# Faster ram or faster processor?



## SemiDevil (May 2, 2006)

Greetings y'all

What is usually the rule of thumb when comparing two computers?

Would you rather choose one computer with a high processor speed and a low ram speed?  Or a slower processor but the faster ram?

For example, which one would you choose? A computer that is 3.5 GHz with a 512MB of ram Or a computer that has a 2.53 GHZ but with a 2 gig of ram?

Lets say you want to use it for gaming  and rendering projects.

Thank you.


----------



## Bobo (May 2, 2006)

It depends on what processors they are.  If it is an Intel at 3.5 GHz and an AMD at 2.53 GHz, it doesn't matter how much ram you have, the AMD will beat the intel in gaming.  But 2GB is definitely better for gaming.

So it really all depends on the models.


----------



## Geoff (May 2, 2006)

As Bobo said, it depends on the type of processor.  And 512MB and 2GB are storage sizes, not speed.


----------



## diduknowthat (May 2, 2006)

It's not really that if one's faster or bigger compacity, its gonna be better. It's more of a balance between the processor ram and many other components.


----------



## fade2green514 (May 3, 2006)

lol well, depends on what you're doing.
if you only plan on listenin to music, either would be good...
gaming, depends on the game...
what do you plan on doing?

again, 512mb and 2048mb would be ram sizes... not speeds.
so the rule of thumb is... "what'll ya be doin with it?"
lol


----------



## Bobo (May 3, 2006)

fade2green514 said:
			
		

> so the rule of thumb is... "what'll ya be doin with it?"
> lol





			
				SemiDevil said:
			
		

> Lets say you want to use it for gaming  and rendering projects.


----------



## fade2green514 (May 3, 2006)

Bobo said:
			
		

> It depends on what processors they are.  If it is an Intel at 3.5 GHz and an AMD at 2.53 GHz, it doesn't matter how much ram you have, the AMD will beat the intel in gaming.  But 2GB is definitely better for gaming.
> 
> So it really all depends on the models.


again, the faster processor will give you higher fps in gaming, but the 2gb of ram will allow you to turn the graphics in quake 4 WAY up... enough to actually make a huge difference.
i dont think either choice is a very balanced system, but i'd go with maybe a 3ghz 1gb system instead? that would be more balanced.
or even a 2.2ghz Athlon 64 single core 
3700+ for the win!


> Lets say you want to use it for gaming and rendering projects.


these are two different ends of processing...
Athlon 64 X2 dual core would be the best choice if you ask me.
either that or Pentium D.
any specific applications/programs in mind that you'll be running??

again, out of the two choices... which it seems like were talking about Pentium 4's in.... i'd choose neither. they don't seem like very balanced systems, and i'd go for an inbetween choice.
remind me... what processor runs at 3.5ghz?? hahaaha


----------



## SemiDevil (May 3, 2006)

> As Bobo said, it depends on the type of processor. And 512MB and 2GB are storage sizes, not speed.



     Well that was embarrassing.  I've always thought that ram was for SPEED and Harddrive was for storage.



> remind me... what processor runs at 3.5ghz?? hahaaha



HAHA..that was just a random number that I chose.

SO basically, just choose a balanced system.

As to what I want to use it for. ...Well for myself I like to do 3d stuff.  Thats why I was wondering if you should have a bigger ram and a not so fast processor, or a smaller ram and really fast processor.


Semi


----------



## SemiDevil (May 3, 2006)

Hi,

I got another question with AMD processor.

I'm so used to looking at Intel pentium processor like Pentium 4 that has 2.5GHz and so on.

But when I look at an AMD process....it doesn't say 2.5 or 3.1 GHz...it has like
 3800 or 2500.....stuff like that.

What is AMD's processor's equivalent to a intel's GHz?

I want to be able to look at an AMD's process 2500 and be like "wow that is equivalent to like 2.5 GHz" or whatever.

THank you guys.


----------



## WeatherMan (May 3, 2006)

some people have said that the 3800 = 3.8Ghz 3400 = 3.4Ghz and that, but Im not really sure if thats true or not, I think it is, found it out on the web a few times but i cant be certain.

But things like 3200-3700 are all 2.2Ghz, in whatever speed that is


----------



## Jet (May 3, 2006)

Intel Pentium D would be better for your tasks, say, a Pentium D 940 (Runs at 3.2Ghz). 

The relation between processors can be found here:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html


----------



## diduknowthat (May 3, 2006)

SemiDevil said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I got another question with AMD processor.
> 
> ...



It should say the clock speed if you look hard enough  Anyways, that's just a rating system amd came up with, generally higher the number, better the processor (if you're staying within one class, i.e. only x2's). Intel is slowly starting to use the system too, such as PD 940, PM 740.. etc


----------



## Bobo (May 3, 2006)

SemiDevil said:
			
		

> Well that was embarrassing.  I've always thought that ram was for SPEED and Harddrive was for storage.


It is.  RAM stores information, but it has a speed at which the information is transferred into and out of the processing chips.  Hard drives also have speeds, usually 7200RPM.  So they both have speed and storage.  CPUS also have speed (GHz) and storage (caches).  I hope I didn't confuse you more, but you are both right.


----------



## YEA_PC_PHONICS (May 4, 2006)

okay look to make it easy get the faster CPU bacause you can always upgrade ram easier that a CPU


----------



## Bobo (May 4, 2006)

YEA_PC_PHONICS said:
			
		

> okay look to make it easy get the faster CPU bacause you can always upgrade ram easier that a CPU


ok look faster doesn't always mean better, and they are both relatively easy to upgrade, it is just that the processor is more expensive.  So you would want the best CPU and RAM together, you would not want a 10GHz CPU and 128MB of RAM just because you can upgrade later, the system needs to be balanced.


----------



## Geoff (May 4, 2006)

Bobo said:
			
		

> ok look faster doesn't always mean better, and they are both relatively easy to upgrade, it is just that the processor is more expensive.  So you would want the best CPU and RAM together, you would not want a 10GHz CPU and 128MB of RAM just because you can upgrade later, the system needs to be balanced.


what he means is that with RAM, you can simply add to what you already have.  But with a CPU, you cant decide to pay another $50 to get an extra 400Mhz.


----------



## fade2green514 (May 4, 2006)

Bobo said:
			
		

> ok look faster doesn't always mean better, and they are both relatively easy to upgrade, it is just that the processor is more expensive.  So you would want the best CPU and RAM together, you would not want a 10GHz CPU and 128MB of RAM just because you can upgrade later, the system needs to be balanced.


haha 10ghz? that hasn't been reach yet.
i get what you mean though, 128mb = lose.
i say get 22390482gb of ram and a 2903842934ghz cpu


----------



## Bobo (May 5, 2006)

fade2green514 said:
			
		

> haha 10ghz? that hasn't been reach yet.
> i get what you mean though, 128mb = lose.
> i say get 22390482gb of ram and a 2903842934ghz cpu


You know what I meant....so maybe it was a tad bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## mrgeorgedude (May 5, 2006)

fade2green514 said:
			
		

> i say get 22390482gb of ram and a 2903842934ghz cpu


i bet that would play games really really good


----------



## AMD gs player (May 5, 2006)

lets say it would paly games really well for many years to come in that case un less they used them to mkae tghe ga,es then we would all go and get one and be broke and in debt lol


----------



## Charles_Lee (May 6, 2006)

always amd x2 3800 is good... i'd say worth it, more than getting more ram


----------



## fade2green514 (May 6, 2006)

mrgeorgedude said:
			
		

> i bet that would play games really really good


ha you'd need to use Vsync...
i played halo without vsync with my newer 7800gt...
i couldn't win cuz it was too fast...
i dont think i got a single reading under 100fps lol and average was probably 120-130fps... i think i havent played it in so long though


> always amd x2 3800 is good... i'd say worth it, more than getting more ram


depends on what theyre doing, or what games theyre playing.


> What is AMD's processor's equivalent to a intel's GHz?


it really depends on the processor... as stated an amd 3400+ would be about as fast as a pentium 4 3.4ghz...
but thats never a definite... a pentium 4 with HT would probably do better in encoding and converting...
the 3400+ would probably do better in gaming...
however, my X2 3800+ would outperform the P4 3.4ghz in encoding and such easily, but in gaming the 3.4ghz might win...
of course, not that my current clocks 

if you want to compare two processors tomshardware has a nice interactive cpu chart 
i suggest you familiarize yourself with it 
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
it doesn't have every single cpu on there, for instance core duo's (and even opterons)
any questions and computerforum is here though


----------

