Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 80447	2007-06-23 12:20:00	Let's build a PC (June 2007)	Metla (12)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
562203	2007-09-16 01:10:00	:confused: . . . . . . a 2 . 3GHz processor? This is where I get lost, and I've noticed it a bit lately . My desktop is about 3-4 years old, and has a 3GHz processor in it . Biggest I could afford at the time . Working on the (misguided?) assumption that more is better, why would a 2 . 3GHz processor be recommended, here and in other threads? I note a lot of games these days ask for a 4 . 2GHz as recommended specs . George12 . . . . . why would a processor that size be a current "favourite" spec? What does 1 . 33GHz FSB mean? Is the total size of the processor 3 . 6GHz? :confused: Cheers . Not exactly something thats new, for many years AMD's CPUs ran at speeds considerably slower than Intel's yet produced similar if not better performance . A simple search on Wikipedia or Google will give you the technical reasons behind the faster lower clocked CPUs, but the simple answer is all to do with efficiency . With the P4 Intel sacrificed efficiency for clock speeds, with the intention that they could just keep on increasing the speed of the CPU when more performance was needed . Whereas AMD tried to squeeze as much performance out of each clock cycle . As you probably know Intel found out it wasn't that easy to simply keep increasing the clock speed because of power loss and heat issues, thus the new Core 2 Duo's run at lower clock speeds but offer superior performance even when compared with the fastest Pentium .	Pete O'Neil (6584)
562204	2007-09-16 07:29:00	You guys rock. I joined up to this forum today to ask about building a new PC, and this thread alone has helped heaps!! And iv also wondered about the question above, Iv been on several friends computers, that have 2.8ghz+ computers, thinking they would blow me away, and theyre slow as! Didnt even compare to my 4-5 year old "State Of The Art" (2003..lol) athlon 1800+ w/ 512mb SDRAM.. Always had me puzzled.. Anyways, just wanted to says thanks! ;)	Damz (10942)
562205	2007-09-16 07:36:00	:confused: . . . . . . a 2 . 3GHz processor? This is where I get lost, and I've noticed it a bit lately . My desktop is about 3-4 years old, and has a 3GHz processor in it . Biggest I could afford at the time . Working on the (misguided?) assumption that more is better, why would a 2 . 3GHz processor be recommended, here and in other threads? I note a lot of games these days ask for a 4 . 2GHz as recommended specs . George12 . . . . . why would a processor that size be a current "favourite" spec? What does 1 . 33GHz FSB mean? Is the total size of the processor 3 . 6GHz? :confused: Cheers . Yours would be a P4, George is talking about a cpu that has two cores on the same chip, so in effect that would be 2 2 . 3ghz	plod (107)
562206	2007-09-17 01:51:00	Yours would be a P4, George is talking about a cpu that has two cores on the same chip, so in effect that would be 2 2.3ghz Its not quite that simple, if the piece of software your using is multi threaded then you could think of it like that but it would still be unlikely to offer a 100% performance gain. The majority of current software is still single threaded and thus the second core has little affect. If Windows(or your OS of choice) is setup correctly you can have one core running application and the other running Windows in the background, thus gaining a small performance gain. Multi core CPU in general don't offer a huge performance gain, but do make multitasking a much more enjoyable process and are more future proof. Considering how cheap dual cores are and the lack of high end single core CPUs there is no reason not to get a dual core. The Core 2 Duos gain there performance advantage from being more efficient not from the second core.	Pete O'Neil (6584)
562207	2007-09-17 03:21:00	Its not quite that simple, if the piece of software your using is multi threaded then you could think of it like that but it would still be unlikely to offer a 100% performance gain. The majority of current software is still single threaded and thus the second core has little affect. If Windows(or your OS of choice) is setup correctly you can have one core running application and the other running Windows in the background, thus gaining a small performance gain. Multi core CPU in general don't offer a huge performance gain, but do make multitasking a much more enjoyable process and are more future proof. Considering how cheap dual cores are and the lack of high end single core CPUs there is no reason not to get a dual core. The Core 2 Duos gain there performance advantage from being more efficient not from the second core. Correct, a lot of my software uses both cores, well according to my menu meters. Had one application using about 80% of each core. And yes I do know that the core 2 duos are a more efficient chip then the P4	plod (107)
562208	2007-09-21 05:52:00	Hi, For the system that george12 described on the last page, what ram would best go with that? Or does any ram fit any mobo? If thats the case, can you please suggest a good brand? And how much for decent gaming, 2gb, 4 gb? Thanks again	Damz (10942)
562209	2007-09-21 07:53:00	Hi, For the system that george12 described on the last page, what ram would best go with that? Or does any ram fit any mobo? If thats the case, can you please suggest a good brand? And how much for decent gaming, 2gb, 4 gb? Thanks again I can't believe I forgot the RAM in that system! 2GB of DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 is what I'd put in . Any DDR2 RAM will work in that motherboard . I recommend A-data for good value and good quality, but Transcend will be fine if that saves you a lot of money . Don't get anything that the shop can't name the brand of or calls 'generic' . If you want to spend more money for better RAM, something like Corsair is good, but I didn't really design the computer with this sort of user in mind . A-data or Transcend will be fine at around $60-85 per 1GB stick . Use 2x 1GB sticks, not a single 2GB stick, because you need two sticks to run it in dual channel mode (faster), and realistically you won't be putting 8GB in it, ever (there are four slots) .	george12 (7)
562210	2007-09-21 08:44:00	Thanks alot george . A-data it is, iv read alot of opinions that say top of the line RAM isnt necessary so that sounds great, and very cheap! :o And would there be any point in having more than 2GB? One last thing and I think ill be good to go, which P5K mobo should I run with? I cant tell the differences . pricespy . co . nz/search . php?q=p5k&all=0" target="_blank">www . pricespy . co . nz Theres 6 options just under the search bar, If you could pick one, i'd be thrilled! Thanks bud	Damz (10942)
562211	2007-09-21 10:10:00	Hi The one you want is the plain P5K (may be called P5K green). This will be the second cheapest model, the cheapest being the P5K SE. There's not much point having more than 2GB of RAM in this system, except if you are using it for certain extremely demanding multitasking applications, such as dealing with multiple massive images simultaneously in Photoshop while running other memory-intensive programs. You need to be using the RAM for it to be any use.	george12 (7)
562212	2007-09-21 10:20:00	Awesome, makes sense to me. Thanks alot, saves me alot of searching/comparing/hassle!! :thumbs:	Damz (10942)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12