Computer Illiterate...My computer usage includes minimal gaming, graphics, and multi-tasking.99% of the time surfing downloading PDF tech articles, using Microsoft Word, etc.I am confused about the relationship between CPU Speed and the number of cores.For my usage needs would a 2-core processor say a 2.1 Ghz processor be "faster" then a quad-core 1.8 Ghz processor?Do extra cores consume battery whether they are "working" or not?I hate to be so dumb about this stuff but better to admit ignorance than be stupid and "assume" incorrectly...Thank You For Sharing Your Wisdom

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

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.

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.

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

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.

CPU Speed vs Number of Cores? | Good Sam Community

MEXICOWANDERER
Explorer
Apr 18, 2015
Lttp1*.*
Autronic Eye headlight dimmers
Turn on the radio, listen for the vibrator while tubes warmed up.

Hope some of these $299 deals include shipping and no tax. Another issue is the Windows Ate, debacle. I've got to come up with Windows 7 in English. The Spanish Windows 7 thinks it is using the latino computer keyboard and none of it works right.

Poco a Poco.
RambleOnNW
Explorer II
Apr 18, 2015
5er4ever wrote:
RambleOnNW wrote:
1 Gig hard drive.

I think you must have gotten that last one made in 1984. ;) What OS fits there?

I know it was likely a 1 TB drive. Just having fun here.

Thanks Editor, fixed it through the magic of RV.net, unlike the NASA engineers that mixed up English and metric units and lost the 1999 Mars orbiter...

I remember the huge Winchester multi-platter 300MB drives on a 1 MIPS VAX 11/780 back in the day...
1492
Moderator
Apr 18, 2015

I still remember being amazed by 10MB hard drives, if not shocked by the price, in the floppy disc era.
5er4ever
Explorer
Apr 18, 2015
RambleOnNW wrote:
1 Gig hard drive.

I think you must have gotten that last one made in 1984. ;) What OS fits there?

I know it was likely a 1 TB drive. Just having fun here.
1492
Moderator
Apr 17, 2015
LittleBill wrote:
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

I would agree with this, so go for the higher CPU GHZ rating for your listed applications, versus more processor cores.

Per Microsoft, all Windows 7 32 bit versions supports up to 32 processor cores. Windows 7 x64 supports up to 256 processor cores. Actually usage is going to depend on your application.

Just remember, processor cores does not mean physical processors.
RambleOnNW
Explorer II
Apr 17, 2015
Amazon has the Asus X551MAV with 15.6" 1366x768 display. 2.16GHz CPU w/1021 passmark rating, 4 gig ram, 500 GB hard drive, CD/DVD for $295.
MEXICOWANDERER
Explorer
Apr 17, 2015
One grand speed bump is a draconian budget. Asking for a three hundred dollar dual core 2.4 GHz laptop is really pushing things.
RambleOnNW
Explorer II
Apr 17, 2015
As folks have indicated the cheapest laptop today is likely fast enough for day-day tasks. For our 24/7 home server we run an E8400 dual-core 3GHz processor in a system I put together in Feb. 2008 and it is plenty fast for day-to-day tasks still 7 years later.

CPU performance can be compared by searching for "processorName passmark", such as E8400 passmark. The E8400 has a passmark rating of 2173. I just picked up a great Asus flip convertible laptop for my DW from Amazon for $679, that has an I5-5200U 5th generation Broadwell CPU with a passmark rating of 3549, 15.6" full-hd 1920x1080 display, 8 Gig of RAM, 1 TB hard drive. Will be plenty fast for her day to day tasks.

The latest CPU generations are more power efficient, insuring longer battery life, but a larger high resolution screen will take more power.
MrWizard
Moderator
Apr 15, 2015
Mexi
what ever you get.. (if new) most likely 15.3 inches
try this
instead of reducing resolution
turn on "true type"
and personalize the display to a large FONT and large icons
let the display use "native" hi-res many pixels/dots, to sharpen the large font
In my experience it gives a sharper text than using a low resolution setting
that uses many pixels/dots as one and blurs the screen
fire fox and adobe reader aka PDF files, both have settings for larger font sizes to make easier reading
MEXICOWANDERER
Explorer
Apr 15, 2015
Some areas have no internet and no way in the wprld to connect except by cellular phome 100+ dollars per momth. I would love a big monitor but not having to haul it back and forth two miles every day.

Forum Discussion

CPU Speed vs Number of Cores?

About RV Must Haves

Related Content

Towing Speeds

Towing speed?

Interstate speeds

driving speed

F53 4 speed vs. 5 speed, vs 6 speed transmission