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]

I have heard enough about Windows 8.1 to be intimidated to stick with Windows 7.

99% of the time I operate one solitary application at a time.

I have slow internet speed that for example cannot support SKYPE.

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...

[5er4ever]

There Still appears to be a distinct lack of application definition needs to justify more than 2 cores. Browsing the net, word and pdf's are 'peanuts' in the world of computing.

I dare say that you would not be able to find a new machine that would not be able to do what you have described.

All operating systems on all platforms have more than sufficient capacity to meet your goals.


just my .02

[joebedford]

I've only ever found multiple cores (my CPU has 6) to be of major importance in two circumstances:

- when I'm running SetiAtHome computations (all 6 cores)
- when I'm running VirtualBox to test Windows 10 (3 for Windows7 and 3 for Windows10)

[pconroy328]

Just piling on as a professional nerd, i agree with everyone else who said "it depends". Not only do you need me to write software that'll thread itself over the cores, you need the OS to support it (which most modern OSs do).

But if you're memory constrained or have a slow disk, then I'll paraphrase Gary Amdahl who said "You're only going to go as fast as the slowest part..."

Said another way, it's like putting a big block 427 in a Yugo. 🙂

For what I do, I'm content with a 6 core chip running about 3 GHz for my desktop. I'll go for cores over GHz, but only to a point. I wouldn't go under 3.5GHz today either.

Unless I was power-constrained, then...



... yes ...


it depends. 🙂

[Seattle_Steve]

For most users SSD drive is far more important than additional cores or slightly faster processors. That's where I'd put my "upgrade" money, as the speed difference will be much more noticeable.

[MrWizard]

There are 32 bit ..2 core and 64 bit 4 core versions of fire Fox
My i5 four core Lenovo was faster at refreshing web pages, than the NEW 2 core Celeron Dell loaner, I am using

IMO the 4 core 1.8 gig Hz will be faster when web surfing, won't make any difference doing word processing, or reading pdf files

[PUCampin]

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.

[eichacsj]

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.

[Matt_Colie]

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

[Winnebago_Bob]

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.

[Naio]

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.

[LittleBill]

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