CPU vs Memory

In a compromise situation is is better to have a cpu rated at 1.6GHz or 1 GB memory
23 answers Last reply
More about memory
  1. We'll need more information than that. What are the options being considered?
  2. At the end of the day, you need both cpu and memory to run a pc, you cant compare what you said in general, there has to be a specific situation.
  3. blazorthon said:
    We'll need more information than that. What are the options being considered?


    I am thinking of buying a second hand pc

    I see two pc's, but both have weaknesses

    One has 1 GB memory, the other 1.8GHz cpu speed

    The other specifications are acceptable.

    Given the choice, which is the better buy.

    Use: Office applications, Internet/Web, audio, video applications, etc
  4. I don't know because you aren't telling me the actual CPU specifications except the clock speed of one choice and the RAM capacity of another. Just so you know, neither RAM capacity nor CPU clock speed are direct indicators for an answer to your question. CPU clock speed is in no way a direct indicator for CPU performance (for example, an old P4 at almost 4GHz is still way slower than a new $40 Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Celeron at about 2GHz) nor do I have any idea what type of memory either system has.

    If I had to guess based on what little info that you have provided, it'd seem like either system can do the jobs that you stated since none of those are at all intensive work, but I can't make a guarantee since I don't even know what to expect from these systems because I don't know what they have.
  5. It seems to me that if I have to make a choice then I should choose to have less RAM, because I can always add modules.

    At present, I am considering towers on ebay and will probably have to make a quick decision. I now realise though that type of CPU is clearly important. I was only judging the speed, but design seems to be more important.
  6. A couple of comparisons

    Intel Core 2 Duo @1.86 GHz
    2GB DDR2


    Intel Pentium 4 @3.06GHz

    1 GB DDR2
  7. That's good enough info, thank you, I can help with this.

    Go for option one. The second one is worse. Pentium 4 is a very old and weak CPU. It has a higher clock frequency than the Core 2 Duo, but the Core 2 Duo has much higher performance at a given clock frequency and it has double the core count along with more memory. There's no incentive for the system with the Pentium 4 CPU.
  8. Intel Core 2 Duo @1.86 GHz
  9. 1gb is not sufficient for anything these days.
    2gb is barely so.
    A lack of ram will look to you like a lack of cpu capability when the pc needs to resolve a page fault.
    Before you consider any cpu, you MUST have sufficient ram for your needs.

    Unfortunately DDR2 ram is getting to be more expensive since it has been superceeded by DDR3.

    In this case, I would pick the slower cpu with the 2gb of ram.

    It turns out that a core 2 duo is a more modern cpu, and even at 1.86 it is much more capable than the old pentium 4.
    The duo has a passmark rating of 2181 compared to the pentium 4 at 359.
  10. geofelt said:
    1gb is not sufficient for anything these days.
    2gb is barely so.
    A lack of ram will look to you like a lack of cpu capability when the pc needs to resolve a page fault.
    Before you consider any cpu, you MUST have sufficient ram for your needs.

    Unfortunately DDR2 ram is getting to be more expensive since it has been superceeded by DDR3.

    In this case, I would pick the slower cpu with the 2gb of ram.

    It turns out that a core 2 duo is a more modern cpu, and even at 1.86 it is much more capable than the old pentium 4.
    The duo has a passmark rating of 2181 compared to the pentium 4 at 359.



    My needs are quite basic, so the better processor is probably the best option. In addition, I can add more RAM.
  11. I can't edit my previous reply.

    I think I have made a mistake in my comment. The better processor has the most RAM installed in the tower
  12. Pentium 4 is obviously not a good CPU

    What about

    Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHz and 1 GB of RAM

    and

    Intel Pentium D 3.00 GHz x2 and 1GB of RAM
  13. 1gb of ram cant rlly even really run an OS, core 2 duo is again newer and 2gb is def better lol, P4<PD<C2D
  14. Pentium D is just a dual-core version of Pentium 4. It's still much weaker than Core 2 Duo.
  15. Pentium D is better from the P4 as its not a single core with HT lol but just because its a dual core like core 2 duo doesnt make the higher clock speed of the pentium d better than the C2D
  16. blazorthon said:
    Pentium D is just a dual-core version of Pentium 4. It's still much weaker than Core 2 Duo.


    Thank you
  17. 1GB of RAMs is actually tolerable with WinXP (if that matters)
  18. How about the Athlon processors such as AMD Athlon 64 2.6 GHz?

    Are HP and Compaq computers the same sort of architecture as Dell, ie, IBM campatible?

    I assume that all monitors and powercords have the same tower connections?

    Is there a site where I can compare processors?

    Thanks
  19. You can get a New pc for your needs for 500$, trust me ^^
  20. anon_private said:
    How about the Athlon processors such as AMD Athlon 64 2.6 GHz?

    Are HP and Compaq computers the same sort of architecture as Dell, ie, IBM campatible?

    I assume that all monitors and powercords have the same tower connections?

    Is there a site where I can compare processors?

    Thanks


    One site where you can get a gross measure of cpu capabilities is passmark. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

    The Athlon 2.6 has a passmark rating of 1317, considerably worse than the duo 1.86 which is 2181.

    Monitor powercords are largely standard.
    But different monitors will have different types of inputs and associated signal cords.
    They must match one of the outputs on the graphics adapter on the pc.

    What are you trying to accomplish by these lines of questions?
    Perhaps we can better solve your problem.
  21. Computers nowadays are not IBM-compatible anymore. Dell, HP, and such are all compatible because they use the same hardware, but IBM uses different stuff nowadays. You won't see any current IBM systems that are compatible with modern consumer computers.

    Normally, I'd say that since Passmark is a synthetic, it's generally not very good at actually comparing CPUs, but in this case, it's at least somewhat correct. The Athlon 64 CPUs are all older single core CPUs. Nothing short of a decent Athlon 64 X2 (the dual-core variant of Athlon 64) will touch a Core 2 Duo such as the one that you're looking at.
  22. Passmark has a known bias against AMD in their benchmarks, but the Core 2 Duo is likely the way to go if it is the cheapest.

    The bottom line: For **Office applications, Internet/Web** you can go any way, but with your budget any decent audio/video performance is simply out of your reach as they are highly dependent on multiple cores (beyond 2, that is ... )
  23. geofelt said:
    One site where you can get a gross measure of cpu capabilities is passmark. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

    The Athlon 2.6 has a passmark rating of 1317, considerably worse than the duo 1.86 which is 2181.

    Monitor powercords are largely standard.
    But different monitors will have different types of inputs and associated signal cords.
    They must match one of the outputs on the graphics adapter on the pc.

    What are you trying to accomplish by these lines of questions?
    Perhaps we can better solve your problem.



    These lines of questions are designed to increase my understanding.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Memory