CPU advice being sort.

[BomberAF]

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?

 

[whs]

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.

 

[BomberAF]

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?

 

[housry23]

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.

 

[whs]

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.

 

[BomberAF]

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.

 

[BugOutMachine]

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!

 

[whs]

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

 

[pparks1]

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.

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.

 

[BomberAF]

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

 

[whs]

Very nicely said, thanks. Yes, we try to help.

 

[steve-pressman]

It is also a great place to learn stuff too, even things I know nothing about intrigue me and I learn a little each day from our experts



Steve

 

[bobkn]

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.

One thing I haven't seen in the thread: what's your application?

If it's gaming, the fastest CPU clock may be what you need. I've seen tests of existing games that show essentially no advantage to having more than 2 cores. If it's appplications that can use multiple threads (Photoshop, video editing, CAD), get a quad core.

You might get a small performance gain if you could use a Core2 CPU rather than a dual core Pentium. The Core2 has a larger cache. (Caching is used to overcome the limited speed of the system RAM.)

I had a Q6600. I didn't find it to be a slug, but overclocking helped. However, it's an old chip, and it may not even be available at retail in the USA any more. If memory serves, the Q6600 may have used two dies; the newer quads use one, and may give better performance as a result.

I get pleasure from complicating other people's decisions, if it's not obvious.

 

[BugOutMachine]

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

Thanks!

I also agree that this forum has the most knowledgeable group of people when it comes to Windows related questions and you can gain quite a wealth of information here. When I was preparing to switch from Vista to 7 I started reading the Tutorials on the site. When I actually installed 7 and had questions I created a user account. I now visit the site every day and almost always learn something new or am able to pass along my knowledge to another member of the community. It's very satisfying to be a participant on a forum with such a great collective group of individuals from all walks of life and all of whom have knowledge in one area or another, whether it be software, hardware or nitty gritty technical info.

You can never go wrong when you post a question and are given an answer on SevenForums!

 

[BomberAF]

What performance improvement would a core 2 duo E4400 give me, they cost about £90 so would one of them be better that the dual core, or am I best sticking with the E6600?

 

[whs]

The E4400 is a 2GHz processor. That is no barnstormer. For Internet and office applications it is probably OK.

 

[BomberAF]

The E4400 is a 2GHz processor. That is no barnstormer. For Internet and office applications it is probably OK.

So I should stick with the E6600.

 

[bobkn]

The E4400 is a 2GHz processor. That is no barnstormer. For Internet and office applications it is probably OK.

So I should stick with the E6600.

Unquestionably.

Pentium E6600:

Intel® Pentium® Processor E6600 (2M Cache, 3.06 GHz, 1066 FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLGUG

(3.06GHz, 2MB cache, 1066MHz FSB, 45nm, 65W, no hyperthreading, introduced 2010)

Core2 Duo E4400:

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E4400 (2M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLA3F, SLA98

(2.0GHz, 2MB cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm, 65W, no hyperthreading, introduced 2007)

 

[BomberAF]

The E4400 is a 2GHz processor. That is no barnstormer. For Internet and office applications it is probably OK.

So I should stick with the E6600.

Unquestionably.

Pentium E6600:

Intel® Pentium® Processor E6600 (2M Cache, 3.06 GHz, 1066 FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLGUG

(3.06GHz, 2MB cache, 1066MHz FSB, 45nm, 65W, no hyperthreading, introduced 2010)

Core2 Duo E4400:

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E4400 (2M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLA3F, SLA98

(2.0GHz, 2MB cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm, 65W, no hyperthreading, introduced 2007)

So how do they justify charging you more for less?

 

[whs]

So how do they justify charging you more for less?

Good question. I assume it is a supply matter. This is a relatively old processor (which does not mean that it is not good) and maybe they have a surplus in their stock. But I am only guessing.