55. Note that the effect of a large cache is almost negligible in this test: the Pentium 4 660 is almost on par with the Pentium 4 560.


    7-Zip can use multiple processors, so it gets some benefit from Hyper-Threading (we’ve explored this issue in some previous articles and found that the benefit is tangible). Therefore, the superiority of all Intel processors over Athlon 64 FX-55 in this case looks natural. However, it is easy to see that it is not so great.

    Things are completely different in the case of the WinRAR archiver: the advantage of Athlon 64 FX-55 over two out of four Intel processors is quite large, and only two models (both eXtreme Edition) are almost catching up with the leader. It is easy to assume that two features help them in this: a large cache (2 MB of the third level in the P4 XE 3.46 GHz and 2 MB of the second level in the P4 XE 3.73 GHz), as well as support for a system bus with an effective bandwidth equivalent to 1066 MHz. It’s quite indicative that the P4 XE 3.46 GHz outperformed the higher frequency Pentium 4 660, although the latter also has a large L2 cache (but the bus let the «only» 800 MHz). Working with 3D graphics

    In this case, we do not mean 3D graphics in general, but «3D modeling». It is represented by the three most popular software packages: 3ds max, Maya and Lightwave.

    SPEC apc for 3ds max 6

    The test from SPEC is a script for 3ds max 6. It also contains rendering, however, due to the uninterestingness of the built-in 3ds max renderer from the point of view of professional use, we take into account only the Interactive subtest, that is imitation of the user’s work in this package.

    Interactive test demonstrates the convincing advantage of AMD’s top processor. What is significant: in rendering, as evidenced by our earlier studies, things are exactly the opposite, Pentium 4 “rules” there. rendering — on the Pentium 4. However, those who earn their bread by this can well afford the simplest, albeit «fat» solution: take advantage of both platforms by equipping designers’ workplaces with systems based on AMD processors, allocating a separate system for rendering on Intel.

    Maya 6

    In this testing, we switched to using the test package SPECapc for Maya, designed specifically for the 6th version (previously we ran SPEC apc for Maya 5 under Maya 6). From the point of view of the test process organization, the test from SPEC for Maya is very similar to the test for 3ds max it is also a script that simulates various user actions. True, in this case there is no subtest of the final rendering.

    It’s funny that in the CPU subtest there are two distinct leaders — these are the top processors from Intel and AMD, but in the overall standings the situation is leveling off. From our point of view, this indicates that the influence of the 3D accelerator in Maya 6 is very large. Also interesting is the fact that the CPU subtest is clearly more predisposed to the Prescott core in combination with a large cache (the so-called Prescott-2M core), while in the overall standings the top two places were taken by Intel processors with the fastest bus, and one of them based on the older Gallatin core (actually a Northwood with L3 cache).

    Lightwave 3D 8

    Unfortunately, we could not find an interactive test for Lightwave 8, so in this case we will have to limit ourselves to testing the rendering speed of a relatively complex scene. By the way, here she is.

    This is one of the quite successful, from our point of view, examples of a scene for Lightwave 3D, which is quite consistent with what is often done in this package. The scene was found on one of the forums dedicated to Lightwave and is freely available on the Internet.

    The large cache of new Intel processors did not allow them to make a big quantitative breakthrough, but it made it possible to make a qualitative breakthrough: earlier (this can be judged by the results of the Pentium 4 560), Intel did not have a «regular» (non-eXtreme Edition) processor, which could overtake «extremal» from AMD. Now there is such a processor: Pentium 4 660. However, even despite the large amount of cache, Lightwave 8 still does not like the Prescott core (including the 2M modification) very much, in this program it “takes its toll” clearly by a “number” (megahertz , cache), but not «skill». The proof of this is the result of the still unsurpassed Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3. 46 GHz on the old Gallatin core. Working with raster graphics
    and prepress

    The main test in this section is a script for Adobe Photoshop CS (8) developed in our test lab. It includes the most frequently repeated actions: Blur and Sharpen filters, changing the color model (RGB -> CMYK -> Lab), lighting effects, image rotation, resizing, «Transform» type operations. Actions are performed on a real photograph taken with a digital camera. Also, at the request of a fairly large number of readers, testing was added to the section using Adobe Acrobat Distiller — converting the PS to PDF format. Several real articles made up for one of the magazine issues are used as sources.

    Adobe Photoshop CS (8)

    A motley picture, but understandable: the old Intel core and AMD architecture are out of favor, Prescott is good. The new modification of this kernel with a two-megabyte cache is not much faster than the old , apparently, further increase in its volume is not critical for Photoshop.

    Adobe Acrobat 6 Distiller

    Adobe Acrobat Distiller gives unconditional preference to the architecture from Intel — NetBurst, both of its older version in the form of P4 XE 3.46 MHz, and new processors with the Prescott[-2M] core. All in all: a clear example of an application where frequency plays a leading role. Compare the ratios: the Pentium 4 560 completed the task 46% faster than the Athlon 64 FX-55. Frequency ratio: 3600/2600, P4 560 frequency is 38% higher. Yes, after all, the architecture is clearly “moreover” here, but nevertheless the numbers turned out to be more or less comparable … CAD / CAM

    SolidWorks 2003

    Traditionally, for many SPECapc tests, the test script simulates the user’s work and as a result gives four results: the overall score, the performance of the graphics subsystem, the I / O subsystem, and the processor. It is worth noting that for SPECapc for SolidWorks 2003, the speed rating system in points is preserved, but the best result is , which is less than .

    The architectural preferences of SolidWorks 2003 are clear: the AMD processor won by a very large margin. Further, everything is less clear, but let’s try to get to the bottom of the truth. So, a large cache by itself does not seem to be very important: the advantage of the Pentium 4 660 over the Pentium 4 560 is not very great. The P3 XE 3.46 is not impressive either: despite the bus, it loses to the Pentium 4 660. Let’s assume that it’s due to the old core — it’s quite a logical assumption, isn’t it? Then it turns out that only a combination of three components can help the NetBurst architecture: a large cache, a Prescott-like core, and a fast 1066 MHz system bus. And then — just increase the frequency … Encoding media data

    This section combines everything related to encoding video and audio information, that is, the classic WAV -> MP3 conversion, as well as video data compression using the most common codecs.

    Audio data encoding

    Good old LAME… In view of the huge number of presets, and no less number of their ardent fans, we took a compromise path: we study encoding with the highest possible quality: (320 kbps CBR, q=0) and VBR encoding from 160 to 320 kbps with «high» (option «-q 2», or simply «-h») quality, after which the geometric mean is taken from the results.

    The introduction of the second subtest into the test, from which the Q=0 option «unloved» by AMD processors was removed, did not fundamentally change the situation, and the reason is simple: with the set of options «-b 160 -B 320 -m j -q 2 -V 0» all processors reached the finish line almost simultaneously: the worst result (Pentium 4 560) is equal to one minute and six seconds, and the best one (Athlon 64 FX-55, Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3.73 GHz, Pentium 4 660) is exactly one minute. Thus, there is no difference between MP3 encoding with LAME in modes with Q>0 between adjacent processors from both manufacturers. And with Q=0, Intel Pentium 4 processors win. By the way, note that the best result from the Pentium 4 subgroup is by no means for the new core.

    Video encoding (MPEG4)

    The result shown in the diagram below is the result of a compromise between the desire to cover as many widely used codecs as possible, and the reluctance to clutter up the article with diagrams. You can see the average test file encoding time with three codecs: DivX, XviD, and Windows Media Video 9. To reassure those who are afraid of the «average temperature in the hospital» effect, let’s clarify: the distribution of places separately for each codec, and on the summary diagram turned out to be the same.

    We are testing the Athlon 64 FX-55 for the first time, and there was a surprise: despite the fact that Intel processors are traditionally strong in video encoding, the top CPU from AMD took the first place. However, it is easy to see that this advantage is very small, and by and large, all processors coped with the task quite successfully, and in this case, preference should undoubtedly be given to the cheapest, and not the fastest: the difference in that speed is percent units…

    Video data encoding (MPEG2)

    Due to numerous requests from readers, this test now uses the encoder from Canopus ProCoder 2 (previously we used Mainconcept MPEG Encoder 1. 4).

    Another test that AMD fans «didn’t like» very much, so much so that they even reproached us for being biased: they say, we use the Mainconcept MPEG Encoder specifically to «pull out» Intel processors. Let’s hope that they will not have any objections against the Canopus ProCoder recommended by them. And what is the result? And as a result, Pentium 4 is still better :). Visualization of three-dimensional graphics

    Modern 3D games

    For all games we use the 640x480x32 mode with minimum quality settings, so, strictly speaking, this section cannot claim to test real performance in games. However, it could not claim this role even if the settings were more realistic, since in any case we use only one video card and performance in games depends on this component no less than on the processor.

    Why is this test needed? In general, more of a theoretical interest than a practical one. Minimizing the influence of the video card, we analyze the processor preferences of game engines. Of course, if only one game was used, it would be of little interest. However, four modern games, if their results are averaged, make it possible to answer the question with a higher degree of approximation: “What CPUs do modern game engines prefer”? In the future, we will quite possibly introduce even more games into the tests, but we will analyze only the last diagram: the summary one. And precisely from the point of view that is described above.

    A convincing victory for the AMD processor, and one of the most convincing wins in this test, it seems. You can, of course, remember Adobe Distiller, but there is still one application, and here is a summary chart based on the results of four tests. We would venture to suggest that even Half-Life 2, which is still missing from the list, would hardly have been able to turn the tide in any outcome, so for modern games we can recommend AMD processors with a clear conscience. Of course, in «real» game modes, the advantage of the processor will be much less obvious, as the influence of the video card will affect, but if one number is greater than the other no matter how many times they are divided, the second one will not be greater than the first anyway, right?

    3D modeling packages

    A rather simple diagram to interpret: the larger the cache the better. The groups were distributed like this: at the bottom there are two processors with 1 MB L2, a little higher two processors with a two-megabyte cache (apparently, the test does not care what level it is), even higher CPU with a two-megabyte cache and a fast 1066 MHz bus. Conclusion

    To begin with, let’s give a small table, which, as it seems to us, allows us to evaluate the results of all tests in the aggregate in the most interesting (although not indisputable!) way. It again shows the results of all processors in all tests, but in percentage terms, while the worst result is taken as 100% (it is clear that different CPUs show it depending on the test). And at the end, the percentages obtained are brought together by the method of the simplest arithmetic average. Of course, such an assessment is very approximate, since it assumes that we are equally interested in the results of all tests, however, given the variety of tastes of different users, this method seems to us at least no less preferable than any other. For ease of viewing, the worst results (100%) are highlighted in red, and the best 9124% 7-ZIP 100% 102% 105% 106%

    9000% WinRAR 121% 9000 9000

    0 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000%

    0 9000%


    115% 3DS MAX 6 (Interactive) 126% 100% 103% 108% 000 MAYA 6 (CPU)


    9 % 104% 101% 114% Maya 6 (Overall) 105% 100% 104%

    9000% 109% LIGHTWAVE 3D 100% 9000% 9000% 9000% 9000% 9000% 9000% 107% 113% 111% Adobe Photoshop CS 104% 112% % 100%



    Adobe Distiller 147% 152% 156% 157% SolidWorks 2003 132% 100%

    9000% 103%


    900% 100% 900% LAME

    9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 LAME % 126% 134% 130% MPEG4 106% 101%









    % 113% 107% 115% Games 128% 100%

    9000% 104%



    SPEC VIEWPERF % 111% 108% 117% Overall 111% 108% 111% 110% 117%

    So, if we consider the above table as a basis for conclusions, then there will be two main conclusions:

    1. , pulls out. ..), moreover: the new «non-extreme» Pentium 4 660 is on par with the Athlon 64 FX-55, overtaking the previous P4 XE from Intel itself. Looking at this bleak picture, you begin to understand the futility of the race for high-profile names like «eXtreme Edition» or «FX»: what’s the use of them if after a meager period (no more than six months) a regular processor will be released, which will turn out to be faster?
    2. The difference between the worst and the best is… 9%. That is, if we take the «average» performance of the processors we have reviewed, the probability that the user will be able to feel a difference in the speed of systems based on them is extremely small . As is well known, human sensitivity is much lower than that of a benchmark. There is, accordingly, a legitimate question: is not it a lot of ado about nothing? However, everyone answers it independently.

    We can only state that from the point of view of comparing the performance of top CPUs, everything still comes down to the ongoing dispute about «who is the owner of the mountain», that is, it takes the formal first place. It seems that it is already clear to everyone, without exception, that none of the manufacturers is able to provide a solution that will crush a competitor to smithereens. Or does not want to. Which, by the way, is not so fantastic as it seems at first glance. A variation is also possible that combines both options: one consciously “slows down” the release of its new product, while the second one strives to the top, reaches it … and after a while receives as a response a CPU long ready for release from a competitor. Which of these three options actually takes place, we most likely will not know … and I don’t really want to, to be honest. For there can be a lot of reasons, but the result is still the same: CPU speed is growing, but not abruptly, but in small, well-measured portions, and a change in the formal leader is as inevitable as the advent of a new season. Anyway, the show goes on! The viewer, however, was rather tired. Therefore, our forecast for the future is somewhat paradoxical: by the time the two leading competitors in the x86 CPU market finally manage to finally find out which of them makes the fastest processors few people will be interested :).

    However, all of the above does not prevent us from congratulating Intel on another victory. In the end, it is not so important who won it is important that once again the performance bar is raised even higher. As long as someone raises it from time to time, you can not worry about the industry as a whole: it is still moving somewhere …

    AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 processor provided by Formosa

    Laptop Lenovo IdeaPad 320 (15.6″, HD 1366×768, Pentium, 4 GB, HDD)

    → Computers
    → Laptops
    → Laptop Lenovo IdeaPad 320 (15.6″, HD 1366×768, Pentium, 4 GB, HDD)

    119 500 tenge


    Terms of payment

    Terms of delivery

    How to contact us

    • Description
    • Features
    • Reviews

    Laptop Lenovo Notebook Lenovo NB IP 320-15ISP N4200 4G 1TB


    Processor: Intel Pentium
    Processor model: N4200
    Processor frequency, GHz: 1. 1
    Maximum processor frequency, GHz: 2.5
    Number of cores: 4 cores
    L3 cache: 2 MB

    RAM type: DDR3L
    RAM: 4 GB
    RAM frequency: 1600 MHz
    Hard disk: 1 TB HDD

    Video card type: Integrated
    Model Integrated graphics card: Intel HD Graphics 505
    Screen size, inch: 15.6
    Screen resolution: 1366 x 768 HD
    Screen surface: Matte
    Optical drive: DVD±R/RW&CD±R/RW

    Dimensions (W x H x D) : 37.8 x 26 x 2.2 cm
    Weight: 2.04 kg
    Warranty period (months): 12

    * Images and product specifications may differ from actual parameters. Please check with the manager for details.

    • Standard


    • Type


    • Operating system

      Without Operating System

    • Trademark (brand)


    • Model

      IdeaPad 320

    • Processor


    • Diagonal