# Multicore processor vs. clock speed vs. RAM **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 29, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126 "2009-08-29T04:31:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Yodalicious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yodalicious/32/8195_2.png) [@Yodalicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yodalicious)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126/1 "2009-08-29T04:31:04Z")
I’m computer shopping, been doing my research. I’m pretty sure I want a quad core processor. I guess my question is: which is better quad core and slower clock speed or dual core and higher clock speed, or at some point do they kind of sort of equal out, or does it even matter? Also, how does RAM come into play these days. Do I need more RAM if I opt for a dual core processor. Mostly, I’ll be using the computer for the usual stuff - interweb, email, music, video, etc. I don’t play many PC games, but if I had a computer that could play some of the new games, I might play them. Thanks for the advice. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126/2 "2009-08-29T05:19:40Z")
dual core with higher clock. Most applications [still] can’t use \>2 cores effectively. Of course, it does depend on what the clock difference is (is it at least 20%?) and, of course, what apps you use. The ones you listed will work better with 2, although they’re so non-intensive they honestly won’t care either way. RAM is always good. It is also dirt cheap ($50 for 4GB), although your OEM might want to charge you a lot for it. Suggestion: don’t skimp on the graphics card. More and more apps are using it, not just games. Anything that’s not integrated and/or made by Intel will be decent. Higher-end cards, of course, are for games only. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126/3 "2009-08-29T06:12:19Z")
If you don’t use any apps that do heavy computations or processing (and are written to take advantage of multi-threading), then all those cores won’t do you much. I work in rendering CG imagery, and encoding video, which takes some huge horsepower. I have a Dual Quad-Core Intel Xeon… so eight cores on my rig. They serve me incredibly well, because when rendering a scene, it’s like I have eight CPUs crunching in parallel. All these cores are running at 3GHz. So, if you’re not doing any huge processor crunching, like rendering CGI, encoding video, or doing any other esoteric computational gymnastics, a dual-core high GHz processor will be just peachy for you. Games usually rely on the GPU, which is on your video card. And the rest of the things you list are just fine on one core. And, no matter what your rig, the more RAM the better. I recommend at least a couple GBs. I’m on a Mac, so I’m not sure how it is with PCs, but unless your OS, the hardware and the app you’re using is 64bit, it can’t address more than 4GBs of RAM anyway. But 4 is far more than adequate for just about any typical, everyday computer task anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126/4 "2009-08-29T06:34:45Z")
Daddypants, For everything you mentioned besides possibly playing video games, EVERY SINGLE CPU ON THE MARKET will work just fine. Don’t sweat it. Today’s processors are massively overpowered if you’re just using web browsers and office suites. Pay more attention to RAM and hard disk size. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126/5 "2009-08-29T06:37:35Z")
Dual core processors are generally faster for cheaper - and most programs don’t take proper advantage of multicore processors and so the general perceived speed of your system will at the current time be best with a faster dual core system. That’s the route I went. More and more programs are being designed to maximize multicore output, so in the future more cores will be more valuable. But even then, this is mostly high end CPU gobbling stuff like video editing or gaming. For casual use, I’d go with a cheaper, faster dual core. RAM doesn’t enter the picture. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multicore-processor-vs-clock-speed-vs-ram/508126/6 "2009-08-29T07:40:23Z")
The only issue here is games. Newer games - e.g. Far Cry 2 - do make efficient use of multiple cores, and do benefit from gobs of memory. But memory is more important than multiple cores. Newer apps, like Google’s Chrome browser are also thoroughly multi-threaded, and so benefit from more cores, but you as a user won’t see the difference.