[The Architect 2.0]

i was curious as to the value of getting a processor that yields more GHz. i'm asking because i was reading that after so many GHz, the 'memory wall' comes into effect, rendering the extra money useless.

so, is it worth it investing more money into a faster processor(including factors other than just the 'memory wall')?

[no2pencil]

When shopping for a processor, I always value the cache as the most important factor. A processor can only perform as fast as the instructions can be fed to it. So the more cache, the more instructions.

[The Architect 2.0]

sorry, i'm not very hardware savvy. do you mean to get more RAM?

[sunshineTom]

No he means Cache. A registry on the processor that helps brings more instructions into the processor. The more instructions a procesoor can get the faster things are performed.

[1lacca]

Things are not so easy.
First of all, google some benchmarks of the processors you are thinking of. More GHz doesn't mean a faster CPU, not just because of the cache, but because of the architecture: back in the days, a Pentium4 was trashed by Pentium 3s on a clock for clock basis. It is not like mph or km/h, an AMD GHz is not the same as an Intel GHz, and even looking at the different products of the same vendor there can be significant difference.
For the same product however usually more GHz means more speed, unless you hit another bottleneck of your system: changing from 2.5GHz to 3GHz with Vista and 512MByte RAM won't do much (does actually Vista installs on 512?)
Also, the cache mentioned above is something similar: if a CPU has slow memory access, then cache will be really important (like Pentium 4s), but with HT it is not that important. It is usually true, that the more is better, but again, it depends on the architecture, and 256kb of AMD cache won't be the same as 256kb of Intel cache (sounds silly, but I hope it makes sense). Finally even applications react differently for the size of the cache, some are cache intensive, some are not so sensitive.
Bottom line: I'd assume telling us what do you have right now(CPU model number, memory, VGA, etc.) , how much you want to spend on it, and what are you expecting from it/what are you going to use it for (OS, applications, games). Then we can give you better suggestions.

[The Architect 2.0]

ah, okay, i think i get it. is it effectively similiar to how two different compilers can offer 'equally'-efficient log(n log n) sort algorithms, YET, one implementation runs faster than the other?

i'm looking to buy a laptop for school(in BCIT for computer programming). as to the specific usage of the laptop, i want to do a bunch of multitasking(which as far as i was concerned, required a strong processor). i want to be able to run 2-4 fx browsers with 3-5 tabs each, have 3-4 wordpad documents open at once, be reading a PDF document, whilst having visual c++ and netbeans being used while i have a music player working in the background - all without having any slowing down of any program. moving on, i'd like to have a good sound card(although...i've never actually encountered a bad one). a good video card is MUCH less of a concern for me - the computer will mainly be for the internet and programming, not games. also, this will be using vista home premium and i want to keep the graphical aspects working.

i'm not too picky with cost overrun, but looking between 700-1000. basically, JUST meet the requirements and no more.


laptop - i'm eyeing this one for its keyboard/touchpad layout and interior asthetics. i'm just not sure what i'm looking at in terms of hardware.

also, does Dell provide other 'top'(when the laptop is closed) panels? cause the current one is fugly as hell.

[MorphiusFaydal]

I'd say that laptop will work just fine for what you're doing. Might want to think about 64-bit Vista and 4GB of RAM but that's up to you.

[KYA]

its been said, but its worth repeating. The speed of the processor is not the only factor in your decision. All components work together to get things done. Having a nice processor, but crap or low memory will only bottleneck your system.

[ferrari12508]

KYA your contribution is appreciated....I swear!

[KYA]

I appreciate me as well

[ccrasherdeb]

Look for the cpu with the fastest FSB because biggest bottleneck in many systems is the Fsb speed or internal transfer speeds between internal components. A Big cpu with max. Ghz wont do anything for you with an inefficient FSB, also get as much ram as your system can use because all the types of applications that you said you want to use will cause windows to page out and in massive amounts of data and the more ram you have available, the less paging will be required and thus the system can run much faster. Make sure that you buy a RETAIL version of Vista Ultimate. This is the only version that includes both the 32 and 64 bit versions together. The 32 bit version can only address a max. of 2^32 of ram whereas the 64 bit can address up to 2^64 of ram. So if ram becomes an issue with the 32 bit version, then you wont need to buy the 64 bit version which can get costly.

[1lacca]

With Vista and two IDEs I'd say 4G RAM is a better choice.
The Intel graphics decelerator might be a problem, their drivers are not that good. It is true, that problems are reported only with games, but since you want to use Vista in all it's graphics glory it might cause problems. Going with ATI might make sense, but I am not totally sure about this (Nvidia mobile chipsets are having difficult times know, their error rate is quite high, and their BIOS fix spins the fans like there is no tomorrow to postpone this death)
Finally, I've written about this a couple of times even in this forum, people are still coming back with this 32bit Windows can't address more than 3.25G RAM. It is not true, if you specify the PAE boot option, and your hardware supports it, it will be able to see all your RAM (at least I think you can not put as much RAM into any usual computer that it would cause a problem). It is not the same as using a 64bit OS, because one process will still see only 4G memory (2G kernel, and 2G in user space), but together they'll use more than that.
For the unbelievers see:here and here.