Is ghz what matters??

[toucansam3]

I have a very basic understanding of processors... Is there someone who can explain (or point me in the direction of some reading material) what to look for in a processor? What do you look for besides ghz? Is lack of processor speed the primary cause for sluggishness when using multiple programs? Sorry for all the questions, TIA

 

[KidHorn]

Ghz are important. To me the most important thing is the number of cores and then GHz.

 

[demonnn]

no ghz in not important. Architecture of the cpu is most important. an i7 at 1000mhz will outperform a core 2 due. i think ghz is important with the same generation/architecture of cpus

 

[bige420]

Cores is what adds the most to performance, but Ghz is important too. It varies between generation of cpus though. As Demonn said, a 3ghz i7 will outperform a 3ghz Core 2 quad, so architecture is very important.

 

[WR2]

It also depends on what programs you use and how you use them.
This could influence a suggestion to go with a fast dual core CPU. Or a slower, but quad core CPU if you're using a heavy mutlitasking workload.

There is also the side issue of processes running in the background that can have a lot to do with a PC appearing sluggish.

 

[shubham1401]

Why don't you just Google it?

You'll find much more than 2 Lines by each of us...

 

[l_r_c_t]

Recently an article just about this issue was published, but it's in Hebrew (if you happen to know Hebrew tell me, I'll you send it to you).

AS WR2 said, it depends on what are you going to use the computer for;
If it's for multitasking and working with programs that are capable to work with multiple core, go on the cores instead of the speed.
If it's for gaming, and software that uses the clock speed more than it uses multiple core go for the speed instead of cores.

Of course the general recommendation nowadays is 2 cores and more. And you are enough lucky to not be limited by a budget go for a quad core/I7 with a high clock speed.

 

[toucansam3]

Thanks everyone. I have been googling extensively, I'm in the market for a new 13" or 14" laptop as well a desktop/desktop replacement. I am not a heavy gamer, but I am looking for a laptop that can handle basic video editing. Any laptop I'm researching has Core 2 Duo T6500 or higher. I came across a P8400 and when looking into that found this forum (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/254263-28-difference-core-series). I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of what I should be looking for. Quad core sounds ideal, but without spending too much on the laptop (I'm looking for <1000), I'm assuming I'm going to have to stick to a Core 2 Duo processor.

 

[mindless728]

GHz
Cores
IPC (Instructions Per Clock)
Cache

(not necessarily this order)

 

[dannylivesforher]

Ghz are important. To me the most important thing is the number of cores and then GHz.

You must be joking....
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/405/AMD_Phenom_II_X2_560_BE_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-2100.html
Look at this comparison of AMD Phenom II X2 560 BE with Intel Core i3 2100.
Both has 2 cores,and Phenom has a better frequency of 3.3 GHz. Yet,look at that performance difference between the two. Phenom is nowhere near the i3's performance. So I'd say what matters is not just the Core number and CPU frequency. But what matters is,how the CPU performs.ie,it's efficiency.
Another example to justify my statement is AMD's Bulldozer and Intel's Ivy Bridge. Look at the way a Quad Core i5 or i7 beats the Octa Core FX CPUs,which has got a way better clock speed than the Intel's CPUs. So basically,core count and frequency,is NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING while going for a CPU. Eventhough,I'm not saying core number is nothing to consider while getting a CPU.Better core number will give you better multi-tasking performance.Yet,it's not the THING that decides a CPU's performance.

 

[mc962]

Thanks everyone. I have been googling extensively, I'm in the market for a new 13" or 14" laptop as well a desktop/desktop replacement. I am not a heavy gamer, but I am looking for a laptop that can handle basic video editing. Any laptop I'm researching has Core 2 Duo T6500 or higher. I came across a P8400 and when looking into that found this forum (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/254263-28-difference-core-series). I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of what I should be looking for. Quad core sounds ideal, but without spending too much on the laptop (I'm looking for <1000), I'm assuming I'm going to have to stick to a Core 2 Duo processor.

If it's only basic video editing then you probably won't need a hugely powerful cpu anyway. I was able to do basic video editing on my old lenovo z370 (it was slow and clunky, but it was also having other, unrelated issues).
It's also going to depend on what programs you use to edit; I think I remember that final cut is only for mac computers, so if you use that then it might be something to consider.
I would take a look at the lenovo y410p. It comes with an i7 4700mq, and would probably cover you for what you need. Price for the computer starts at around $780: http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/ideapad/y-series/y410p/