1.9 ghz with 8 gb ram or 2.30 ghz with 4 gb ram?
- Thread starter asterwald
- Start date
Go for 1.9 GHz with 8GB RAM. RAM is more important than processing power. 1.9 GHz is more than enough processing power. What kinda processor is it though? A dual core Intel i5???
Either one is more than the average surfer/wordprocessor/HD movie watcher needs.
If you are a gamer then graphics card enters teh equation.
I might go with the lower ram and higher CPU...... here's why. The cost of parts is constantly dropping. The ease of upgrading ram vs upgrading a CPU favours upgrading ram. Upgrading ram is dead easy..... open the case, pull out the old ram, slide in the new ram.
So from a longevity pov having a more powerful CPU and upgrading your ram later will save you a bit of money..... this assumes that the PC is powerful enough to currently meet your needs.
If you are a gamer then graphics card enters teh equation.
I might go with the lower ram and higher CPU...... here's why. The cost of parts is constantly dropping. The ease of upgrading ram vs upgrading a CPU favours upgrading ram. Upgrading ram is dead easy..... open the case, pull out the old ram, slide in the new ram.
So from a longevity pov having a more powerful CPU and upgrading your ram later will save you a bit of money..... this assumes that the PC is powerful enough to currently meet your needs.
Or go 2.3 and 8 gb.... the cost between 4 and 8 gb is not a big deal but performance wise there is a large difference.
Then again it's not just the size of the ram but the speed e.g. 1600 vs 1333 or the CL rating makes a diffference two. Depending on those stats the difference could be smaller or larger. But assuming all stats are teh same except teh GB 8 is significantly better.
Then again it's not just the size of the ram but the speed e.g. 1600 vs 1333 or the CL rating makes a diffference two. Depending on those stats the difference could be smaller or larger. But assuming all stats are teh same except teh GB 8 is significantly better.
Even lower gig processors these days outperform the higher ones of yesteryear.
Newer processors have more physical cores which doubles with virtual cores.
Higher end processors have more cores plus hyperthreading.
Because newer multi cores are able to tap into the extra cores they are less dependent than single cores for clock speed.
frankcastle makes valid points though in that ram is easier to upgrade than CPUs which may require a whole new MB and power supply.
The thing is only for the real geeks, those who need it in their jobs and those with the money to spend, or the need for latest and greatest, is it worthwhile to have the highest end.
It will all be obsolete in a few months anyway.
Costs to benefits and want vs need are your determinants really.
Don't forget the points of diminishing returns where after optimal combinations of ram and cpu are reached, no matter how much of one or the other you add to an existing setup, the gains are minimal or none.
As others have said, quality of the motherboard and it's chipsets as well as whether you have a dedicated video card does affect ram usage and bus speeds, bottlenecking etc.
Newer processors have more physical cores which doubles with virtual cores.
Higher end processors have more cores plus hyperthreading.
Because newer multi cores are able to tap into the extra cores they are less dependent than single cores for clock speed.
frankcastle makes valid points though in that ram is easier to upgrade than CPUs which may require a whole new MB and power supply.
The thing is only for the real geeks, those who need it in their jobs and those with the money to spend, or the need for latest and greatest, is it worthwhile to have the highest end.
It will all be obsolete in a few months anyway.
Costs to benefits and want vs need are your determinants really.
Don't forget the points of diminishing returns where after optimal combinations of ram and cpu are reached, no matter how much of one or the other you add to an existing setup, the gains are minimal or none.
As others have said, quality of the motherboard and it's chipsets as well as whether you have a dedicated video card does affect ram usage and bus speeds, bottlenecking etc.
Make sure your OS supports all the RAM installed. Without using some tricks, 32-bit OS supports up to 4 GB RAM. 64-bit OS gives you that ability out of the box, but then you run into processor's limitations.
Not really that simple to say which is better, but as the above poster said, the type of applications you're using determines whether you need more RAM or faster procesor.
Not really that simple to say which is better, but as the above poster said, the type of applications you're using determines whether you need more RAM or faster procesor.
Go with the 2.30 ghz with 4 gb ram.
I always prefer going with the more powerful CPU just in case if you need it in the future, you have it.
Ram is cheap and can easily be added in the future if desired.
I always prefer going with the more powerful CPU just in case if you need it in the future, you have it.
Ram is cheap and can easily be added in the future if desired.
+1
If you know the type of RAM (which usually flashes on the screen when you cycle the power, and is otherwise easy to find out), and can put toast in a toaster, you can install more RAM.
Not to mention RAM of a type changes form factor (physical size / dimensions) less often than processor sockets do. It's also easier to find 'old RAM'. With a CPU you have to know your socket type which change often. Oh, and you have to be able to get the old processor out and new one in. It's often a tight fit, with fragile pins and clamps.
I'd go for more CPU, and just buy more RAM is there was an 'issue'. For less than $100 you should be able to get 8 - 16 GB more RAM. I haven't priced it recently.
Go pan for change on the corner and get the xtra ram to go with the 2.3ghz...you can never have enough of both. Period.
Well, the way the prices for CPU and RAM are now it's easy to go 'Stupid Big'. The reality is that single CPU cores have had a hard time creaking way beyond 3 Ghz, and that there is a finite amount of memory programs will consume, and that an OS can use for cache.
On the budget end, I'd certainly want something that has a core speed approaching 3 Ghz with at least two cores, and no less than 4 GB of ram, with integrated graphics (and a reasonable bus). More ideally, and still in budget land, I'd aim for something that has 4 cores clocking at about 3 Ghz, 8 - 16 GB of RAM, and that a discrete AMD/ATI or Nividea video card that retails for about $120 (but is included). Beyond that it would be nice to have a SSD for speed, and you could add an $100 OEM hard disk for bulk storage / backups.
Once you get much above those specs, unless you're a hardcore gamer, are doing something like editing (not just playing) a large amount of HD video, compiling really big source code trees in C++, or trying to number crunch mind bogglingly large data sets, you're firmly in overkill land.
That 8 core, 3.5 Ghz monster, with 64 Gb of RAM, and that $500 video card is likely to sit with most of it's cores 99% idle 90+ % of the time, except when you play a game that may hammer one or two of those cores. Even with that game loaded, all of the programs you normally use in memory, and the OS caching everything it can think of, you'll still probably have a whack of free memory.
