Memory vs. CPU

What would be a better choice speed wise?

Intel Core2Duo 2.93Ghz
4GB of RAM

VS

Intel Core2Duo 2.53Ghz
8GB of RAM

Thanks!

 

Definitely the first one (faster processor vs. 8GB of RAM). But then again I suppose it could depend on what you are doing.

 

8GB Ram is currently useless, unless you want to run multiple applications simultaneously (I mean super hi res photo editing/HD video editing)

 

As usual, it depends on what you're doing. I'd say more often, you'll see programs make better use of the extra clock speed than the extra RAM, but I think the performance of both systems will be similar most of the time.

I don't exactly know how to phrase this next bit - so I hope I'm making sense - but I also think applications that need more memory will see a bigger benefit in the doubling of RAM than applications that need more clock speed will see in the extra 400MHz of clock speed.

 

I disagree with BigHops on that point. it can hardly be conceived that a 2.9 will show a tangible performance difference over a 2.5. Having said that it can be safely assumed that 8 GIGS of RAM, provide a lot more than 4 gigs.

 

Well Let's see:

Programming
Gaming
Photoshop
Some 3d animation stuff
HD Video editing

So I guess the memory?

 

Like bigspin said, unless you're doing super high res stuff in photoshop and animation, you probably won't make much use of the 8GB. Gaming depends more on the GPU; neither of the processors there will bottleneck almost all current mobile graphics solutions. I'll stand by my original assertion in that you won't see much difference between either configuration in most scenarios.

 

Just wondering how much the computer your getting that has those specs costs?

 

8 GB of RAM is the better solution.

 

It is a sony FW notebook computer. I have around $2000 to spend.

How about a compromise:

Intel Core3Duo 2.66Ghz
6GB RAM

Or is one of the others a better option?
I am just trying to find the perfect combo.

 

I think I would go for the faster processor. If you find that you are maxing out the ram, you can up grade the ram later yourself without voiding the warranty. If you change the processor, you may void the warranty. The 4G sticks of ram will probably come down in price later. A year from now, ram may cost half what it costs now.

 

Let's phrase this differently: do you ever have to wait for more than 1 minute while some code compiles or while a video file is being encoded? If so, then getting the 2.93 GHz processor will mean than this time will be smaller by a factor of approximately 1.16. Human sized comparison: something processor dependent that took 15 minutes will now take around 13.

On the other hand, if you ever find yourself using more than 4GB RAM, then the RAM will be more useful because due to lack of it, the computer is forced to use the hard drive and this is painfully slow.

As people have said, most people would be perfectly fine with a 2.53 GHz CPU and 4 GB RAM. Make sure that you're buying something that you're actually going to use because pretty much everyone charges insane premiums on outlandishly high specs like 2.93 GHz or 8 GB RAM.

 

For that price I'd say go for this notebook

ATI HD48XX cards can convert videos to H.264 and MPEG-2 formats without giving stress to the CPU & it's really fast(I personally tried this)

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I need to be portable so the screen is a little big for me. Even the 16" on the Vaio is big for me.

Also I know most people would not agree with me... but I like to pay a little extra for the "sexy" look.

 

Unless you plan on running all of those at the same time, I would recommend the 2.93GHz C2D.

 

Intel Core2Duo 2.93Ghz
4GB of RAM.

8GB of memory is pretty unnesesary.

 

agreed with the processor

if you want an idea of how much of the RAM you are using on your computer at any given moment, download some freeware (I think rainmeter can do it) and then take a look. Most likely you wont exceed 2 GB when doing most tasks and probably barely touch 4GB unless you are do extreme multitasking. 8GB of RAM is generally useless unless you are a very small minority that has to multi a lot of memory intensive applications (this is probably a no duh statement but oh well)

 

Choosing that processor is pointless. Nowadays, processors are fast enough and they are not the bottle neck. Laptops and desktops choke because of RAM,HDD, and GC issues.

Those 8 GB of RAM will replace the Vista x64 pagefile. HDD has ms access time, RAM has ns access time.


I doubt you will have applications in 1 year demanding a 2.9GHz processor as minimum spec.


RAM is the wise choice because more RAM > than more processor frequency.

 

This is correct only if you are already making use of 100% of the RAM available to you. Given that the 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo already comes with 4GB of RAM that is very difficult to fully utilize at any one time, upgrading to 8GB would do absolutely nothing for system performance; increasing the CPU clock speed would.

 

No need to sugar coat that clock speed difference . It won't make your pants on fire .

Photoshop will prefer 8 GB of RAM to 4GB with 400 MHz more. Why? Because PS on Vista x64 will see 3.7 or less depending on the shared memory. Add 8GB of RAM and it will see around 7.

 

Assuming the OP can even manage to use more than 4GB of RAM under Photoshop, one can't be sure whether more RAM or a faster CPU would give you better real-world usage as Photoshop makes heavy use of both.

I am saying that at least the better CPU will give you performance increases in all applications whereas the 8GB of RAM will only potentially yield improvements in PS.

 

Well Said! +15 rep.


No programs require that speed, but it wont hurt to have it. That will make multitasking and speed better all around.
No programs require 8GB or RAM either. And only a few select programs will benefit. And those programs are still 100% usable with 4GB of RAM and you wont see that much of a difference. Where you will see more of a difference with that extra clock speed on the CPU.

 

Thanks guys. I think I have decided to go with the Dell Studio XPS 16 Notebook in the end. It has a 2.5Ghz CPU and 4GB of RAM which you guys say is enough plus it has lots of great features. Backlight keyboard, slot loading drive, face recognition, etc. Thanks! :-D

 

Both of you seem to have this vision that certain RAM amounts will never be used. What exactly are you guys doing in Photoshop? If you guys crop a few photos, do a banner you don't need Photoshop, you can use paint.

I on the other hand, use Photoshop differently. I stitch panoramas, I batch process NEFs from my D3 and D300, I rasterize 3D layers, and integrate projects from Photoshop to Illustrator.

Just the stitch process gives more than 3.4 GB of RAM usage on my U6. 3.4 GB out of...hmmm the magic number...4GB. I wish I could add 8GB in my U6 but the chipset does not support it.

As a consequence, Vista has to flush the RAM and play with the pagefile. As soon as it does that, my RAM frees up, true, but performance is affected. Why? I explained in my previous post. RAM access time is < than HDD access time. If you think the 400 MHz will compensate this, you are mistaken. The HDD will not be able to give the CPU info faster than on the 2.5 one, so this lovely faster CPU will idle until it receives info.


At the end of the day, you do what you want with your money. I would get the RAM because it is the better option.

 

core 3 eh ? LOL, you mean core2