I understand a bit about computers, but am not sure about processors and speed. I have heard that a dual-core processor does multi-tasking better and is overall faster than a single core. Can you compare chip speeds between the two, or are they rated differently?
What I have is a Dell Dimension 2400, 2.2G Celeron, 1G memory, XP, 40GB HD, 8X DVD R/RW. It works fine for what I use it for and have had no big complaints about the performance. However, I would like a larger HD, a computer that has slots that will take a better video card, and the DVD burner is a bit slow.
I am considering whether to purchase a Dell Inspiron 530s for $300 as an upgrade. It has an Pentium Dual-Core 1.6G processor, 1G memory, Vista, 250GB HD, 16X DVD unit. I believe it also has a better video card, but it does have a PCIe slot to allow an upgrade if needed.
How will the computer perform based on the chipset? Is a Dual-Core 1.6G chip going to operate better than a 2.2G Celeron? Is $300 worth the upgrade of the chipset, larger hard drive, faster DVD burner and expansion slots?
It’s a bit apples and oranges but I have a six month old Toshiba laptop with Pentium Core Duo dual 1.6 GHz processor an 2.5 Gigs of RAM.
It is nowhere near as fast as my three year old self built AMD Athlon 3200+ on an ASUS board an 1 Gig of (slower) RAM. It wasn’t built to be fast either.
Main difference is the laptop has Vista on it, (and all the shovelware removed) the desktop Ubuntu 7.10
I have run Ubuntu on the laptop as a live CD and it did respond very well. Would probably fly if it were installed.
I have yet to see a fast Celeron.
There are a lot of variables to nail down there but I’m convinced that a decent motherboard can make a significant difference.
Getting back to the OP - the Celeron came in many different flavors, but I think the 2.2 was a stripped down Pentium-4, which was very slow for its clock speed. I seem to recall a 3.2GHz Pentium-4 was considered roughly comparable to a 1.6-GHz Pentium-M. A 1.6GHz Core Duo (essentially two Pentium-M’s) is faster still.
My only problem with the spec you quoted is, Vista doesn’t run very fast with just 1 GB of memory. I’d recommend upgrading to 2 GB, or getting XP instead of Vista. (I think Dell still lets you choose.)
As I said, apples and oranges. The main thrust being that an older machine with less memory was faster than the new machine with more memory, the primary difference being the operating system. I see no improvement on mine after adding an extra 1.5 Gig.
Avoid Vista wherever possible.
From your OP, you don’t seem to do much that requires a very powerful processor. Putting in a larger hard drive really has nothing to do with processor speed, and neither does installing a faster DVD burner. You could add both of those and still keep your Celeron. The faster video card is a slightly different issue, because it depends on exactly what you need it for. Do you want to run high-end games, which might also require a faster processor?
The Dual Core 1.6 is definitely a more powerful processor than your Celeron, and upgrading certainly wouldn’t do you any harm. But you need to consider exactly what tasks you are going to do with your computer. Different tasks require different types of computer resources. Some use a lot of processor power, but not much RAM, others need quite a lot of RAM, but not very much processor power. And some need both.
If you intend to do a lot of video encoding (e.g., turning your home movies into DVDs and stuff like that), then a fast processor will really help. If you have a lot of applications open at one time, and like to work on multiple large documents (image files, pdf files, etc., etc.), then a whole bunch of RAM will be of use to you. I’m simplifying a bit, of course, but different tasks do place different burdens on your computer’s resources.
As scr4 suggests, more RAM is also good if you’re going to run Windows Vista. While some people claim to have no problems with 1Gb, the general consensus seems to be that 2Gb should be considered standard for Vista, especially if you want to run the eye candy.
I would stay with XP, which I am very happy with. My system originally had 512M of memory, but I upgraded it to 1G afew years ago.
I use my computer for many things. The only time I have any trouble with it is:
Sometimes, when running a large video file, it will stutter and hesitate a bit
I am not a gamer, but some more graphic intensive games (such as Doom III) will stutter quite a bit and run slow. I attribute this to my onboard video card. I can get a better card to fit the PCI slot, but they are more expensive and fewer available. The more modern computer has a PCIe slot, so there is more of a selection available.
Doing any movie editing is slow.
The hard drive (40G) is small
The DVD burner could be a bit faster
I often run a webpage building program, a photo manipulation program, a photo optimiser, and several open windows of files when building a webpage. Sometimes running all that at once slows things down a bit.
I could upgrade the computer I have, but I have a chance to get this newer Dell, at a good price, and it has many of the things that would be an upgrade for me. However, it is not such a good deal if the processor is going to run slower, or if it is not going to perform better for me when running extensive software or several programs at one time.
So, all other things being equal, is the Pentium 1.6G Dual-Core going to perform significantly better and/or faster than a Celeron 2.2G?
So, video editting and games. Both are video, memory, and processor intensive. Yes, the dual-core is likely to perform better, but your major upgrades are going to be memory and in particular the video card. If your PC has a PCI Express 16 slot, start by getting yourself a GeForce 8800 GT or the ATI equivalent. Budget an extra $200 or so.
If you go for the new computer, since you’re doing video editting, make sure you get at least 2GB of memory. You may find it cheaper to specify 2 GB (2x 1 GB) on your order and order another 2 GB from Crucial or wherever.
One important issue: I’ve looked at the Dell Online Store and the Inspiron 530S looks to be a slimline machine. This means that normal video cards won’t fit - and you need something better than the integrated Intel, so I’d go for the normal 530