Ok...looking to purchase a new desktop. I just use Coreldraw X4 for designing and don't need the latest and greatest speed demon. My question is, would an Intel i3 2.93 or 3.20 suffice or should step up to a i5 or amd quad core. I understand that more ram the better and I don't need a "gamer" graphics card, but how much performance gain would there be having a quad core over a dual core... considering my requirements (and budget)?
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
dual core or quad core
- Thread starter wes70
- Start date
OldPaint
New Member
with the cpu speeds in the 3 GIG area, all or any will do the job with ease. i own an AMD 2.8 QUAD CORE, with a on the m/b video. to make this thing really work at peek level, putiing a few bucks into a 1 GIG or better video ADD ON card..........would be the way i would go.
with a QUAD CORE you can choose to run em GANGED(use all 4 processor all the time) or you can dedicate a processor to a certain program.
with a QUAD CORE you can choose to run em GANGED(use all 4 processor all the time) or you can dedicate a processor to a certain program.
Ghost Prophet
New Member
Dual core is more then enough for graphic and video editing. Bare in mind Windows XP only supports up to 4gb of memory.
Also dual core stays much cooler then quad core, might be important if you live in the desert.
CPU vs RAM compatibility:
If you go with a dual core CPU on a DDR3 board, you only need to buy memory that is the same FSB as the CPU, you can go higher (more expensive) but it will just clock itself down to what the CPU is capable of. You should save money by checking the stats for compatibility.
Also dual core stays much cooler then quad core, might be important if you live in the desert.
CPU vs RAM compatibility:
If you go with a dual core CPU on a DDR3 board, you only need to buy memory that is the same FSB as the CPU, you can go higher (more expensive) but it will just clock itself down to what the CPU is capable of. You should save money by checking the stats for compatibility.
choucove
New Member
For the kind of computer usage you are intending to use this for, there really wouldn't be much difference between the two either way. A computer system is ALWAYS going to be able to utilize a higher clock speed but they might not be able to always utilize more cores. That is why I tend to lean towards higher clock speed but fewer cores.
However, in your situation what it really may come down to is the cost difference in the platforms. Right now you can buy a quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 640 processor at 3.0 Ghz for less than the cheapest Core i3-530 dual-core processor. That means you're getting two more cores for the same price. An AMD motherboard is also going to cost you slightly less than an Intel motherboard. The starting price for a decent Intel H55/H57/P55 motherboard is still at least $100 or more, while an AMD motherboard with just as many features will start around $70. Either system can utilize the same DDR3 1333 memory so that would not be any problem there.
In the end, if you are trying to get the most performance from a very limited budget, AMD still has be best options at the lowest price ranges. I've used AMD for numerous systems, including my own personal desktop, and I have been pleased with every single one of those systems.
However, in your situation what it really may come down to is the cost difference in the platforms. Right now you can buy a quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 640 processor at 3.0 Ghz for less than the cheapest Core i3-530 dual-core processor. That means you're getting two more cores for the same price. An AMD motherboard is also going to cost you slightly less than an Intel motherboard. The starting price for a decent Intel H55/H57/P55 motherboard is still at least $100 or more, while an AMD motherboard with just as many features will start around $70. Either system can utilize the same DDR3 1333 memory so that would not be any problem there.
In the end, if you are trying to get the most performance from a very limited budget, AMD still has be best options at the lowest price ranges. I've used AMD for numerous systems, including my own personal desktop, and I have been pleased with every single one of those systems.
choucove
New Member
There really are so many options available at just about any price point, it just comes down to the owner's specific requirements and preferences. What might be better here to help in establishing your best option is if we know exactly what you are wanting to budget. Maybe you are wanting to spend a little more than what it seems and from there you can move into a different type of platform. Perhaps you don't have as much to spend and there is a way to reuse parts from an existing system or find a way to use a slightly older platform such as the Core2Duos.
This also depends upon the current platform. The age of the socket/chipset types, the brand or quality of components chosen, as to whether or not it will save you money to upgrade an existing platform or if it would just be more efficient to purchase a brand new platform for a little more.
An example is a customer recently I had who wished to upgrade his existing Dell desktop a bit. It was a Pentium 4 tower with 512 MB of memory with a 40 GB IDE hard drive. Granted, you can upgrade the memory to 2 GB of RAM for about $60, a larger capacity IDE hard drive for another $60, but then you still would have to be replacing the failing DVD-ROM drive for another $30 and the failing power supply for another $60. In the end, he's still running an out-dated chipset, single-core Pentium 4 2.6 Ghz processor, with a slower IDE controller and he spent almost half the cost of getting a brand new platform.
However, if the existing computer is new enough to be a rather new chipset or socket type (such as LGA 775 or AM2+) then it may still be upgraded for a little less and still maintain a good performance level after the upgrades.
This also depends upon the current platform. The age of the socket/chipset types, the brand or quality of components chosen, as to whether or not it will save you money to upgrade an existing platform or if it would just be more efficient to purchase a brand new platform for a little more.
An example is a customer recently I had who wished to upgrade his existing Dell desktop a bit. It was a Pentium 4 tower with 512 MB of memory with a 40 GB IDE hard drive. Granted, you can upgrade the memory to 2 GB of RAM for about $60, a larger capacity IDE hard drive for another $60, but then you still would have to be replacing the failing DVD-ROM drive for another $30 and the failing power supply for another $60. In the end, he's still running an out-dated chipset, single-core Pentium 4 2.6 Ghz processor, with a slower IDE controller and he spent almost half the cost of getting a brand new platform.
However, if the existing computer is new enough to be a rather new chipset or socket type (such as LGA 775 or AM2+) then it may still be upgraded for a little less and still maintain a good performance level after the upgrades.
Si, I thought of upgrading, but my present system only has 1.5 ram, 256 video, and a very small 80 hd. I can upgrade the sempron (am2 socket) to a athlon x2, but adding more ram, bigger hd, vid card... I think it would be better to purchase new.
Still on the fence about buying a built machine or bare bones. Never built one before... I think it's time!
Chocouve, looking to spend $500 - $700. I know that's not much, but this will be used only for coreldraw... no huge photoshop files.
Thanks guys!
Wes
Still on the fence about buying a built machine or bare bones. Never built one before... I think it's time!
Chocouve, looking to spend $500 - $700. I know that's not much, but this will be used only for coreldraw... no huge photoshop files.
Thanks guys!
Wes
choucove
New Member
Wes you can still get quite a decent system configured for $700 including Windows 7 if you wish. Since you aren't planning on doing much work that requires a really powerful graphics card, you could save some money by just running integrated graphics right now. The incremental steps that have been made in the past several years with graphics technology has been more like momentous leaps and bounds. Today's integrated graphics are more powerful than several dedicated graphics cards from only four or five years ago.
The Core i3 processors will operate with an integrated Intel HD graphics when used on an H55 or H57 chipset motherboard. Likewise, the several AMD chipsets include a very capable integrated graphics unit such as the ATI Radeon HD 4200 on the ATI 785G chipset motherboards. I think, however, that it may be harder to build a good Intel system within the given budget compared to what you can build with an AMD system in that budget. Again, an AMD Athlon II X4 processor would be my suggestion in this range.
One benefit of custom building is you are spending your money specifically on what you need and not getting things you don't need. For instance, if you save your files on a different computer, then most of the pre-built desktops that come with a 1TB or more hard drive (usually slower speed drives, as well) is just overkill and wasted space. It would make more sense to have a smaller capacity but faster hard drive.
The Core i3 processors will operate with an integrated Intel HD graphics when used on an H55 or H57 chipset motherboard. Likewise, the several AMD chipsets include a very capable integrated graphics unit such as the ATI Radeon HD 4200 on the ATI 785G chipset motherboards. I think, however, that it may be harder to build a good Intel system within the given budget compared to what you can build with an AMD system in that budget. Again, an AMD Athlon II X4 processor would be my suggestion in this range.
One benefit of custom building is you are spending your money specifically on what you need and not getting things you don't need. For instance, if you save your files on a different computer, then most of the pre-built desktops that come with a 1TB or more hard drive (usually slower speed drives, as well) is just overkill and wasted space. It would make more sense to have a smaller capacity but faster hard drive.
WB
New Member
I built a Phenom II X4 system at 3 GHz for around $600 including Windows. Built it myself from deals on newegg.com. It's really not tough to do on the AMD side. I got an Athlon II proc and was able to use the core unlocker on my board to get an upgraded chip. It's not a guarantee to be able to do that but its honestly more computer than I need. It is fairly future proof for the next few years though and extremely fast. I use an i7 at work and with photoshop, illustrator etc, I can't tell a difference between the two. If I needed to convert an HD video, it would definitely be on the i7.
Thanks again Choucove! You've answered a lot of questions that I couldn't find elsewhere. I didn't realize that integrated graphics improved that much, this is the reason I had to put a small 256 dedicated card in my present system a couple years ago... X4 would freeze up!
I have been wanting to build my own system for some time now. Playing with BIOS settings is what scares me!
WB, what's your cpu speed?
I have been wanting to build my own system for some time now. Playing with BIOS settings is what scares me!
WB, what's your cpu speed?
choucove
New Member
Configuring BIOS settings on most modern motherboards is quite simple now. Everything should be pretty much configured when you receive it. The only things that I end up changing on BIOS anymore really is setting the proper date and time, setting the SATA hard drive operation mode to AHCI, and then setting the boot order so the CD/DVD drive is first and the hard drive is second. These are all very simple changes and there should be plenty of walkthroughs online to show you ow to do this as well if you need.
Haakon
New Member
If you want a fast setup for your day to day needs, invest in a SSD hard drive to install your OS and program files to, and optionally your work files for ongoing projects.
High-specced CPUs and many gigs of ram makes heavy operations like video rendering and picture ripping go fast, but a SSD disk makes all operations go faster pretty much.
I have an Intel 80gb SSD hd for OS and programs, and a 2GB WD sata disk for storing files. Did a comparison by unzipping a packed file, same file unpacked from both disks, took 14 seconds from the regular disk, and 3 second from the SSD disk. Illustrator and photoshop CS5 both boot up and load up files within 4-5 seconds. Used to take about 20-25 seconds before.
Opening a folder with hundreds of ai.files in Bridge is instant, no loading of previews, they are just there, ready for browsing.
Taking it to the extreme, this is what SSD disks can deliver. Not suggesting you copy this setup, but it shows what is possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs
High-specced CPUs and many gigs of ram makes heavy operations like video rendering and picture ripping go fast, but a SSD disk makes all operations go faster pretty much.
I have an Intel 80gb SSD hd for OS and programs, and a 2GB WD sata disk for storing files. Did a comparison by unzipping a packed file, same file unpacked from both disks, took 14 seconds from the regular disk, and 3 second from the SSD disk. Illustrator and photoshop CS5 both boot up and load up files within 4-5 seconds. Used to take about 20-25 seconds before.
Opening a folder with hundreds of ai.files in Bridge is instant, no loading of previews, they are just there, ready for browsing.
Taking it to the extreme, this is what SSD disks can deliver. Not suggesting you copy this setup, but it shows what is possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs