Topic: Dual and Quad Core Processors | |
---|---|
Two months ago my computer tech down at square put me in an Intel motherbord with a potential for a 3.4 ghz Pentium 4 processor. But to make a quick sale he just put in a 2.4 ghz Pentium 4 processor. The board also has a potential for 4 ghz of RAM. He told me this board was the newest thing out there. You have to realize this is a rural town. So I wanted to max out the board and upgrade. I had bought the new tower just a couple years before and at that time it had a 1.4 ghz AMD processor with a potential for 2 gb RAM. But as I wanted to upgrade to the 3.4 ghz processor and Kingston 4 gb of RAM he told I wouldn't notice the difference since I wasn't running a 64 bit Windows. I am just running XP. He said what I needed to do was let him build me a tower with a 2.8 AMD dual core. I have two Dells with 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 processor. He said it would really make a difference. I am weighing my optons because he always gives me a upgraded price with taking my old stuff off the price like at an auto parts place where they give a core charge and then you bring in the core.
|
|
|
|
depending what you use your computer for you really wouldnt see to much difference but on the hand if you do alot of visual performance demanding things like gaming you will definitely see a difference between a 3.4 and 2.4 unless your running some sort of video card with its own processor, and even then most games these days are very demanding. bottom line if you want your upgrades maxed do it, its what you want and not what they want to sell you :)
|
|
|
|
Another I am weighing becase of this is I like the all Intel motherbord and even though I have had Biostar motherboards without any trouble it is like he must of gotten a good deal with the company. Just wondering how many would stay with Intel or would considering going Biostar. I have heard of many gamers who really prefer the speed of the AMDs.
|
|
|
|
depending what you use your computer for you really wouldnt see to much difference but on the hand if you do alot of visual performance demanding things like gaming you will definitely see a difference between a 3.4 and 2.4 unless your running some sort of video card with its own processor, and even then most games these days are very demanding. bottom line if you want your upgrades maxed do it, its what you want and not what they want to sell you :) I already have a real nice Radeon 256 mb card and a built-in 256 mb video. Good information. |
|
|
|
Whats funny is that I bought the Intel board because it had the enhanced PCI that the video card would fit. I bought the motherboard just for the card I had and then found out it already had the 256 built in.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you're right on what he wants to sell me because if he doesn't supply something really new then he says I really don't need it. Might have to go to a bigger store which means going to the city outside this one horse town.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you're right on what he wants to sell me because if he doesn't supply something really new then he says I really don't need it. Might have to go to a bigger store which means going to the city outside this one horse town. might be worth it tho :) and im a big fan of amd but i usally research and talk with my local gamers befor i upgrade and also i dont live to far from a good store so i dont find it much of a problem :) good luck :) |
|
|
|
What do you want to do with the computer? Gaming? Definitely Quad, much better GFX card (256 hardly cuts the surface of most games), and 4GB ram (In XP it won't all be utilized, but there is a jump in performance having 3.5GB versus 2 or something). If you are just surfing the net, you don't need to upgrade period. Business applications require a lot of ram so you definitely need 4GB with XP or 6GB with Beta (Vista) or Windows 7, however graphic card wise you can keep the 256 unless you are doing sound/video editing or other memory stressing programs...then I would say jump at a 1GB card at the nearest chance.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AGoodGuy1026
on
Thu 12/24/09 07:14 AM
|
|
I don't trust the "trade-in" places... they just take your parts and build another system and sell them as a package deal.
A reputable place will sell you what you want at a good price, you keep your old stuff... there is no "core charge" on computer parts... You can run 3.4GB of ram by adding the /3gb command switch to the boot.ini file... so you CAN use over 2GB in windows XP... To answer your question - which P4 and which AMD CPU specifically... there are more than one type... Trading a more expensive INTEL 2.4 for a AMD 2.8 sounds like you are loosing out... because of the "trade in"... You will notice a big jump if you went to your original plan of a 3.4 INTEL... it's a whole GIG faster... very noticeable indeed. your guy sounds "sketchy" to me... $.02 |
|
|
|
I don't trust the "trade-in" places... they just take your parts and build another system and sell them as a package deal. A reputable place will sell you what you want at a good price, you keep your old stuff... there is no "core charge" on computer parts... You can run 3.4GB of ram by adding the /3gb command switch to the boot.ini file... so you CAN use over 2GB in windows XP... To answer your question - which P4 and which AMD CPU specifically... there are more than one type... Trading a more expensive INTEL 2.4 for a AMD 2.8 sounds like you are loosing out... because of the "trade in"... You will notice a big jump if you went to your original plan of a 3.4 INTEL... it's a whole GIG faster... very noticeable indeed. your guy sounds "sketchy" to me... $.02 Mine is running 3.5GB of my 4GB ram without the command switch, dunno, might be bios dependent? Going to a 3.4 Intel can actually be a step backwards depending on the previous processor, in his case he will see a jump in performance...but again that is dependent on what he does with his computer. You can load out your PC with all the latest and greatest in PC hardware and it won't do anything if you don't even utilize it. Take my processor; a 2.83GHz Quad, if I popped in a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 I'm taking a massive step backwards...hell, even if my processor was a Duo I'd still be taking a massive step back. Honestly though, I'd scrap for entirely different PC. A decent motherboard/Quad package, at least a decent 512mb graphics card (at least an 8800 from Nvidia or the equivalent with ATI), and at least 4GB ram with XP or 6GB with Beta (Vista)/Windows 7. Further, stop doing business with whoever the hell it was that told you that stepping up the processor that much wouldn't help you. He is either screwing you over completly or entirely illiterate when it comes to PC's. |
|
|
|
One thing with the AMD vs. Intel
AMD based CPUs always runs hotter. It's not that it's bad though..I mean sure things that run hotter might turn bad quicker but it's up to the user really. Just an observation based on through my past 15 years of building PCs. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the input. I got the PCI express ATI video card working. Microsoft update didn't have a driver. Might be cause it is now Legacy according ATI. My brother had the card on his Dell and he upgraded. He told me it was a ATI Radeon X1300. When I inputted that information on search I got a 75.5 mb driver with all the trimmings. Found out the motherboard was Intell but still Biostar. I am impressed with the Biostar motherboards; I have a had a few of them. The CPU is about the size of a postage stamp. Wow, sure is small. Running a Dell 17 inch and a Dell 22 wide monitors. There is another computer store in a bigger town I am going to check out since my local guy evidently doesn't stock the 3.4 one I want. He doesn't stock anything above 2.8 AMD or P4 so I will stay with the P4 2.4 until I can get the P4 3.4. Funny thing is that the motherboard will take AMD or Pentium according to the documentation and even comes with the AMD K8 driver although it has a Pentium CPU. I like that choice.
|
|
|