Geoff
Lallygag Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,584
- MBTI Type
- INXP
Very good. You should probably listen to him instead of us, actually.
Of course, now I want to ramble about processors... more just to hear myself talk than anything else.
I've realized that I probably went over with the graphics card, since that's the lowest one I've tested Vista on... was afraid to use anything less based on what I had heard about Vista's ridiculous requirements.
But I still recommend an E6850 or better as a processor. Unless your budget is severely cramped, there's no reason to go cheaper than that.
E6850: $190 (3.0GHz, 2 cores, 6MB cache)
Q6600: $200 (2.4GHz, 4 cores, 4MB cache)
E4600: $120 (2.4GHz, 2 cores, 2MB cache) *cheapest option*
Is it worth $80-$90 dollars to lose that much performance? That's very little money you get for the increased performance, especially considering how much higher-end processors go for, how much they use to charge for them in the past, how much you typically spend on other components in a system, and how important the processor is.
You can choose whether to go for more cores, or more speed. No need to go as low as possible. I'd recommend the more expensive E6850 or Q6600, and wouldn't think it was such a bad idea to go a little higher if your budget isn't too tight.
I really don't understand all these people asking you to go as cheap as possible on the processor.
Easy! Because we can find a decent machine for say $300, perhaps $400. It's easier to find something quite a bit better for another 60 or 70 dollars. So.. let's spent 60-70 more for the processor, 60-70 more for a bigger hard drive, 60-70 more for a better graphics card... and so on. Oh look! It's now a $600 machine which wasn't needed in the first place.