Pentium 4 2.80 vs Pentium M 730
Aggregate performance score
Pentium M 730 outperforms Pentium 4 2.80 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3276 | 3322 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Pentium M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.60 | 0.13 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 19 January 2005 (19 years ago) | August 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.79 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 32 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 87 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 144 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.26V-1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 110 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.17 | 0.15 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 110 Watt |
Pentium M 730 has a 13.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 307.4% lower power consumption.
The Pentium M 730 is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium 4 2.80 in performance tests.
Be aware that Pentium M 730 is a notebook processor while Pentium 4 2.80 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium M 730 and Pentium 4 2.80, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
