Windows 7 - CPU advice being sort.

I currently have a Foxconn 45GM mobo in my PC with a Pentium 2200 Dual core CPU, the mobo is only 32 bit so although I have 4GB of RAM only 3.25 is usable.

I was going to buy this mobo ASUSTeK Computer Inc. as it will support up to 16GB of RAM.

I am not a gamer so I don't need a power PC at the moment, and my RAM is normally at about 35% when I perform my tasks. The CPU often and quite easily gets up to 100% and as a result my PC is laggy and quite un responsive.

What I wanted to know is would a Pentium Dual Core E6600 3.06GHz which costs about £65 offer much of an improvement on what I already have or would I have to go for a something like a Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz which costs about £140, and would there be much of an improvement also.

In a nutshell what I want to know is, is it worth buying a new CPU and MOBO to breath some life into my PC or just not bother and wait a few years until I can afford a much more powerfull mobo CPU combo?

The E6600 would probably do what you want. But stay away from the Q6600. That is a real slowpoke. I have one of those and it is slower than my 2.5GHz duo core.

Thanks for the advice, but can you explain the logic behind that, not that I doubt you, how can a cpu that has 4 cores be slower than a cpu that has 2 cores?

I would say that if an application is not designed to take advantage of multiple cores then the dual core would be faster than the quad core because it clock speed per core is faster. If the app is designed to take advantage of 4 cores then the quad core would be much faster. That is why today's newer CPU's have boosting technology so if an app doesn't take advantage of the multiple cores it boosts the 1st core to speed up the apps.

Edit: Yes you will see a noticeable difference between what you have now and the upgrade you are thinking of doing. The E6600 will be a huge improvement over the CPU you are using now. If you can afford to get a I3 or I5 processor and mobo that would be your best bet and it would be more future proof.

I think it is because most programs do not use 4 cores - nor does the system. I have seen only very few programs that make use of the 4 cores - e.g. video editing. I have a core meter in my sidebar (the Vista style) and can see at all times how much is going on in the cores.
In addition you should know that the Q6600 was one of the first quads that came out. So it is pretty old and not very optimal.

So as the Q6600 is one of the lower end quad core CPU's unless I spend a lot of money then it aint worth it and as housry23 stated the E6600 will give my PC the kick of life it needs.

Thanks guys.

I think that you should definately go with the E6600. You will get the noticed improvement you need. I would rather have two cores running at 3.06GHz that four, which won't all be in use, running at 2.4GHz.


Essentially you are choosing between 2.4 vs 3.06 and since you are not using all of your RAM you are not running any software that would need two additional cores. Plus your saving money AND getting better performance!

I think you got it right. BugOutMachine also summarized it well in his post.

This is exactly it. People are so drawn to quad cores and they like to assume that everything will just use all 4...and that is simply not the case more often than not.

Once again thanks people, this forum is by far the best computer forum I have ever been on, and the reasons are as follows:

1. The people who use this forum are all very knowledgable, and as such you get good advice 100% of the time. If you go to other forums the people don't have a clue and just speculate and give un qualified advice.

2. The people in the know who use this forum will give you the advantage of their knowledge, too many
people on other forums seem to gaurd their knowledge as they seem to want to keep people from learning.

3. It doesn't take too long to get the advice and information you need.

VIVA Windows 7 forums!

Accept my apologies for digressing