cpu ?

[oldman]

Simple question. Take it easy on me, I'm old and out of date. My cell phone measures about 10x4x3. 

When a dual core processor is listed as dual core 1.6ghz 1gb cache, does that mean 1.6ghz total or 1.6 each core?

Compared to a single core 3.4ghz 2gb cache, which way to go?

Please use small words.

[DavidR]

The 1.6 Ghz is the speed that each of the cores is capable of running at.

It isn't easy to directly compare a dual core to a single core even if the single core chip has double (and a bit) the speed it may have much older architecture a smaller level 2 cache, etc. So even though it has a faster speed it may not be as good as the dual core chip.

The dual core is also better at the multi tasking as one core can be doing one thing whilst the other does another. Whilst this is also dependant on the software having been optimised for dual/multiple cores.

When more software is designed to take advantage of this then the quad cores will rule the roost. Until then the dual core is fine and the motherboard may also be able to support the quad core, you may however, have to upgrade the BIOS.

So the choice is simple, dual core over a dated single core, as they would probably offer a more cost effective upgrade path also.

[oldman]

Thanks DavidR. My mistake, cache is mb not gb

These are the three, I've been looking at.

$293
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.4 GHz Socket 775 651 2MB Cache HT Technology 
Motherboard: Foxconn 45CMX Motherboard

$267
Intel Pentium Dual Core E2140 1.6 GHz 1 MB (Shared) L2 Cache (Full Speed)
motherboard: ?

$329
Intel Core 2 Duo Conroe E4500 2.2GHz FSB 800, 2MB CPU
Foxconn 45CMX Motherboard

The rest of the box is pretty similar. OS ~$160

Opinions?

[Hard_ROCKER]

Hey oldman, take anything else just not option 1. P4 is crap ! Option 3 would be the best.

[Lisandro]

If you can, I bet on #3 as being the best.

[DavidR]

I echo the sentiment about P4. Fine if you are looking to heat your home in the winter (hot as hades) but not much on power for your money (that price is bad for old architecture). It would also need a huge heatsink and fan to keep it cool and would likely be more noisy as it would require high rpm to cool it.

Option 2 is very much the enter level for the core 2 duo now and the small shared cache would be a choke point in its processing power. This depending on the motherboard could be a good entry point though it doesn't say what the FSB is (the option 3 one being 800). This would give the option later to upgrade the cpu at a relatively reasonable cost. But if the option 3 is in your price range (given there may be other expenditure like RAM, etc.) it should give good service for longer without the need for upgrade, by then you may be looking at a different system as technology pushes on.

Option 3 is a better bang for your buck although the price is I think high when compared to the entry level option 2 (though there is no motherboard mentioned). By all accounts if you are feeling adventurous the E4500 is capable of a good gain through overclocking (usual disclaimers apply, this could fry your cpu, etc.).

[Hard_ROCKER]

I see the mobo is the same for option 1 and 3, maybe it's the same one in option 2 ?? ... Says on the web page it should theoretically go to 1333 fsb(with some OCing). Intel 945 + ICH7 chipset(been out for quite some time).

http://www.foxconnchannel.com/Product/Motherboards/detail_spec.aspx?ID=en-us0000341

I am not too keen on Foxconn mobos myself. Personally i would try to get a mobo with an intel 965 chipset or newer. These days mobos with intel 965 chipset are very cheap.  If you can switch mobos try to get something from Asus, Gigabyte or similar quality vendors. They have a whole bunch of entry level intel 965 mobos available for pretty good money.

[oldman]

Thanks guys. 3 it is.

[DavidR]

You're welcome, let us know how you get one with the new/upgraded (?) system.

[oldman]

You're welcome, let us know how you get one with the new/upgraded (?) system.

I take the (?) for the OS. Well I struggled with ME or Vista, Me or vista....settled on xp pro. Though I'm not sure you guys have tested it enough yet. It's only been 6-7 years.

BTW, all 3 are 2gb ram, option 2 is ddr though.

[Hard_ROCKER]

Hey oldman, you chose right. Especially the OS.

[DavidR]

You're welcome, let us know how you get one with the new/upgraded (?) system.

I take the (?) for the OS. Well I struggled with ME or Vista, Me or vista....settled on xp pro. Though I'm not sure you guys have tested it enough yet. It's only been 6-7 years.

BTW, all 3 are 2gb ram, option 2 is ddr though.

More to do with upgrading your new system how you find its performance in comparison with what you are using now, etc. However, the XP Pro choice is one I can agree with, still plenty of life left in that old dog yet

I'm considering upgrading my system or getting a new one and the biggest issue is getting XP Pro either installed or another retail version of XP Pro rather than Vista.

I would have though that all of them would have had DDR2 RAM as it is going to get harder to get DDR RAM as most is DDR2 or some starting to come with DDR3. So I guess that explains the price differential a little more.

[oldman]

DavidR, have you considered an OEM version of xp pro? It's cheaper and sometimes can be found bundled with a piece of hardware, like ram or an HG. May save you a few bucks if you are planning to build a system.

The drawback would be no RC, no repair install. The RC, I'm sure can be installed later if you chose and since you use disk imaging, that too shouldn't be a problem.

[DavidR]

Well I have, but that usually comes on a ready built system and I'm unimpressed with most of the big name builds. I have built (or upgraded/rebuilt) my last few systems and although system builders can legally buy an OEM version.

There doesn't seem to be the availability in the UK and where it is available they are a rip off and not much different from the retail cost. Also should I choose to I can install a retail version on another system provided I uninstall/format the old system version, you can't do that with OEM it is legally meant to be for that system only. I believe there is also an upgrade issue with OEM where you can get an upgrade with the retail version I don't believe that is the same with OEM versions.

I'm unconcerned about the Repair install aspect because of the disk imaging as you mentioned.

We will have to see what is available when I get nearer to upgrading my system, thanks.