Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 8, 2007 Members Share Posted November 8, 2007 This is probably insanely stupid, but hey, I don't know. Is a 3.0GHz Intel Pentium D 915 Processor faster than a 1.8 GHz Intel Dual Core E2160? Is there anything else I should know? I'm trying to pick out a computer for work, and don't know anything about Intel processors, but have to choose between a couple of computers. 'Preciated. Looking at HP Compaq dc5700s. Also, if this computer sucks in general, please let me know. This is for work (internet, word documents, possibly a website later on, and that's it - no audio). http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/specs.aspx?EDC=1264806&cm_sp=Product-_-Specs-_-Main+Tab http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1217847 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deanmass Posted November 8, 2007 Members Share Posted November 8, 2007 BYOPC Core 2 Duo 2 Gigs ram I am pretty sure am Core 2 Duo benchmarks faster than a 3.0 P4, and I KNOW it uses much less power. www.tomshardware.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 8, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2007 Wow, that was fast! You always seem to come through with my dopey technical questions! Thanks! From your link, I found: Since dual core processors are amazingly cheap today, we recommend staying away from single cores, unless you really need their even cheaper prices. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/08/parallel_processing/page2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted November 8, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 Is a 3.0GHz Intel Pentium D 915 Processor faster than a 1.8 GHz Intel Dual Core E2160? Quick answer: It depends. I've been agonizing over the same thing (and motherboards, too) for months. Fortunately, I'm in no hurry to make a purchase so I can put it off until there's a whole new set of options. What I've learned so far is that any new, even modest computer will be adequate for "work" applications. Where they tend to show up their differences is in graphic-intensive tasks which have crept into "work" as watching videos or playing on-line games. What you're facing here is (I forget whose law it is) the data volume equivalent of the Peter Principle - when more computer power becomes available, new versions of common, everyday applications will appear that utilize and justify that power. However, any modern "appliance" computer such as an H-P, Compaq, Dell, or Gateway will be tuned for those applications and will handle them as well as can be expected. It's only those of us who try to optimize our computers for audio applications that we anticipate in the near future who are constantly confused by the options available to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 8, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2007 I chose the lower power consumption choice (dual core). It'll be fine for our needs. Thanks, Dean and Mike!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphajerk Posted November 8, 2007 Members Share Posted November 8, 2007 hope you got the C2D and not just the dual core... its even less power consumption and more HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted November 8, 2007 Members Share Posted November 8, 2007 I second all the advice given here. Core 2 Duo is way ahead of the original Intel dual cores, which had to send data out of the chips onto a bus, unlike AMD's Athlon dual cores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.