PDA

View Full Version : what's your choice.......


maroozz
05-25-2007, 11:31 AM
hi every one........

if u had the choose between 2 laptops........

1......2GHz processor and 4GB ram.........or
2......2.33GHz processor and 1GB ram

what will it be??
and ofcourse both laptops are core 2 duo......512mb videocard.....4mb cash....17".....all other quality optins

note:in choice 2 i won't be able to upgrade the ram for a long time may be 1 or 2 years so i have to know wich will perform better in these two ........http://forums.pcworld.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://forums.pcworld.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tamis
05-25-2007, 12:03 PM
depends on the qualtity of the ram how fast it can load and dump memory

but i would go for the 4 gigs.

ThomasMahler
05-25-2007, 12:12 PM
Are you serious?

1. all the way.

Srek
05-25-2007, 12:40 PM
I totaly agree with Thomas. Option 2 is not realy an option imo
Cheers
Björn

maroozz
05-25-2007, 04:30 PM
the ram size will boost the performance better than processor....are u sure

Srek
05-25-2007, 04:43 PM
~10% more CPU power are below the threshold that you realy feel. You can measure it but if you work with a 2.0 and a 2.3 GHz system with the same basic technology you will not notice a real difference.
A system with only 1 GB of RAM however is simply not usable for work with current 3D applications. With 1 GB you will run into memory swapping most of the time which brings down your performance by a factor of 50 and more.
2 or more GB are realy needed.

Cheers
Björn

maroozz
05-25-2007, 04:51 PM
but wont the processor be slow a little bit for the new programmes comming ahead....

Srek
05-25-2007, 05:19 PM
You not even stated what processors you were comparing so i assumed they were identical except for the clockrate. In that case i think my assement is coorect.
If however you were comparing let's say a Pentium 4 2 GHz with a Core 2 Quad 2.3 GHz then the basic comparison is completely invalid as is my assesment.

Cheers
Björn

maroozz
05-25-2007, 05:21 PM
they both are........... intel core 2 duo

kurtw
05-25-2007, 05:34 PM
they both are........... intel core 2 duo

I agree with the other posters, definately go for the slightly lower clock speed chip for 4GB of memory.

Whats the point to get a slightly faster chip, if it has to sit around and wait for memory to swap to hard disk because it only has 1GB.

Note that unless you have a 64-bit OS, you won't see the full 4GB of memory on your laptop. But thats another issue.

maroozz
05-25-2007, 05:43 PM
I agree with the other posters, definately go for the slightly lower clock speed chip for 4GB of memory.

Whats the point to get a slightly faster chip, if it has to sit around and wait for memory to swap to hard disk because it only has 1GB.

Note that unless you have a 64-bit OS, you won't see the full 4GB of memory on your laptop. But thats another issue.


how come????.......do u mean 32-bit xp pro wont use all 4GB ram

kurtw
05-25-2007, 05:57 PM
how come????

It's the limit of addressable memory on a 32bit computer system/OS.

2 to the power of 32 is 4,294,967,296 bytes, or 4 Gigabytes.

So why can't you see all 4 GB on a 32bit system?

The 4Gig limit is all the OS can "see" even if you physically install more memory. Another problem is that there are other parts of the system that needs to be memory mapped for the OS. Video card ram, and hardware bios's will subtract the total amount of usable user memory.

There are a few folks out there who buy 2 Geforce 8800 GTX's and place them in a windows xp 32bit system with 4GB of memory and the system will only give you 2.2-2.4 GB of usable memory. The system has to address the 1.5 GB of video memory in this example and that is immediately removed from the 4GB pool.

If you install a 64-bit OS such a windows xp pro 64, vista 64 or a 64bit version of linux or OSX, then your memory limit is pushed up to something like 16 Exabytes (16 billion gigabytes).

So in 2030 we may be hitting memory barriers again and have to upgrade our operating systems to a 128-bit memory
system.

On average you should be able to see 3.5 GB on a laptop with 4GB.
I'm not sure if I'm not clear, someone else here may be able to explain it better.

maroozz
05-25-2007, 06:06 PM
well...i got it

but this will change every thing....i never used 64-bit before..is it
diffirent from 32-bit...

Srek
05-25-2007, 07:18 PM
Yes. To make use of the main advantage of a 64 bit OS (larger memory space) the application you use has to be 64 bit too. 32 bit apps will run but don't have the same advantage 64 bit apps have.
Maybe read up a bit about Windows 64 bit on this forum, there have been many discussions about hard and software compatibility as well as driver issues (or mostly non-issues).
Cheers
Björn

lots
05-25-2007, 08:09 PM
It's the limit of addressable memory on a 32bit computer system/OS.

2 to the power of 32 is 4,294,967,296 bytes, or 4 Gigabytes.

So why can't you see all 4 GB on a 32bit system?

The 4Gig limit is all the OS can "see" even if you physically install more memory. Another problem is that there are other parts of the system that needs to be memory mapped for the OS. Video card ram, and hardware bios's will subtract the total amount of usable user memory.

There are a few folks out there who buy 2 Geforce 8800 GTX's and place them in a windows xp 32bit system with 4GB of memory and the system will only give you 2.2-2.4 GB of usable memory. The system has to address the 1.5 GB of video memory in this example and that is immediately removed from the 4GB pool.

If you install a 64-bit OS such a windows xp pro 64, vista 64 or a 64bit version of linux or OSX, then your memory limit is pushed up to something like 16 Exabytes (16 billion gigabytes).

So in 2030 we may be hitting memory barriers again and have to upgrade our operating systems to a 128-bit memory
system.

On average you should be able to see 3.5 GB on a laptop with 4GB.
I'm not sure if I'm not clear, someone else here may be able to explain it better.
Just to add, Windows makes things worse because it reports memory differently depending on how much you have. All the things you describe happen even if you have less than 4GB, the difference is that Windows tells you the total ram in the system with less than 4GB. Once you hit that 4GB though, Windows starts to hide the RAM it is setting aside for DMA devices, and other internal (kernel) functions, and only shows you the 2GB user space. Kind of silly if you ask me. It should be consistent in what is being reported, but its not.

Thats Windows for you :)

maroozz
05-26-2007, 12:11 AM
sorry guys for the late reply i had some stuff to do....


.....i saw everything u said and im confused now..i can get the 64-bit os..boost performance with 4gb ram..... but like u said most of the applications should be 64-bit so it will give me some hard time to find and use...and i dont have that time.........or.......stick with 32-bit os ...2gb ram....i wont have same performance but i stay with the same pro i used without changing anything...........SO

........is it time to change and go to the next level with 64-bit os and its applications
.......or it wont make that big difference and just stay with 32-bit os..same programmes...
.......it seems to me that i have to decide this first before chosing which processor or ram size to get...........

CGTalk Moderation
05-26-2007, 12:11 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.