I've been out of the hardware loop for a few years now, so I'd appreciate patience. And speak slowly, please.I'm presently running a P4 2.8 GHz w/HT and 800 MHz FSB. I could spend several hundred bucks on a new Core 2 +MoBo @ 2.4 GHz with 1066 MHz FSB. I know these chips are good for multitasking, but is there something about these that makes them faster? Is the 2.4 GHz faster than the 2.8 GHz P4? It would be cheaper than a 3.8 GHz single core.Thanks,Earl

The new Core 2 Duo at 2.4ghz is the E6600It beats anything else available (except the E6700 and X6800 Core 2 Duo models)At stock speeds the E6600 will beat an Athlon 64 FX-62

You also might want to look at http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/It looks like there's a better price/performance ratio by o/c'ing the E6400.

Do not go just by the Ghz on the chip. The P4 is an older design that isn't as efficient. So even though it has a higher Ghz speed, it's probably a good bit slower.In general clock for clock, the chips are ranked worst to best:P4 / PentiumDAthlon64 / Athlon64X2Core2Solo / Core2DuoSo, if you find all 3 chips running at 2.4 Ghz for instance, the Athlon will beat the P4, and the Core2 will beat the Athlon. It all has to do with the effiency of the design.Therefor, even though the Core2 chip you're looking at is only like 2.4Ghz, it'll probably blow away a 3.6Ghz P4 chip.Hope this helps.--2002cbr600f4i

Every 3d game bench I've seen the C2D blows past a P4 like it's standing still. Guess Intel was tired of P4 getting a butt kicking from AMD 64 FX.Edit: And the C2D is running with much less power/heat to boot!scott s..

Thanks for all the input. My questions has been answered.