Is there much difference between 2.2 and 2.4 GHz?

Given that the hard drive (500GB)and memory (4GB) are the same? Thanks!


:hi:

When I bought my Pentium 90MHz, the 120MHz had just come out - and was $400 more. By the time a P90 was "getting slow", you wouldn't know the fucking difference between it and a P120.

2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 Processor (2MB L2 Cache; 800MHz Front Side Bus)


2.4GHz AMD Turion Ultra Dual-Core M600 Processor

According to http://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/">this price/performance CPU chart

Partial credit only.

:)

and the memory speed. It depends on how many apps you're running and which ones you're running. I'd assume it also depends on the sizes of various hardware buffers and caches, too

Is there anything there that ight give a clue? thanks again.

See the last post here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/55330-35-m600-intel-t6600
And see this list: http://www.tempusfugit.ca/7_post.html

Today, I don't need to run Windows 7 in XP-mode, so I'm not interested in this issue. There may be lots of obscure issues like this that you can find in cyberspace, depending on exactly what you want to do

I used to be a hard core AMD man. But now, especially in the laptop market, I think Intel is the way to go. My last AMD rig was a 5200 X2 and it's still going strong, but Intel won me over with their C2D line and i7.

thanks again.

I'm considering upgrading.

But I had a MUCH easier time overclocking my i7 920 than I had with the last C2Q I worked with (Q8200). Right now my 920 is at 4.2ghz and that's only with a .03volt increase and my Zalmann cooler. It only runs 2 to 3 degrees warmer than when I had it at stock. Also, heavily multi-threaded applications and memory heavy applications receive a significant boost from an i7 system due to its hyperthreading (the processor actually appears as 8 logical processors to Windows) and due to its triple channel memory architecture (as far as I know, all the C2D and C2Q systems only support dual channel) and DDR3. I picked up my 920 a year ago from Microcenter for $200, I'd say if you can pick one up for a similar price, go for it. Also, if you're looking to save a bit on both the motherboard and the processor, you can instead choose an i5 system. You can pick up an i5 such as the 750 for under $200 and their motherboards are a good deal cheaper as well. They don't support triple channel memory and I don't believe they support as many PCI-express lanes as the i7 (1366) systems, but if you're not a hard-core gamer, that's not going to matter much at all.

The i5 is about $200 cheaper. :hi:

Chances are yes, the i5 will be a much better value. I'm guessing you're a bit of a multitasker if you've currently got a quad core. However, have you ever considered putting together a system of your own? A few minutes at Newegg and you can pick up all the parts you'd need for your computer and you'll get exactly what you want with nothing you don't. If you have any questions about putting it together, just let me know. I tend to put together a new system every couple of years or so and as sad as it is to say, it's usually one of the highlights of my year.

I'll use it mostly for browsing, though multi-tasking is a possibility. :hi:

I don't know how to build one. My cousin built this one, but I miss having everything as a brand after all.

You can probably save yourself some further money by going dual core rather than quad core. There are still very few applications optimized for multiple (3 or more) cores, other than games. So unless you'll be burning CDs while torrenting and ripping movies from DVDs or Blu-rays while simultaneously surfing the net and running benchmarks, you're really not going to take advantage of all those four cores. You'll probably achieve almost equal performance from a decent dual core system such as an older C2D or an i3 or lower level i5. If your computer has been slowing down as of late, it most likely has nothing to do with your processor speed, especially if you're running a C2D or C2Q now (even the lowest level C2D is still a very respectable chip if you're not a gamer). Older systems tend to get bogged down with malware over time which can make them slow to a crawl. Downloading and running a malware removal tool such as Adaware can do an awful lot towards reviving a slow system. Another thing you should be aware of is that for a while now, the hard drive has been an incredible bottleneck in typical systems. You might find that by simply getting a new hard drive and reinstalling your OS on it, your computer will run better than new. If you're looking for an even larger performance bump, get a solid state drive and reinstall your OS on that. You'll be amazed at how much faster your computer will run with Windows loaded on an SSD, it's a much, much bigger performance upgrade than upgrading your CPU (especially if you've got a decent dual or quad core already) or upgrading your RAM (especially if you've got 2 gigs or more already). The price per gigabyte of solid state drives now is still high, but it's definitely worth it. You can get a 64GB Kingston drive for around $150. I'd say that's without a doubt the best performance upgrade any computer running a conventional hard drive can get.

My philosophy is that I should try to go for the best now because of how quickly computers advance. I guess I could settle for an i5. Thanks for all of your help. :hi:

I don't know what you run currently, but I can say almost without a doubt that with what you use your computer for, your hard drive is the biggest bottleneck of your system. I've got a friend with a rather old laptop. His system had become rather slow as of late and was desperately looking for a new one. Instead, I recommended that he toss his old hard drive, get an SSD and reinstall the OS on that. We ended up putting Windows 7 on the machine (he didn't even think that it would run on it) and it runs extremely fast. For general applications like email, Word processing and internet browsing, his computer generally runs a fair bit faster than my quad core i7 desktop with 6 gigs of RAM. IE opens up to his homepage in less than a second, same thing with a lot of his photo apps. Where as before, his processor was just waiting around for the hard drive to cache, now his system is far more balanced. It runs a good deal better for the apps that he uses than the new $700 laptop with a conventional hard drive he was looking to get. Keep in mind that if you pick up a new system with a conventional hard drive, that bottleneck is still going to be there.

What computer manufacturers won't tell you is that while computers advance extremely quickly (Moore's law states that potential computing processor power will double every 18 months), if you don't play modern games, several year old technology is usually sufficient to run everything else (aside from heavy duty A/V editing and such). If you notice that your computer seems to be running a lot slower than it did when it was new, I can tell you with a 99% certainty that it has nothing to do with the hardware on your computer, but it's rather malware that exists on your computer or the hard drive needs some sort of preventive maintenance like defragging.

I wish you the best of luck picking up your new system, but you should know that using any i7 or i5 system that's not meant for either gaming or intensive multitasking is kind of like driving a Porsche in a crowded parking lot. You won't get much of an opportunity to see it shine. I'm a gamer, so I got an i7 so my CPU would be a decent match for my GPU. But if I were looking to increase my application performance (which I am), I'd get much better performance with a far slower processor and a much faster hard drive. I'm looking to upgrade to an SSD as soon as their prices come down a little bit more. Just in case you're interested, I'm including a link to the one I think I'm going to get:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139132

64 gigs might seem a bit small, but keep in mind, you really only need to put the OS on it to see an immense increase in speed. You can keep your existing hard drive for storing music, pictures, videos and such. Anyway, whichever route you decide to go, enjoy the new system.

I'm just saying if I can afford it, might as well go with the better one. Newegg is a useful site; I got the parts for my current computer through Newegg. I've found that certain security apps also can slow down the computer, like Kaspersky. Not sure an i7 would help with that.

unless you do a lot of gaming. And then the difference wouldn't be huge. A lot depends on how much more expensive the 2.4 GHz is.

Thanks.

I'm running duel 2.8 and the kid is running duel 3.2

Not much difference.

my next setup will be quad

If yes then save the bucks. Otherwise consider getting the faster one.