I'm confused by geek babble...advice needed?

[MarkCup]

Assuming all other specs are the same which of these is better...and by how much...loads or just a teeny bit?

I'd have thought the quad core would swing it?

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E4600 Processor (2.40GHz, 800MHz, 2MB cache)

or

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad-Core Q6600 Processor (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB cache)

This is for a home desktop, nothing too taxing, web browsing, email, some photo and video editing...either of these would be enough?

 

[DrR]

2nd one at a guess


either of those will easily be 10x good enough.

 

[SC03OTT]

for what you are going to be using the machine for, i'd say the quad core is overkill.

edit: i stand corrected

 

[Nigel]

The quad core would be much better for video encoding after your editting. More and more programmes are now being created to use multiple cores, so hopefully shall take advantage of a quad core.

SC03OTT he edits a lot of his track footage, compresses to post on you tube, so I would have thought quad cores would have proved invaluable.

 

[MarkCup]

I know they'd technically be overkill for what I need right now...I just want to make sure that what ever I get next is as 'futureproof' as is possible.

Our current desktop was great when new, but one too many MS service packs and f*** knows what else has slowed it to a crawl...so I'm over-speccing as much as possible on storage and ram.

Came down to two machines with the two processors above...and the Quad core is £50 more.

Worth it for the extra £50 then I take it?

 

[Final Maxim]

yea for futureproofing

atm, there will be bugger all difference tbh for general use

 

[DeeKay86]

For £50 more, get the quad!

 

[KDF]

Erm ... putting aside the 2 extra cores on the quad core.

1066MHz FSB + 8MB cache = Winner !!

You should of match it with 1066MHz(+) DDR2

 

[Black-Clio-1.4]

The More Cache, the better!

 

[David]

quad without any doubt. plus it's an immensley overclockable chip too.

 

[MarkCup]

Erm ... putting aside the 2 extra cores on the quad core.

1066MHz FSB + 8MB cache = Winner !!

You should of match it with 1066MHz(+) DDR2

Match what with what?

The More Cache, the better!

So the cache size and speed is all important?

 

[DeeKay86]

Cache is always important. Its volatile memory which is used by the processor, and is on the actual processor. This means that the data lets say, doesnt have to travel very far to be stored and then executed from cache. The more you can store in cache, the greater the calculation and amount the processor can do at once.

Its a little bit like RAM (Random Access Memory). This is also volatile (loses whatever is on it when you switch the power off). The more RAM the better as well, because programs are loaded in to RAM when they are executed. This is how you can have more programs running at once without slowdown. Slowdown occurs because when you run out of RAM, the computer begins to 'borrow' memory from the Hard Disk. Ofcourse, the Hard Disk is a physical drive, meaning its slower than RAM, which is flash.

Anyways, spend the £50 and get the quad!

 

[Gareth]

cache on CPUs is very important as said, easily worth the extra £50. That's the CPU I have in mine.

 

[KDF]

Match what with what?

The More Cache, the better!

So the cache size and speed is all important?

match the 1066MHz Quad CPU with at least a 1066MHz FSB Motherboard + 1066Mhz DDR2 Ram.

 

[MarkCup]

Thanks for all your help, decision has been made :approve:

 

[fUbAr]

Thanks for all your help, decision has been made :approve:

decision to forget about the computer idea and go out for a drive instead?