CPU Speed vs Number of Cores?

AngryBert-63 wrote:
Which operating system are we talking about?

I'm assuming Windows - but which version?

8.1 utilizes cores better than 7 but if all you're doing is browsing and downloading I don't think you'd see much difference on the desktop. Word might open faster - same with the browser, but how much?

Look at it this way - the cores are turnstiles, and the speed is related to how fast people get through the turnstiles. If you have two turnstiles that allow 2.1 people per second then 252 people get in per minute.

If you have 4 turnstiles that allow 1.8 people per second then 432 people get in per second - provided the applications you are using can use all 4 turnstiles.

Windows 8.1 can see/use all cores so it is inherently faster than older versions, but it does depend on the app being used.

Just to take this good analogy to the last step, what you are proposing as usage would only generate traffic of say 100 people per minute or less. So even the 2 core will not be stressed. No need to buy capability that will not be needed.

Like many has said cores only count for the applications that use them. But frankly your requirements for use. Today's phones do that so the least expensive tablet, laptop or PC will be more than enough. Don't spend more than $500.00, over that your are buying for pride.

Mex,

To directly answer your question needs two questions answered.
What Operating system are you using/planning.
How many concurrent programs do you run at once.

Xp is some versions can handle a dual, but a quad - no.
Xpro-64 can use a quad, but not well.
Vista can handle a quad, still not great, but better.
Win7-64 can use a quad so all the working packages run at speed.
Win8 was so bad I put that machine back to Xpro64 and haven't gotten the 8.1 upgrade.

If you only have two programs at a time, a quad-core won't get you much over a dual. So, if you don't have to do this, don't spend the money on it. Quads also need a lot of memory to be worth a 5h1t. By that I mean you have to start at about 4 gig and more is better.

For me, three programs is kind of a minimum, so I can Immediately see what a quad does. My business (what is left after the depression flattened it) requires that I often have three or for things going. Like a browser, a catalog in *.pdf, a graphics package looking at pictures of the clients problem, and when I did that with a dual core, things would get slow. But, if you aren't that level of user, save the money for booze and loose women.

I no longer build computers for other people but I did I would query the client at great length, and then write a proposal. They often choose to save the cost and were still happy.

Matt

Which operating system are we talking about?

I'm assuming Windows - but which version?

8.1 utilizes cores better than 7 but if all you're doing is browsing and downloading I don't think you'd see much difference on the desktop. Word might open faster - same with the browser, but how much?

Look at it this way - the cores are turnstiles, and the speed is related to how fast people get through the turnstiles. If you have two turnstiles that allow 2.1 people per second then 252 people get in per minute.

If you have 4 turnstiles that allow 1.8 people per second then 432 people get in per second - provided the applications you are using can use all 4 turnstiles.

Windows 8.1 can see/use all cores so it is inherently faster than older versions, but it does depend on the app being used.

My computers are so old that they only have 1 or 2 cores, but my usage is similar to yours, and the slightly-faster single core gets work done much more quickly than either of the dual core computers.

cores only matter when the software your using can actually use them, not everything benefits from additional cores.

for what your doing buy whatever is cheaper