My parents need a computer upgrade. They run 2 users pretty much all day and each user has multiple spreadsheets. MS Outlook and browsers open running their home business. Is the Core 2 Quad and the AMD Phenom the best choices for this application? Should I upgrade them to a 64bit OS so they can run 8 or 16GB of ram? I am guessing ram is a big issue for this type of application.
Core 2 Quad beats the Phenom. 64 bit is overkill for Outlook and browsers because not many programs are specialized for it. Do they plan to run a server on it? Photo/Video editing?
If it's just spreadsheets and Outlook, you really only need a good solid processor with 2-4GB RAM maximum. Anything above that is unnecesary for that kinda thing. Over 4GB RAM is mainly for professional servers and intensive gaming.
I am looking for a computer that will do some elementary photo editing . . . maybe some animation [flash etc] What would you suggest? Rocket River
C2D E8400 is a good value. C2Q if you want to future proof it for a couple of years. 32bit OS = C2D 64bit OS = C2Q
I'm not too sure, but here's my two cents. I think a Merom/Penryn core2 duo that's more than 2.2 Ghz (or a desktop equivalent to that laptop CPU) would be more than adequate for basic photo editing and flash animation. The newer processors would reduce processing/rendering time, but I think that baseline is responsive enough for working the program. For the GPU, my baseline would be a Geforce 8800GT or better. That might be overkill but you'd get to be able to play some sweet games on it. You really don't need the best unless you're in a rush or you like processing things fast and run 3 or 4 photoshops at the same time. The advantages with multi core is running multiple instances of different programs. (For running the same program many times, it depends on if it supports multi-threading.) It's still uncommon to have a program that can break down one task into two or four separate pieces for each core to work on. In Casey's parent's case, with a quad core and a 512 MB video card, they can photochop while running multiple browsers and spreadsheets. 64-bit Windows would technically make photo editing faster, but again, it's not widely adopted yet so the gains are mostly on paper.
No they will just be doing what i listed. The problem is for their business seconds matter when on the phone they need those web pages and excel files to come up from standby fast. I have them with 4GB of RAM but its on a XP home OS so it sees 3GB. They currently have a single core Athlon64 and it is not cutting it, however I am not sure if more RAM is needed (and go to a 64bit OS) or a multi-core CPU.
RAM is definitely not your issue. Seriously, just move up to dual core. If you by a Manchester or a Toledo (I think), then you shouldn't even have to change your Motherboard. (These should both be s939, as your single core Athlon is) If you shop around though, I'm sure you could find a nice deal on a C2D and a decent (stable) motherboard. Quad-Core would be unnecessary imo. If you don't mind spending the money, though, go for it. And since you already have 4gb RAM, might wanna look into Vista64, or even XP64. (would probably avoid this) Honestly, 2GB running under XP should be plenty. If they don't have a dedicated video card, I would also suggest looking into this-- you can get lower end 8xxx series cards for some pretty good prices.
The current CPU is an AM2 chip but if I upgrade I will go with the latest one that can support 1066 ram because thats what I have. What do you think of a hard drive upgrade from the current 7200 SATA to a 10K rpm SATA? Do you think that would net more real world performance?
First of all, you can't just plug in a new CPU into whatever old setup you had and expect it to work - it's dependent on your Motherboard. Not only will it not work, you might fry your rig and your new CPU and have a break of the warranty to show for it. Some only handle Intel, some only AMD, and the newer processors are 45nm so you especially can't plug in a 45nm into an old MB that isn't suited to run it. However, 45nm is what you wanna go and Intel is doing it best right now. They will have no problem running the basic tasks your folks want to do, and will set you up for at least a few more years. You'd imagine that these smaller, faster, more powerful CPUs cost more, but they're actually cheaper and even use less energy than their last generation counterparts. Here's a list: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...010340343 50001157 1050722265&name=Core 2 Duo And I completely agree with former poster's choice of E8400 which is the standard for many builder's computers: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037 As for 64-bit, and RAM... not sure who is giving you that advice but they are totally unnecessary. For even multiple MS Outlooks, spreadsheets, browsers, 2 gigs of RAM is fine a 32-bit OS will still be functional for a long time to come.
Yeah I am not r****ded I built this computer and a few others. Its just the motherboard to me is a function of the CPU and discussing which MB in this thread is not related to the topic. I always consider them a pair when upgraded to take advantage of the faster bus speeds the CPU offers. For instance I could plug in a Phenom to my AM2 board but I would not do that.
Upgrade the CPU if you want. I doubt memory is the issue. Sounds like you're trying to kill a rat with a howitzer by doing massive upgrade, though. I've run XP with Outlook, multiple spreadsheets, and a VMWare session running another instance XP in that XP session without a ton of slowdown on an old beat up AMD 3200+ with 2 GB RAM. Forget the hard drive upgrade. A quad core will probably be overkill as well - especially if they don't use apps that will take full use of them. If you go the 64-bit OS route (which I wouldn't) most mobo's will have trouble supporting over 8 GB ram. I'd upgrade the CPU and make sure the existing mobo can support it. The recommendation of the E8400 earlier is a good one.
It is not just related but directly related. For instance, old 680i boards advertise they support 45nm but actually run at a performance at a fraction of their ability. You should find out what your Motherboard is and post it, and what cores it supports. Rocket River, I don't know how advanced your Graphics designing is - if it's just going to be really basic 2d flash animations, any simple setup will do. (XP, E8400 with a MB that supports it, 2g, <$100 graphics card). If your intention is a little more advanced graphics/design, you might want to see this thread: http://www.gpureview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=745
It is an AM2 socket so it does not support what I would get if I upgraded so frankly my current board does not matter.
\You should just post your full system specs. It seems kinda unlikely that a computer that is running 4GB already can't deal with multiple instances of outlook and spreadsheets. I'm almost tempted to say it's not your hardware at all but probably all the normal junk applications people think are necessary to load at startup instead of disabling - except we won't know what's bottlenecking until you post your specs, let alone know if it's the CPU.
Sorry I thought I posted them, but now I see they are kinda spread out. Asus AM2 socket MB (it is my old gaming MB cannot remember the model number) Athlon64 AM2 socket, I THINK it is 2.4ghz 2 sticks of 2GB 1066mhz RAM running at 800mhz SATA 3.0 Seagate HDD 7200rpm It has no spyware or anything, it goes to the same websites everyday and is only used for their business. running XP home so only 3gb or so of the RAM is being used.
