Do I spend the extra $200 on Ram or CPU

I

ipndrmath

New Member
I'm looking in to purchasing a laptop. The price is lower than I thought, so I'm willing to drop a little more, but really the only things that are worth upgrading are the RAM or CPU, both of which the next step up is $200. Which do you think I should go for? Or are neither really worth it?

4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm) > 6GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
or
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P8800 (2.66 GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB) >
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad Processor Q9000 (2.00Ghz, 6MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB)​


Thanks all!
 
I don't even know. 6 is definitely better than four, but, the dual core 2.66... if you upgrade to the quad you probably won't see much of an increase because of the fact that most programs won't use the full potential of a quad.
 
EGamerHDK said:
Yeah, great point actually... the quads proly better for the future, but, you can always upgrade your ram. And it'll lower constantly.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys! I've never played with a Quad core. Even though it's 2Ghz, is it significantly faster and worth the $200?
 
EGamerHDK said:
if you upgrade to the quad you probably won't see much of an increase because of the fact that most programs won't use the full potential of a quad.
Click to expand...

Actually, you will still see an increase. When you're multitasking, the operating system sends application to the open processors. Especially useful if you're doing something like website design where you have 4 programs open at once.
 
Euklid said:
Actually, you will still see an increase. When you're multitasking, the operating system sends application to the open processors. Especially useful if you're doing something like website design where you have 4 programs open at once.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I'm still a little novice when it comes to multi-cored CPUs. It's time for google. At any rate, so is the only advantage of a multi-core cpu better multitasking? Perhaps, I'm down playing this.
 
ipndrmath said:
Obviously, I'm still a little novice when it comes to multi-cored CPUs. It's time for google. At any rate, so is the only advantage of a multi-core cpu better multitasking? Perhaps, I'm down playing this.
Click to expand...


Basically... most programs are designed for single core but, more and more are being designed for dual core. There are even a lot out there that are made for quad core.

I think the latest GTA game is made for quad core so it'll run significantly better than on a dual core.

But if you have a program open that is using two cores, the other two are open for other programs which is called multitasking. lol. So, most likely you'll get a better performance if you have more than one thing running.
 
EGamerHDK said:
Basically... most programs are designed for single core but, more and more are being designed for dual core. There are even a lot out there that are made for quad core.

I think the latest GTA game is made for quad core so it'll run significantly better than on a dual core.

But if you have a program open that is using two cores, the other two are open for other programs which is called multitasking. lol. So, most likely you'll get a better performance if you have more than one thing running.
Click to expand...

So when I'm not multitasking, say just gaming or just one instance of Photoshop, will I see a decrease in performance from the 2.66 to 2GHz drop?
 
bomberboysk said:
If your running CS3 or CS4 it uses SMP, which means it takes advantage of quad core cpu's.
Click to expand...

Which basically just backs up the whole thing where newer programs especially high end programs and games are all starting to get on the quad core wagon. Which, like I said before is for the future. There's not many older programs that will probably have you push the limits as far as the newer ones like cs4. It's just like when single core cpu's were what everyone had. When you got a dual core people had the same problem. Some things run better in 2 cores because thats how they're designed.
 
You'll need a 64 bit OS to even see beyond 3-3.5GB RAM, two extra cores will likely benefit you more, 4GB is plenty of RAM for now
 
That's a tough one. Probably don't need the 6GB of RAM, unless you are using 64bit Vista with tons of need for it. Also, probably don't need a quad core (especially at 2.0GHz. I'd take a 2.6GHz dual core over a 2.0GHz quad). Personally, I'd take it as is and use the extra $200 to get something else (external HDD, etc.)

That's my two cents.
 
bomberboysk said:
If your running CS3 or CS4 it uses SMP, which means it takes advantage of quad core cpu's.
Click to expand...

Hmm, okay. Thank you. I've kind of turned this into a "what are multi-cored CPUs" conversation, which I can just google. So, I'll pull it back to the original question:

So it's pretty much agreed that the CPU upgrade is the one to go with. But I just want to make sure, the upgrade is worth the $200, right?
 
Oops

I missed the second page of replies. Thank you guys.

  1. I am using 64bit, so the RAM isn't a problem.
  2. I'm thinking since there is such a difference in GHz, I might be better off with the Dual
  3. I've done some googling. I didn't realise this was such a debated topic.

I guess the question is: Do I want a good CPU now, or one that will work later?
 
ipndrmath said:
I guess the question is: Do I want a good CPU now, or one that will work later?
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I think you might be better going for the quad because in a laptop (idk if you mentioned if it was a laptop or desktop but anyways...) you can't really replace the cpu in a laptop, so you'll proly have a great computer now and an even better one in the future once more programs switch over to the quads. And, you can always upgrade ram...
 
for gaming the dual core is better because its higher clocked.

for multi threaded apps (CS4 etc. video editing etc.) a quad core is better

i would personally go for the RAM. you cant ever have enough RAM (well no. but 6GB is better for most apps than 4GB)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top