CPU Speed vs Number of Cores?

[MEXICOWANDERER]

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

[MEXICOWANDERER]

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]

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]

I still remember being amazed by 10MB hard drives, if not shocked by the price, in the floppy disc era.

[5er4ever]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[TurnThePage]

Not all CPUs are the same. Some get more work done per clock cycle than others, which means some can be faster than others even though they are running at a slower speed. It's just not a great way to determine what's best anymore. The number of cores, as long as it's at least 2, is not that important for plain jane computing either. If you're buying new, you'll most likely be satisfied with even the slowest PC as long as it has a bare minimum of 4 Gigs of RAM, but I would still aim a little higher if possible. Your options to get anything besides Windows 8.1 are getting very limited, but there are free apps that will make it behave very nearly identical to Windows 7. Despite Windows 8.x's crappy reputation, it's faster, more efficient with RAM, boots much faster, is more secure, more reliable, and maybe best of all, will be upgraded to Windows 10 for free later this year. As is often mentioned, an SSD (solid state hard drive) will really wake up most computers, and they're really getting cheaper too. It would make a great future upgrade consideration for whatever base model laptop you select. I've found some killer deals for display models at Walmart in the past, and would imagine that's the norm everywhere.

[pconroy328]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:

Yet I would like a 17" screen for my poor eyesight. I use 4.0 + diopter reading glasses and max possible screen brightness and modest resolution settings


And a pure Social Insecurity pension insures I could never afford anything other than utter bargain-basement quality and speed. Wal-Mart and Woot all seem to specialize in 4-core low CPU speed specials. 300 dollars seems to be about my absolute limit...

What about buying a decent monitor first?
And the newer PC later?

I treated myself to a 27" monitor -- my eyes are shot too. It's nice and was $130 I think from Newegg. No - Walmart. I bought this Acer monitor from Walmart's online, store pickup offering.

[docj]

I'm running a Toshiba Satellite with a 4th generation Core i7-4710HQ quad core processor clocked at 2.5GHz with turbo capability to 3.5GHz and 16GB of RAM under Windows 8.1. All I know is that this computer runs rings around the Dell my wife uses that has a third gen i7 processor and 8GB of RAM. My perception of performance improvement is based on a few available online benchmarks and things like how fast the computer boots from a cold start (both have equivalent SATA HDD drives). This isn't as quantitative as you all have been, but I think our perceptions are pretty accurate.

[MrWizard]

Last week FRYS had two core Celeron on sale $238
15.6 display
And I also think win 7. Is better than 8.1 Or win 8