Still baffled by dual core

Hello everyone,

I'm afraid I'm a bit behind the times and I need some help. Basically, I have an Intel Celeron 2.8Ghz with 1.50 Gb Ram and an 80Gb HD. This PC is not only slow for modern standards. It's also got a bug that causes automatic restarts (one of which caused a hardware memory error on my graphics card) that cannot be solved by any means including restores and complete reformats of the OS and is now riddled with bugs that I have no idea how to solve and no experts can seem to help me with.

So I'm in need of a new PC. I was just about to buy a PACKARD Bell iMedia D2522 which has a E3300 Celeron processor (is this dual-core?) but it only runs at 2.5Ghz. Does this mean it will run more programs quicker but that if I, for example, play a processor-demanding game, it will play the game itself slower? In other words, does the other core only kick in when being used for something else or does a 2.5 Ghz Dual Core processor actually work out as being a 5.0Ghz single processor?

My other option is a COMPAQ Presario CQ5305UK-m which is a Pentium Dual Core E5300 running at 2.6 GHz. Is this the better option? Basically, I'm sick to death of slow, error-hungry PCs. I don't really do much hardcore gaming but I'd certainly appreciate something that matches up to 3 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor which seems to be the standard for games that I occasionally play.

Please help someone. I'm afraid I'm no longer in touch with all of the friends I once had who were up to date on such things.

 

Per http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGU4, the E3300 Celeron processor is a dual core processor. If the price difference between the two computers is not an issue, I think I'd get the Compaq.

No, but it's faster than a single core 2.5GHz processor. I'll leave a technical explanation to someone else. However, this should help: http://compreviews.about.com/od/cpus/a/dualcore.htm; as you can see, dual core processors are better at multi-tasking.

 

Check to see if your games are dual-core aware which will greatly improve play if your graphics card is up to par. Maybe the P4 machine had a good graphics and your current laptop has a slow graphics card. Things have to be balanced so that one part of the machine will not choke another, especially true in gaming. Oh, do not buy the 'minimum required' as stated on the game box, go with at least the recommended specs.

 

Thanks, guys but I'm afraid I'm still not clear. I've read about multithreading and hyperthreading now and I get the idea. I also appreciate the idea that these PCs can multitask better and, if you tweak some games (as seems necessary with many of them) then you can benefit...although I hate the idea of having to tweak things.

But say, for example, that I was unable to tweak a game. Would I then be better off with my 2.8Ghz single proc rather than the dual 2.5Ghz proc? It sounds like it could mean that a lot of old games would be a lot worse off under this system...and that's hardly much of an 'upgrade'.:confused

Isn't there some sort of graph that pitches proc capability with different models alongside each other? Or does it not work like that and all depends on which software you run?

To be specific, I play some games that are now quite old: Half-Life 2, Oblivion and Thief: Deadly Shadows (or any of the older ones in this series). I can see that at least Oblivion is 'tweakable' and I'd relish the increased speed for doing work-related things but, as I mod for Oblivion, I need to have a P4 equivalent in order to perform some functions in the construction set so it needs to be overall much better than the 2.8Ghz single proc speed that I have now...I'm really not very convinced by all this multi core stuff tbh.

 

I'll PM a member here who's an avid gamer that might be able to help you, they'll be on maybe in 6 hours.

 

Thanks augiedoggie. I really appreciate your efforts!

 

I'd at least get a Pentium Dual Core. Have you checked into AMD, they are for more budget users, and it sounds like you're on a budget

 

Alright, first off, you're not going to find an equivalent of a P4 on the market today. Anything at all available for sale will be an upgrade by comparison. There are several reasons I say that, the first and most important one is that a computer you buy today is going to have a lot more RAM and a much more powerful GPU than anything that shipped with a Pentium 4 back in the day. A competent GPU will take over a lot of the CPU's workload, and since it's dedicated exclusively to graphics and has it's own RAM, it will free up loads of processor cycles for non-graphics tasks.

A problem you are going to run into regardless of which of those two systems you decide to purchase is that they both have integrated graphics. Integrated graphics chips are horrible for gaming. Unless you want to limit yourself to games from 5 years ago or older, you need discrete graphics (computer speak for “dedicated video card”). And yes, that includes a lot of Oblivion mods, especially the graphics-focused ones. Have you ever seen the movie The Fast and the Furious? If the cars those guys drive are dedicated video cards, integrated graphics would be a Honda Accord. You can try to race them, but it really isn't going to end well... well, at least you're not going to win.

I couldn't find any detailed specifications on the Packard Bell you are looking at, but the Compaq has expansion slots you can put a dedicated video card in. It's very easy to do, you just stick it in, make sure it's clicked into place, and then run the CD that came with it. If they offer a video card upgrade when you place the order, then if you have the budget for it you can just request that and they will install it for you before they ship the PC.

As for dual-core compared to single core, picture this:

I'm in my kitchen, making dinner. I got two pots on the stove (potatoes and gravy), chicken in the oven, and I'm making a salad. In order to make dinner happen I need to stir the gravy, keep an eye on the chicken, get the potatoes out of the pot and into a bowl where I will need to mash them with butter and fresh garlic when they are ready, and I need to cut the lettuce, tomatoes and cucumbers that I'm putting in the salad. This takes me roughly 20 minutes, 10 minutes per major task (salad and potatoes).

That's a single-core CPU; one person working.

Meanwhile my husband comes into the kitchen and asks if he can do anything to help, to make dinner happen faster? Sure, I tell him, watch the potatoes and when they're soft enough, put them in that bowl over there, add the butter and fresh garlic and mash it all together. I then turn my almost-undivided attention to cutting up salad ingredients, while occasionally reaching out to stir the gravy.

Now we're a dual core CPU, each one performing a separate task, but at the same time. So if I get done with my salad in 12 minutes and he gets done with the potatoes in 14, we still got dinner done faster than the 20 minutes it would have taken me alone. (Obviously I would have used my extra two minutes to finish the gravy and take the chicken out of the oven. )

To give you an example from actual computer gaming, I have a desktop computer that has a 3GHz Pentium 4 processor. It also has 2GB RAM and a 7800GS video card. This computer struggles to run The Witcher on minimum settings since the RAM and video card are very weak by today's standards, and the processor has only one core. I also have a laptop that has a 1.6GHz i7 CPU, 4GB of RAM and an HD5730 video card. It can run The Witcher on maximum settings without breaking a sweat, since the processor has four cores and uses TurboBost, an awesome little piece of Intel technology that can over-clock cores based on usage. So if my game only uses one CPU core, the other three will sit idle and that one will be over-clocked to close to 3.0GHz. Starting at 1.6GHz, that's not half bad. More importantly, the larger amount of RAM and the exponentially better graphics card factor in as well.

What you need to keep in mind is that when you are running a game, your CPU is multi-tasking. It's running a very large number of processes at once, to keep up with how the game progresses... and the GPU is as well. You also need to keep in mind this, which is far more important: When you're gaming on a PC, the whole is always, always, always, greater than the sum of the parts. One of your components can be sub-par (within reason) if the others are making up for it.

If your primary concern is that you want your new PC to be able to run your old games, relax. It can. Running today's games two years from now though, that's another story entirely.

 

RESPONSE TO THEREELGEEK's post (I'm just reading Mimsy's) -

I was told Athlon weren't worth bothering with.

I have limited funds but, of course, don't want anything crappy or not very future-proof. As long as it performs better than my current set-up and is reliable then it should be okay-ish.

The problem is I used to know what various procs did and roughly how they performed but the multi-core stuff just seems too variable to figure out.

 

Frankly, that's a matter of opinion. Mine is that you should stick with Intel, but that's mainly because that's all I've ever used. AMDs are supposed to over-clock a lot better, if you're into that.

You might actually want to consider building your own... if you don't mind spending months of researching and reading reviews and articles, that is. It does lower the price, and it's hard to beat the sense of accomplishment of building your own computer.

 

I'm afraid over-clocking was another thing that kind of puzzled me. It sounded too fiddly. My skills are somewhat limited. For the same reason, building my own would be an absolute no-no. I wouldn't have a clue where to start...although this old PC right now has quite a few salvageable parts.

Talking of which, I have an NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS/XT 512Mb which, as I mentioned in my first post, is great but has acquired a graphical glitch that I believe came about as a result of one of my many system shut-downs. I'd like to use it but may need to get it fixed if that's possible....or buy a new one (but that's another story that I might be best continuing on another thread sometime...if it can be fixed, that is).

Anyway, I'm leaning towards the Compaq and, as long as the 2GB DDR3 memory is upgradeable (which you'd advise...?) and I can use this old graphics card then it sounds like a sound investment.

Thanks for your help, Mimsy! It looks like you get a lot of thanks. Does the forum keep some sort of a 'thanks total' or something because I'd gladly add to the figure...Edit - Found the icon. You're now officially thanked!

 

I do advise upgrading the memory if it only comes with 2GB, especially since it most likely will ship with Windows 7. Get the 64-bit version of the operating system, start out at 4GB, and upgrade down the road as you see fit.

I'm not sure about the video card. I used to have a 6800,and it was an AGP card, if I remember right. The Compaq PC you're looking at has only PCI-E expansion slots. However, PCI video cards are comparatively cheap to come by, especially here in the US. Since you were looking at a Packard Bell you are probably in Europe (UK?), but a video card is still an inexpensive upgrade compared to any other computer parts. We have a lot of UK based members who can recommend you a reliable and honest hardware store. Just make a new thread about that, you'll get some good replies pretty quick.

Thank augiedoggie, I would never have noticed this thread if he hadn't PM'ed me. I usually hang out in the Gaming Forum here at MGs, not in the Hardware section... my day job is hardware tech support, so I try to avoid it when I'm off work. I've been known to make exceptions when a friend asks though.

The forum does keep a "Thanks total". If you look in the upper right of my posts you'll see it says "thanked 300 times in 277 posts". That's the total. If you click the Thanks button in any post I make, that gets added to the total, and this of course applies to any other forum member. Personally, I have made it a habit of clicking on "thanks" whenever someone here helps me, since it adds to their total.

EDIT:
Never mind, looks like you figured that out. LOL

 

Also I would suggest loading :

CPU-Control
http://majorgeeks.com/CPU-Control_d5875.html
Rating: 4.8 (5 votes)

and set it to Automatic for best performance in multi-core CPU's

I have used it for ages on up to XP. Don't know about W7 though.

Bazza

 

That's a useful point about the PCI slots. It seems that both of them have PCI and not AGP which is a real bummer!

Now that I look at the Packard Bell, it mentions that the Standard RAM is upgradeable to 4Gb but there is no mention of such a thing for the Compaq. This is throwing a spanner in the works tbh. Also, the Packard Bell is a Celeron E3300 as opposed to the Compaq's E3500 which, as I understand it, is quite inferior on account of the Celeron's poor reputation...

 

I looked up the Compaq for you. Max amount listed by HP-Compaq is a total of 4GB. And yes, the Celeron E3300 is weaker than the Dual Core E3500.

 

I hear that the E5300 is one of the biggest bangs for the buck on the Intel 775 Socket.

 

Yes, but not in Celeron it isn't. Actually, I thought the Celeron line was removed in favour of Pentium D, which is the dual-core version of Celeron. I may well be wrong though.

 

Well, I'm certainly in favour of the E3500 but my big problem now is that everywhere I go I get the same response: no one includes AGP graphics card slots!:banghead

That completely screws me because I thought it would be a simple case of transferring what, to me at least, was a very good graphics card. I do have an old ATI Radeon 256mb but it's not nearly as powerful. Does anyone use AGP slots these days? What happened to them? Why does no one use them?

 

Because PCI Express is much faster and better, as are the cards that go in them. In other words, nothing happened to them, they were simply pushed out of the way by new and improved technology, just like Celeron processors, DDR RAM, and VHS tapes.

 

Yup, my last AGP machine was from 2002 with a 1GHz Celeron, they were still available in 2K5 but they were being pushed out, now they are relics. You're going to have to bite the bullet on this I'm afraid but I think you will be pleasantly surprised with even a modest 7XXX series PCI-E card.

 

You can still get brand new Celerons for the 775 socket, but I also think they are getting phased out because there are no celeron processors for the 1156 socket, and there is a Pentium for the 1156 socket set.