In fact, the P-4 excelled on only one test i.e. using Windows Media Encoder to convert an .avi file to .wmv format. The P-4 performed the task in 52 to 54 seconds — at least 14 seconds faster than the 1.2-GHz Athlon system, and 17 seconds faster than the fastest 1-GHz PIII PC. "Again in a multitasking test timing a typical Internet scenario —downloading a file in the background while performing Microsoft Access tasks in the foreground — ran no faster on P-4, despite Intel’s indications that such a task should", reports the PCWORLD test.

These tests should however in no way imply that P-4 is not superior to the earlier breed of microprocessors. In fact, P-4 performance is currently handicapped due to non-availability of software written with instruction sets that P-4 architecture exploits, rather the architecture itself. P-4 is built on 42 million transistors (nearly 50 per cent more than the P-III possesses) and represents a major CPU advance. The NetBurst architecture has removed several previously known bottlenecks and has paved a way for doubling the CPU clock speed to 3 GHz in the coming years. From the existing 100 and 133-MHz PIII system buses, the P-4 uses a 400 MHz system bus.

P- 4 architecture is a major deviation from Intel’s earlier processors like Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Celeron and Pentium III, which were all based around the Intel "P6" core. The current "Coppermine" P-III version of the P6 is considerably more advanced than the old Pentium Pro version, but the basis is the same. The Pentium 4, NetBurst micro-architecture is much superior to the P6 core in many ways. The earlier P5 architecture had a five-stage pipeline, the P6 — as used in Pentium III — has 10 and Pentium 4 has 20. The longer the pipeline the faster it can go, as each stage is comparatively less complex and can be driven faster than with shorter pipelines.

"P-4 may actually be slower at processing certain apps that haven’t been rewritten for it. But its disappointing performance may be temporary. If Intel convinces developers to optimise applications for P-4, you can expect performance to improve. On the other hand, the processor seems unlikely to deliver much improvement to the office apps most people use heavily", say experts.

Paul Otellini, executive vice president and general manager of Intel’s architecture group, says the chip’s new design is meant to improve performance "where users will appreciate it most—-in areeas like 3D gaming, digital video creation, MP3 encoding, and streaming video".

In the absence of adequate software that exploits the potential of a P-4 chip, it does not really make any sense to invest for the future. The golden rule to keep in mind before buying a computer remains, "Do not invest for the future". Buy something based on your immediate needs or those of the immediate future. If you violate this rule and invest in a computer with a few years hence in mind, you are likely to be in for some surprises. By the time the future that you have visualised actually comes, the technology you have invested in bound to be far from current.

So what processor should you buy? The answer could be no simpler than what Intel itself says on its site. "If you ….run intensive applications on your computer, and/or need a PC that can extend and enhance the power of the other digital devices in your home, the Pentium 4 processor may be right for you. But if you’re just looking for a PC to help you get online and run simple programs, then a Pentium III processor or an Intel Celeron processor may be a better choice".

With Pentium III being much cheaper and performing better on most currently available software, including office productivity suites, should one really go in for the Pentium 4? Well! The choice is obvious. However, when Windows XP and Office XP (codenamed Whistler and Office 10) are launched, P-4s would certainly become worth considering as these software would have considered the Pentium 4 architecture during development.

In the current CPU market scenario, there are three major vendors — Intel, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Via Cyrix, each one with a chip for the budget conscious and the power user. With a choice from over half a dozen processors from these companies, it is ultimately the intended application that should decide the right processor for you. Studies have shown that use of most computers is limited to word processing, Internet browsing, low-end graphics and computer games. These functions can easily be handled by even the lowest rated microprocessor.

Going by market ratings, Intel remain the market leader with its Pentium III forming the major chunk of all sales, with its Celerons falling in next. AMD has a committed clientele for Athlon and Duron that compete with Intel’s PIIIs and Celerons. Via Cyrix, the third chip manufacturer has always stressed on the price performance ratio and claimed to come up with the cheapest chip that compares well in performance with chips from Intel and AMD, specially given the fact that it costs much less. Via Cyrix M III 600 MHz is currently the cheapest available microprocessor.

Pentium III is a very versatile processor and has compared well with P-4 in various benchmark tests. P-III is based on Copermine P6 architecture and is an improved version over the Pentium IIs as it not only runs on higher speeds compared to the P-IIs, but has additional new set of instructions: Streaming SIMD Extensions, or SSE which means Single Instruction Multiple Data, an advancement over the previous architecture that processed one data element in one instruction, a processing style called Single Instruction Single Data, or SISD.

In contrast, processors having the SIMD capability process more than one data element in one instruction. A major difference between MMX and SSE is that no new registers were defined for MMX, while eight new registers have been defined for SSE. Currently P -III is available in 933 MHz clock speeds.

AMDs Athlon rates similar in price and performance to the P-III. Benchmark tests showed that the Athlon-based systems actually had a slight edge over the P-4 in running Business Winstone 99, which measures performance on productivity suites (Corel WordPerfect Office, Microsoft Office, and Lotus SmartSuite). On Winstone 2001 and Content Creation Winstone 2001, P-4 , P-III and Athlon performed neck and neck. In addition to Microsoft Office 2000, Business Winstone 2001 adds Microsoft Project 98, Lotus Notes, NicoMak’s WinZip, Norton AntiVirus, and Netscape Communicator to the mix. Content Creation Winstone measures performance on applications such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, Macromedia Director, and Macromedia Dreamweaver.

In the budget segment, Intel’s Celeron and AMD Duron are very similar in price and performance. While Duron is available in 750 MHz, Duron is available in 750 MHZ. But in terms of software compatibility Celeron has a marginal edge. Interestingly, accompanying charts show that in commonly used software programmes, there is not much difference between the budget and power user microprocessors.

For those on a really low budget, Via Cyrix M III, costing around Rs 3,000 is a good choice. The reviews of this chip however are not very encouraging in comparison. But as a stand along, the Via Cyrix M III is acceptable.

Unless you specifically are a power user, any budget microprocessor should serve you as well as a high priced microprocessor in most commonly used applications.

Again performance-wise, the Intel’s Celeron has been fairly competitive with AMD’s Duron and Pentium III with Athlon. The only degrading factor between Pentium III and Athlon been that clock for clock, Pentium III has been more expensive than Athlon. Intel has, until recently, been able to compete with AMD based on clock speed.

However, the failure to introduce a Pentium III over one gigaherts is an indication of the limits of the Pentium III architecture on the 0.18-micron process, hence Pentium 4. With Athlon having a 200MHz clock speed advantage over the fastest Pentium III available, coupled with a lower price than the lower clocked Pentium III, it becomes a good alternative for people not fussy about choosing a chip from Intel.

Gradually, people have come to accept that they cannot keep pace with technology nor can they upgrade or replace the computer frequently, hence the obvious decision to go in for the most advanced computer available at the time of buying the PC. So far this logic held good with the choice being limited to the fastest processor available in the market. But with chip manufacturers vying with each other, today more than one type of processor is available off the shelf, making the task of the consumer arduous.