Get 7200 CPU or 1.5GB RAM?

Sometimes when I surf the web, my computer "lags" when loading a page. This happens from time to time on NetFlix's website (maybe all the DVD photos). I started checking my task manager and sometimes I notice that these lags coincide with 100% CPU usage. So I've started thinking a faster processor would help this.

My current system has a 2GH Pent 4 processor. I have the money to configure a new system but I have to choose either the 1.66 Core 2 Duo 5500 or the 2.0 Core 2 Duo 7200 processor. If I get the 5500 I can afford to get 1.5GB RAM. If I get the 7200 I can only afford 1.0GB RAM.

Can you guys advise me on which way you would go? I know little about computers and although I know the Core duos are different/better technology it visually appears that if I get the 5500 processor I'm getting a slower processor than my 2GH Pent 4 processor.

(on my current system my page file usage almost never goes much above 256MB. I have 512MB total RAM. So it doesn't seem like RAM does much for me.)

 

The 1.66 GHz Core 2 Duo is more then enough for your needs. You will notice real performance when you upgrade your RAM.

Let's say: you can configure a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo with 512 MB RAM or 1.66 GHz Core 2 Duo with 1.5 GB RAM then go for the second. You will see a huge performance difference between these systems.

Charlie

 

I might be utterly misinterpreting your post but just in case, you're not suggesting swapping a p4 for a core duo are you? Coz that's not possible.

 

Configure your new system with the 7200. You can easily and cost effectively upgrade your RAM later, if you so choose, but 1GB will serve you perfectly in XP.

 

I would do exactly this, then put in 1 or 2 GB of some Corsair RAM to replace the generic stuff. Laptop RAM is so easy to upgrade, you could probably do it in 5 to 10 minutes even if its your first time.

 

he says his memory usage doesn't go above 256MB, obviously he's not running too many heavy applications at one time. Lots of ram isn't going to help him out much, especially choosing 1.5GB over 1GB when he never even uses over 256MB.

 

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in processing power between the T5500 and T7200. Only heavy number-crunchers would notice a difference. A T5500 is very fast and will be more than enough for the life of the system.

Yes, it is very simple to upgrade RAM. If, however, you don't want to do any upgrades yourself the I would suggest you go with the T5500 and 1.5 GB of RAM (2 GB if possible).

 

I would get the T7200 first! Then if i feel there's a need for more ram, then i ll add it later. You don't need to buy everything at once, rams are easier upgrades than CPU, so get a better CPU.

 

but why? Why tell a guy that never uses all of his current 512MB to get 2GB?

1 GB vs. 2 GB benchmarks

 

One word: Vista.

 

Another word: Vista works better with faster CPU

 

I'm the one that told him to go with the 7200 and upgrade RAM later. But, for XP/Vista/OSX, RAM can be considered far more important that the speed of the processor. Use XP with a new C2Q with 256mb of RAM and then a Sempron 64 with 2GB of RAM installed, and tell me how well that works out.

 

I would like to add that in Linux, RAM is way more important than in Windows, and the CPU is as well. Linux uses ALL the RAM at any one time.

 

How is ram far more important if he's not using a lot already? He currently has 512 MB, of which hes uses 256 MB. He's looking at a computer that has 1GB and people are telling him he will see "huge performance increases" by increasing that to 1.5 Gb or 2 GB.

Simply having ram does not "turbocharge" a machine. You have to be in a situation where applications are actually using the ram to see any benefit.

I can play Halo PC on a computer with 512 MB of ram or 2Gb of ram. There will be no performance difference because running Halo and Windows together only uses ~400 MB or system memory. The computer simply doesn't need anymore to run those programs.

I'm just trying to figure out why people have this concept of "the more ram the better". I run a lot of heavy applications (Protools, Photoshop, Premiere), but I don't run them at the same time so I am never really in need of over 1 GB of ram unless I'm playing a game that requires it (which is why only my gaming system has over 1 GB of ram).

There is a line that you cross when you run out of ram, the computer immediately slows down. If you don't cross that line, the computer runs the same with 512MB or 2 GB.

I have no experience with Vista, but surely it doesn't use up 1 gig of system ram at startup?

 

From my experience 8 (i think is actually 10+) years ago, ram are supposedly cheap upgrades to improve performance, but not so greatly as changing the CPU. But that time, mostly what we have is less than 512mb. Anything more is considered, luxurious.

 

XP will use more RAM than you realize simply by opening a web browser, music program, and IM client at the same time. You'd be surprised how little gets done with 256mb of RAM.

Vista seems to scale how much memory it uses from a cold start depending how much RAM is available. When there is 1GB available it uses less memory than if there were 1.5 or 2GB for it to use. Not a bad optimization, seeing as not everyone has 2GB of memory in their system yet.

 

We aren't talking about 256 MB of ram though, the original poster is asking whether he should go with 1GB or 1.5GB when his current computer's typical ram usage is around 256MB. People are telling him "go with 1.5Gb or even better get 2GB".

I'm looking at XP ram usage right now, I have photoshop running with 5, 2 MB pictures open, I have a video editing program open with a 750 MB movie loaded into the timeline. I have 5 Internet Explorer windows open, Itunes and Windows Media player are both playing music...all of this at the same time.

After running some filters on the photos and going through the motions of editing the video my peak ram usage is showing 750 MB out of the 1GB installed. My computer still responds very quickly, I can switch between programs with no delay or perceived "lack of ram" lag.

My system has more ram to use if it needs it, but it is not using it. How would having more ram than I already have help?

(I'm using a 3.3 ghz P4 equipped desktop with 2 X 512MB)

 

I was simply making an example.