Partial computer, need fillers.

[gamerman4]

Its a computer for his mom. Shes not going to have 20 youtube videos open at one time while watching a 1080p video, listening to 20 songs, playing solitaire and tetris while running F@H.
Save $50 and get an E7300. My moms computer has an E2180 and it loads programs just as fast as my computer. It loads 8 megapixel photos just as fast and does everything normal just as fast as my computer. Even 4GB of RAM is overkill, RAM is cheap enough that 4GB is fine though but shes still not going to need it. Heck, save $110 and get an E2180. Modern CPUs have pretty much evolved to the point that average things go as fast as possible, if you really want to speed up browsing and opening photos then get an SSD.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

WRONG! The higher clock will beat the quad! Besides I just proved a point AND! I accidently turned my overclocking off!!! I would go with a single core... so your telling me the average person will do more multi-tasking then ME???

http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/Dark_Ownage/?action=view&current=multitasking-1.jpg

and I forgot to put on my movie!!! aww shux it increased my processor usage by 1 percent.

 

[kookooshortman55]

No, which is why I said "Either a low or high clocked dual core would probably be perfect for her."

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

No, which is why I said "Either a low or high clocked dual core would probably be perfect for her."

look at my screenshot with my core 2 duo at 2.33 ghz... do you think she will be using adobe premiere cs3 25 ie7s 2 paints mine sweeper spore counter strike source and word document opened all at ounce?? I say go with a single core.

 

[gamerman4]

look at my screenshot with my core 2 duo at 2.33 ghz... do you think she will be using adobe premiere cs3 25 ie7s 2 paints mine sweeper spore counter strike source and word document opened all at ounce?? I say go with a single core.

Why get a single core? Dual cores are so cheap it would be stupid to get a single. Most single-core CPUs available now are crappy budget CPUs with tiny L2 caches.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Okay even you said that multitasking only uses RAM. I'm sure you didn't load all that up at the same time with a max load of 4%. My CPU shoots to 55% when loading Photoshop and I have a dual 2.6GHz. You don't have to convince me of anything so there's no point in arguing. Either a single core or an average dual would be fine for her. 2 options for the OP is good enough.

Although I still lean towards getting a dual core.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Okay even you said that multitasking only uses RAM. I'm sure you didn't load all that up at the same time with a max load of 4%. My CPU shoots to 55% when loading Photoshop and I have a dual 2.6GHz. You don't have to convince me of anything so there's no point in arguing. Either a single core or an average dual would be fine for her. 2 options for the OP is good enough.

Your right when I opened everything all at ounce it went to 40-55% opening all of that... I did it real quick. I will record it if you want it took less then half of my processor to load all of that virtually at ounce.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Why get a single core? Dual cores are so cheap it would be stupid to get a single. Most single-core CPUs available now are crappy budget CPUs with tiny L2 caches.

It's hard to get good single cores any more so your right, but that's just a shitty excuse to make everybody spend more unnecessary money. If they stuck single core we would be able to buy 4.5ghz single cores for 150 bux. But they needed a new excuse to jack up the price.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Thatt'sss great. Haha virtually, half a second after loading Firefox, it takes up 0% of my CPU. x20 is still 0. When loading Firefox, it goes up 3%, and my finger can't move fast enough to click 40 times in one instant. Either way, it's still just a matter of preference. 2.0GHz single is $53, 2.0GHz dual is $63 so it's not really a money issue. It's not always about what we need either. For $10 more and double the performance, I would want the dual core.

 

[gamerman4]

It's hard to get good single cores any more so your right, but that's just a shitty excuse to make everybody spend more unnecessary money. If they stuck single core we would be able to buy 4.5ghz single cores for 150 bux. But they needed a new excuse to jack up the price.

Actually dual cores were the next logical step. Programs optimized for multi-threading run much faster than super high clocked single-core CPUs. Threads running simultaneously will always be a more efficient way to process things. For an example just play Supreme Commander with a single-core CPU and then change to a dual-core, huge difference.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Multiple cores screw everything up it's only good with new software and games but it messes up and does not benefit any of my old stuff so I don't care! Hrmph! my 4.5 ghz single core will pwn your 2.3 ghz quad any day.

 

[kookooshortman55]

It's hard to get good single cores any more so your right, but that's just a shitty excuse to make everybody spend more unnecessary money. If they stuck single core we would be able to buy 4.5ghz single cores for 150 bux. But they needed a new excuse to jack up the price.

I see your point but technically, you would need either a really nice water cooling setup or phase change/liquid nitrogen to keep it from exploding.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Multiple cores screw everything up it's only good with new software and games but it messes up and does not benefit any of my old stuff so I don't care! Hrmph! my 4.5 ghz single core will pwn your 2.3 ghz quad any day.

Haha well I don't have a 2.3 quad soooo . . .
What do you mean by saying multi cores screw everything up? When WCIII came out, I was running it on a single 3.2GHz. Now I run it on a dual 2.6GHz. I don't see any huge decrease in performance.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Haha well I don't have a 2.3 quad soooo . . .
What do you mean by saying multi cores screw everything up? When WCIII came out, I was running it on a single 3.2GHz. Now I run it on a dual 2.6GHz. I don't see any huge decrease in performance.

THe real question is do you see a huge increase in performance? I don't.

 

[gamerman4]

Multiple cores screw everything up it's only good with new software and games but it messes up and does not benefit any of my old stuff so I don't care! Hrmph! my 4.5 ghz single core will pwn your 2.3 ghz quad any day.

im sure your 4.5ghz single core couldn't even begin to encode HD video as fast as my 3.2ghz quad, even at stock 2.4 a 4.5 ghz single core couldn't. multithreaded processing is much more efficient than singlethreaded processing.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Actually dual cores were the next logical step. Programs optimized for multi-threading run much faster than super high clocked single-core CPUs. Threads running simultaneously will always be a more efficient way to process things. For an example just play Supreme Commander with a single-core CPU and then change to a dual-core, huge difference.

Shure it's the next logical step but in reality it would be better off to enhance what already exists. Because it's like knocking down the card house to start all over again with a "better deck of cards" I would rather just have a real big card house mansion.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Yeah, unless it's knocked down to make the walls twice as strong so my house doesn't collapse whenever someone sneezes

It's interesting to see where this is going hahaha.

 

[kookooshortman55]

THe real question is do you see a huge increase in performance? I don't.

That makes no sense. If you put a game that runs well on a single and put it on a dual, you will see no increase in performance because the dual is better. If I play Crysis maxed on a quad and then put it on a single, then you will see a decrease in performance.

 

[gamerman4]

Shure it's the next logical step but in reality it would be better off to enhance what already exists. Because it's like knocking down the card house to start all over again with a "better deck of cards" I would rather just have a real big card house mansion.

Well in reality, there is this thing called heat. It burns stuff. A 4.5Ghz single core at one time would have required extreme methods of cooling. Nowadays a 4ghz CPU is perfectly possible. a single core at 4Ghz runs fine, guess what so does a dual-core at 4Ghz, oh and so does a quad-core running at 4Ghz. Adding more cores to a CPU chip does not multiply your heat, it only adds a small bit so it is much better to add cores and speed them up than just speed up a single core.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Well in reality, there is this thing called heat. It burns stuff. A 4.5Ghz single core at one time would have required extreme methods of cooling. Nowadays a 4ghz CPU is perfectly possible. a single core at 4Ghz runs fine, guess what so does a dual-core at 4Ghz, oh and so does a quad-core running at 4Ghz. Adding more cores to a CPU chip does not multiply your heat, it only adds a small bit so it is much better to add cores and speed them up than just speed up a single core.

But the percent performance increase is slightly less then SLI/Crossfire slightly less then pathetic.