Quick question about CPU's

**Nosjack** · February 16, 2011, 09:00 AM

Well my PC right now is pretty much crap, AMD 64 single core 2.2 Ghz processor with a really old mobo. As such I'm going to upgrade it soon.

My question is, would it be better to have a faster CPU with less cores, or a slower one with more cores?
Since my mobo is so old it won't support newer processors, so I've been looking at mobo/CPU bundles at Tigerdirect.com. I see several 3.X Ghz speed dual core processors, while most quad core or better ones only have 2.0/2.2/ and if I'm willing to spend alot of money, 2.8 Ghz speeds. Which one is better?

Kind of a side note, but I'm not really familiar with mobo brands, care to make any recommendations?

As usual, anyone who answers gets a bear hug and +rep.

EDIT: to kind of expand on this, some games say 2.X Ghz speed processors for minimum specs, can that be lower if I have a multi core processor?

**Bolkonsky** · February 16, 2011, 10:03 AM

My recommendation would be go with 2 cores, each at over 3ghz. Don't spend tons of money for 4 cores at slower speeds. Programs don't really utilize them very well.

**Devilmaypoop** · February 16, 2011, 02:37 PM

Get a quad. It's not worth getting a dual since almost all modern programs are starting to support quad cores. And a quad at 2.8 is much faster than a dual at 3.5 in multithreaded apps. Also most quads nowadays are all around the 3 ghz mark, like the dual's. I'd recommend Athlon II 640 or something. It should be around 100 dollars and has tons of bang for the buck.

**Ishan** · February 16, 2011, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by nosjack202

My question is, would it be better to have a faster CPU with less cores, ~~or a slower one with more cores?~~

^

Originally Posted by nosjack202

Since my mobo is so old it won't support newer processors, so I've been looking at mobo/CPU bundles at Tigerdirect.com. I see several 3.X Ghz speed dual core processors, while most quad core or better ones only have 2.0/2.2/ and if I'm willing to spend alot of money, 2.8 Ghz speeds. Which one is better?

If you got the money then don't waste it on getting a quad core 2.8Ghz better upgrade your graphics card as that's where gaming comes from. So just get a Dual core it's more than enough for games.

Originally Posted by nosjack202

Kind of a side note, but I'm not really familiar with mobo brands, care to make any recommendations?

Gigabyte & ASUS these are the best manufacturers.

Originally Posted by nosjack202

EDIT: to kind of expand on this, some games say 2.X Ghz speed processors for minimum specs, can that be lower if I have a multi core processor?

It shouldn't be lower then the minimum system requirements cores don't play that much role in gaming only the frequency matters(3.0GHz etc).

**Nosjack** · February 16, 2011, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ishan

If you got the money then don't waste it on getting a quad core 2.8Ghz better upgrade your graphics card as that's where gaming comes from. So just get a Dual core it's more than enough for games.

I have an ATI radeon 5770, which seems to work pretty well.

Gigabyte & ASUS these are the best manufacturers.

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration, although I've seen some good reviews on Biostar mobo's, any difference with that brand?

Bear hugs and +rep all around, thanks guys!

**Ishan** · February 17, 2011, 12:34 PM

Yeah the card is alright and yes Biostar is also good.

**Nosjack** · February 17, 2011, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ishan

Yeah the card is alright and yes Biostar is also good.

Great

[offtopic]
I just now noticed that your avatar has glowing eyes,

[/offtopic]

**Top-Tier-Tech** · February 17, 2011, 01:51 PM

If your motherboard is "so old" it is possible that your RAM will have to be upgraded as well depending on your mobo choice. you can get an AMD 3.0Ghz. quad core for about $100 these days, a 3.0Ghz. tri-core for about $75 and a 3.0Ghz. dual core for about $60 so I'd recommend a tri-core if you want bang for your buck since you have to spend at least $60 anyway. Do you have certain amount you're willing to spend on this upgrade? I could recommend you the best deal for your dollar if you'd like.

Cheers

**Nosjack** · February 17, 2011, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by ChaobSiroc

If your motherboard is "so old" it is possible that your RAM will have to be upgraded as well depending on your mobo choice. you can get an AMD 3.0Ghz. quad core for about $100 these days, a 3.0Ghz. tri-core for about $75 and a 3.0Ghz. dual core for about $60 so I'd recommend a tri-core if you want bang for your buck since you have to spend at least $60 anyway. Do you have certain amount you're willing to spend on this upgrade? I could recommend you the best deal for your dollar if you'd like.

Cheers

Yes, my current RAM is DDR, so I'm upgrading that, also doubling it to 4GB

As for prices, I would like for it to be around 3.0Ghz for about $50-$70 so a dual or tri core would make the most sense. My hoped for price would be $250 for mobo+processor+RAM, and a Power supply, as mine is only a 450, which seems a tad on the small side, hoping for a good priced 550-650 range one.

**Top-Tier-Tech** · February 17, 2011, 05:41 PM

Motherboard

3.1Ghz. tri-core CPU

4GB DDR3 1333

550 watt PSU

$247 before MIR, $217.00 after MIR.

I guarantee this is your best bang for your buck while choosing high quality components from reputable manufacturers.

**Nosjack** · February 17, 2011, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by ChaobSiroc

Motherboard

3.1Ghz. tri-core CPU

4GB DDR3 1333

550 watt PSU

$247 before MIR, $217.00 after MIR.

I guarantee this is your best bang for your buck while choosing high quality components from reputable manufacturers.

Holy crap dude, excellent work.
Thanks!

Seems like the mobo is a bit small (PCI slots too close together) but I'll look around,

**ROFL Copter** · February 17, 2011, 08:09 PM

I would wait a bit before upgrading at all. Sandy Bridge processors are insane fast but need to be fixed a bit, and AMD is soon releasing their Bulldozer line which will destroy even Sandy Bridge. Its gonna be a crazy year.

**Top-Tier-Tech** · February 17, 2011, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by ROFL Copter

I would wait a bit before upgrading at all. Sandy Bridge processors are insane fast but need to be fixed a bit, and AMD is soon releasing their Bulldozer line which will destroy even Sandy Bridge. Its gonna be a crazy year.

First off there is nothing wrong with Sandy Bridge, rather Cougar Point which is the southbridge chipset on the motherboard. Secondly the problem has been resolved and the boards with the new chips should start hitting the market in a couple weeks with supply returning to previous levels in 6 weeks. Thirdly there is no evidence to indicate Bulldozer will "destroy" Sandy Bridge, supposed leaked information by an AMD employee is inconclusive. There are no true benchmarks with which to compare the two lineups.

**mrmouth** · February 17, 2011, 09:50 PM

Yeah, the AMD, AM3 builds are so cheap right now. Im putting one together for a friend of a friend, and with everything it was $380 shipped. Pretty much the same build as ChaobSiroc listed