The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Processor speed vs. RAM (Edited: Swappable?)
dotcomse
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
OK, so I'm looking into getting a laptop, and I have a couple questions regarding processor speeds and RAM. I'm looking to strike a nice balance between cost and raw power, because I already have a desktop sufficient to do things I might not be able to on the laptop.
The most intensive programs I can think I'll wanna run are Firefox and iTunes. This bad boy is mostly for doing schoolwork, browsing the internet, and maybe watching the occasional DVD. I'm looking to run XP Pro, and upgrade to Vista Business when that comes out (incidentally, I'm sort of set on XP Pro because I understand that it's easier to network between computers running XP Pro, and that's what's on my desktop, but is it worth an add'l $130?). I realize that sounds like I might need not too much power, but if I expect to own this thing for 4 years and want it to run hassle-free doing the above things, I want to max it out until I hit my budget ceiling (no higher than $1400).
I'm looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo processors:
T5600 (1.83GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB) (+$56)
T7200 (2.00GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB) (+$112)
T5200 (1.60GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB) (base)
I'm not sure what the practical difference is between 1.60GHz and 2.00GHz. Furthermore (more importantly), what is the difference between a 2MB and a 4MB cache, and what is the difference between 533 MHz front side bus and 667 MHz?
In regards to RAM:
1 GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 533MHz
1 GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 667MHz (+$37)
2 GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 667MHz (+$138)
Is the different speed of two sets of the same size of RAM noticeable? I'm not too sure about the 2 GB, but I understand that if I want to run something processor-hungry (photoshopping stuff?), I go high-processor, and if I want to run a lot of little things (iTunes, MSWord, Firefox, maybe AOL) concurrently, RAM is the more important number. I also wonder if 2 is overkill considering the constraint on the processor speed; I might have too much RAM and no power to push it around.
EDIT: Does anybody know in general that status of Dell's optical drives regarding swappability? If I eventually want to upgrade to something else, are they still basically modular? Or, if I'm just typing a paper or something, can I put a secondary battery into the drive bay?
Any thoughts would be appreciated!
The most intensive programs I can think I'll wanna run are Firefox and iTunes. This bad boy is mostly for doing schoolwork, browsing the internet, and maybe watching the occasional DVD. I'm looking to run XP Pro, and upgrade to Vista Business when that comes out (incidentally, I'm sort of set on XP Pro because I understand that it's easier to network between computers running XP Pro, and that's what's on my desktop, but is it worth an add'l $130?). I realize that sounds like I might need not too much power, but if I expect to own this thing for 4 years and want it to run hassle-free doing the above things, I want to max it out until I hit my budget ceiling (no higher than $1400).
I'm looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo processors:
T5600 (1.83GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB) (+$56)
T7200 (2.00GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB) (+$112)
T5200 (1.60GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB) (base)
I'm not sure what the practical difference is between 1.60GHz and 2.00GHz. Furthermore (more importantly), what is the difference between a 2MB and a 4MB cache, and what is the difference between 533 MHz front side bus and 667 MHz?
In regards to RAM:
1 GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 533MHz
1 GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 667MHz (+$37)
2 GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 667MHz (+$138)
Is the different speed of two sets of the same size of RAM noticeable? I'm not too sure about the 2 GB, but I understand that if I want to run something processor-hungry (photoshopping stuff?), I go high-processor, and if I want to run a lot of little things (iTunes, MSWord, Firefox, maybe AOL) concurrently, RAM is the more important number. I also wonder if 2 is overkill considering the constraint on the processor speed; I might have too much RAM and no power to push it around.
EDIT: Does anybody know in general that status of Dell's optical drives regarding swappability? If I eventually want to upgrade to something else, are they still basically modular? Or, if I'm just typing a paper or something, can I put a secondary battery into the drive bay?
Any thoughts would be appreciated!
dotcomse on
0
Posts
So what is the point of spending all that money? I don't think most of the consumers who have computers that fast do anything any more intensive than what I want to... The only thing I can think of that is really above what I want to do is new games and multimedia editing, and most people who have laptops don't do that. I'm reminded of how fast my desktop USED to be; It used to only take less than 30 seconds to be usable upon boot, and now it takes well over 2 minutes. Everything used to be snappy-fast - now there's a bit of a delay between clicking on an App and having it open. I want that speed for the sake of convenience and sanity. And further, I'd like to take advantage of Vista, and I think with lower-end specs, it'll run like molasses.
Oh, and I'm somewhat partial to a newer chassis, because the MediaDirect button seems pretty neat, and I think it's new-ish, and I also think that the Core 2 Duos are getting props for being leaps and bounds over even the original Core Duos. From what I understand, the difference even between those two newest generations is very noticable, and so I'm partial to stick myself into that realm to ensure that I retain that sanity I spoke of earlier when running Firefox (which is a goddamn power hog), iTunes (which is a goddamn power hog), and an advanced, pretty-to-look-at OS (which is a goddamned power hog), and, possibly, even a Google Earth type program (which, as you can guess, is a goddamned power hog). Maybe the answer is that I don't need to run Google Earth, and I don't need those pretty OS graphics, but the fact is that I actually think $1400 is pretty reasonable for a small, light laptop that has a 4-year idiot proof warranty.
The practical difference between 1.6GHZ and 2.0GHz? Not much.
But that's not really what you're paying that extra money for. You want the very nice 4MB L2 cache, which is by far a significant improvement over a 2MB cache.
The difference between a 533MHz FSB and a 667MHz FSB is just that.
It's just overall a superior processor, but certainly not necessary if you don't plan to be anything heavy on your laptop.
As far as RAM goes, get whichever one corresponds with the CPU you choose FSB. There's nothing sexier then knowing that nothing on your laptop/desktop is bottlenecking you. (ie, too slow RAM, too slow CPU, etc.)
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
Core 2 duos are very, very nice processors. Core 2 duos are probably more processing power than you need for firefox and iTunes by a factor of ten. In my (admittedly very unscientific) opinion, processors of the Pentium 4 generation and equivalent AMD surpassed the response-time requirements of regular users and everything since then has been meaningless. You're right about the vast majority of users not taking advantage of the features that current-generation computers provide.
This is what advertising is for.
And the sluggishness of your present machine has nothing to do with your hardware; it's the gradual accumulation of software that runs on startup (intentional [printer drivers, mouse drivers, iPod drivers, quicktime, p2p programs, etc] and unintentional [virii, adware, misc malware]) that causes the seeming "slowdown" effect of older computers. If you're anal about installing things and keep careful controls to avert malware exposure, you'll never see it. If you're like me, and download whatever seems like a good idea at the time, you just back up what you need and reformat every six months.
That speed has absolutely nothing to do with your hardware, and rather a lot to do with spyware or lots of benign but unnecessary services starting at boot.
If you need a high-end Core Duo 2 and two gigs of DDR2 RAM to get Vista to be responsive, I'm right proper fucked. I very much doubt that's the case, though.
./shrug. It's your money. For what it's worth, I payed about $1200 for my desktop last summer, which video card aside is significantly less powerful than the machine you're describing, and I can run World of Warcraft, Firefox, iTunes, Trillian, and uTorrent without noticing significant slowdown.
Right, and as far as I can tell, my computer is spyware free (I have, until recently, had both the Windows Firewall, plus a McAfee Firewall running, in addition to hardware firewall through router, as well as AOL Antispyware and Windows Defender running periodically). I have the tray minimized to my WAN utility, an AOL thing I can't get rid of (easily), and volume. I don't know what else I can disable, and, frankly, I'm too lazy to go through each of the enygmatically named startup services to see which are integral - there's too many that have very similar names to know which among them are important, and which are redundant.
Accordingly, I want to be able to compute in SPITE of all of those slowdowns, because I think that, considering the proactivity on my part, they're all-but-inevitable.
I've done a little reading since I posted, and I've come to the realization that XP Pro is just that - made for Pros and not really for home users. I'd like to be able to network my computers so that they can share with each other, but it appears that that is possible with Home. And I suspect that many of the options Pro gives you are powered by many of the very services I'm having trouble turning off, so that would kill two birds (i.e., including price discrepancy) with one stone. Any reason why I'm wrong about the (lack of) usefullness of Pro in a home setting?
I do VERY MUCH appreciate your input though!
I still don't know what the hell the difference between the two is. Though I haven't used home in over a year, admittedly.
I have 3 PC's running on my home network, 1 with Pro and two with Home.
The networking setup was ahhh...plug them all into the router.
That is all.
They all see each other and share files no problem.
You're just dumping money into the system in an attempt to delay the inevitable. Throwing more hardware at the problem isn't going to fix it, so you've got two options:
1. Take better care of the system every day (most of the crap running in the background doesn't show up in the systray, but rather just runs as a process). This includes defragging when needed.
2. Backup your data and wipe the HDD every 6 months.
Everything else will ultimately be fruitless.
As for the differences between XP Pro and Home, I'm running Pro right now (yay for MSDN), and the only thing it really has is remote desktop. If your only concern it networking, you're fine with Home.
http://www.thelostworlds.net/
Yes, but since his goal is to connect two computers, rather than run a webserver off his laptop, I don't think that'll be a problem.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
So, yeah. Just ask yourself that, guy, and make the choice.
I personally enjoy future-proofing, but that's because I do a lot of goofy projects.
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
I decided on the 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo 533MHz FSB with the 1GB 533MHz RAM. Hopefully that'll be all I'll need. And I got Media Center because Pro didn't sounds worth the extra $150. Also, apparently Vista Home Premium has a lot of apps that Business doesn't that I actually WOULD use, so I decided I'd go that route rather than pay for something I didn't need so that I could upgrade to something that wasn't complete. :?
Thanks for the help everybody. I suppose I'm gonna have to just resign myself to the possibility that re-formatting is an inevitability... When you do that, do you just take the unreplacable docs (papers, music, videos and such) and that's it? So, basically... put the My Documents folder on an external HDD and let 'er rip? Still seems like kind of a hassle to reinstall everything and tweak all of my settings back, but I guess you benefit from that with the speed. It's hard to say whether or not I'll like doing that though cause, like I said, unless these startup services are remnants of stuff I've already deleted, I would think I have pared down and uninstalled most of the stuff I don't need. If I DL iTunes, I'll get Quicktime and all those iPod manager services, for example, and be right back where I started. Which services are we talking about exactly that you actually accumulate but aren't useful to, say, Firefox, iTunes, and any XP Service Packs?