Options

Which processor should I choose?

Hi there, I'm going to be ordering a new laptop from Dell and was wondering if anyone could help me decide which processor to choose.

I've set up two identical systems on the website (one just through the normal site and one through the TV offer site) but both of them have different processor options.

Previously I thought I'd have to settle for a normal 2Ghz Celeron, to keep the price under £400 but when I tried the TV offer there's the option of a 1.73Ghz Dual Core Celeron for only a tenner more on the overall price.

I've read that dual core is far superior to normal processors both in terms of speed, multitasking and power saving/efficiency. Is is worth spending the extra cash and downgrading from 2Ghz to 1.73Ghz to get the dual core?

These are the full tech specs:
  • Intel® Celeron Dual Core Processor T1400 (1.73Ghz, 533 MHz FSB, 512 KB (total price £369)
  • Intel® Celeron Processor 550 (2.0Ghz, 533 MHz FSB, 1 MB L2 cache) (total price £358)
It seems the cache is also reduced by half in the dual core one. Is this important?

PS, I use the computer mainly for internet surfing, light gaming, music .etc and hopefully with this new one, DVD watching. ;)

--EDIT--

Hmm... it would appear I was wrong about 'identical systems'. The £369 dual core one actually has 2048mb of ram in it (double that of the £10 cheaper one) and 160gb hard drive (as opposed to 120gb in the cheaper one)!!

To be honest, realising that has pretty much decided it for me but I'd still be interested to hear about these dual core processors if someone could help.

Comments

  • Options
    GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Dual Core is better.

    If you can stretch your budget to £399.99 have a look at http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/editorial/dell-laptop-tvdeal/?int=home-3

    Is alot better spec than what you are currently looking at.
  • Options
    fraserafrasera Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    never buy a single core cpu. they are obsolete..and so slow.
    cache... for multitasking in windows a second processor is more important than cache. an extra processor is a massive difference. cache is a minor difference. energy savings depends on the processors tech, whether its newer or older basically is generally what matters. intel implements more power saving tech on newer processors and its die shrinks allow for better power consumption. but i dunno if that applies to that processor, but it doesn't matter at your price point, its not like you have much choice. but its ok, all intels recent stuff is reasonably energy efficient. they are no longer the hogs of the p4 days.
    you need to google the processors. each new core type is slightly faster, even at the same clock speed. the t1400 is 45nm process. it is good. the 550 is most certainly slower. and at 65nm process its more power hungry and probably an older design.
  • Options
    LoobsterLoobster Posts: 11,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You should not go for either of the ones in the first post.

    You can now get fully fledged Core2Duo laptops for £400. This is one I set up for a friend recently, once you uninstall the Norton crap, it flies!

    Core2Duo T5550
    2GB RAM
    120GB HDD
    Wireless
    DVD burner
    The usual other stuff
    Vista Home Premium

    £399.99 and no waiting, just go to Comet.

    http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/448265/TOSHIBA-SAT-A200-27R/tab/specification
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,259
    Forum Member
    Thanks for your help folks! ;)
  • Options
    alanwarwicalanwarwic Posts: 28,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Unless you are playing games the added graphics card will simply make the laptop more unreliable.

    Dell's best deal at the moment is possibly their 13" superlight Vostro 1310.

    The PCworld TV offer(17" laptop) with an added discount voucher is a good games laptop.
  • Options
    RubusRooRubusRoo Posts: 10,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Loobster wrote: »
    You should not go for either of the ones in the first post.

    Exactly what I was going to say.

    I wouldn't touch a Celery with a bargepole.
  • Options
    GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    alanwarwic wrote: »
    Unless you are playing games the added graphics card will simply make the laptop more unreliable.

    Where did you get this from?

    Never heard of a graphics card making a system more unreliable. My iMac which is basically a laptop has never crashed and has a graphics card.

    My Sony Vaio also has never crashed and it also has a graphics card.
  • Options
    RubusRooRubusRoo Posts: 10,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gormond wrote: »
    Where did you get this from?

    Never heard of a graphics card making a system more unreliable. My iMac which is basically a laptop has never crashed and has a graphics card.

    My Sony Vaio also has never crashed and it also has a graphics card.

    If it's an ATI card he's ok.
    Nvidia will pretty much render the system unsusable :p
  • Options
    alanwarwicalanwarwic Posts: 28,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As far as I am concerned the higher spec the computer the more chance it has of being unreliable.

    A faster CPU almost always produces more heat needing better cooling as does a discrete graphics card.
    This could be of course be counteracted by a higher build quality on a more expensive PC.

    In Dells case this is not always the case due to their 'built to order' system. Here the sower CPU / no external graphics card 'build' should almost always increase reliability.
  • Options
    whoever,heywhoever,hey Posts: 30,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RubusRoo wrote: »
    If it's an ATI card he's ok.
    Nvidia will pretty much render the system unsusable :p

    Absolute rubbish.
  • Options
    flashy_catflashy_cat Posts: 46
    Forum Member
    alanwarwic wrote: »
    As far as I am concerned the higher spec the computer the more chance it has of being unreliable.

    A faster CPU almost always produces more heat needing better cooling as does a discrete graphics card.
    This could be of course be counteracted by a higher build quality on a more expensive PC.

    In Dells case this is not always the case due to their 'built to order' system. Here the sower CPU / no external graphics card 'build' should almost always increase reliability.

    Poppycock.
  • Options
    wavy-davywavy-davy Posts: 7,122
    Forum Member
    Make sure you have a look at the Dell Vostro's in the business section, great value, and don't get a Celeron, they're crap. (Speaking from experience of having one)

    http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/4x_vostro_1000?c=uk&cs=ukbsdt1&l=en&s=bsd
  • Options
    ExaminusExaminus Posts: 22,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Absolute rubbish.

    What do you base that on? Nvidia drivers were responsible for 60% of Vista crashes and they aren't exactly getting very good press recently.
  • Options
    whoever,heywhoever,hey Posts: 30,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Examinus wrote: »
    What do you base that on? Nvidia drivers were responsible for 60% of Vista crashes and they aren't exactly getting very good press recently.

    I agree but that was over a year ago. This statement here is what i was commenting on.
    "Nvidia will pretty much render the system unsusable"

    60% of vista crashes sure, but that depends on the number of crashes globally right? On various nvidia/vista configs, at home and at work, we've not experienced these problems at all. So i'ts likely driver conflicts between certain hardware anway.
  • Options
    GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I agree but that was over a year ago. This statement here is what i was commenting on.
    "Nvidia will pretty much render the system unsusable"

    60% of vista crashes sure, but that depends on the number of crashes globally right? On various nvidia/vista configs, at home and at work, we've not experienced these problems at all. So i'ts likely driver conflicts between certain hardware anway.

    Indeed my Sony Vaio uses a Nvidia graphics card and has never crashed yet. There were some faulty chipsets as you said but that seems to have been fixed now.
  • Options
    ExaminusExaminus Posts: 22,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree but that was over a year ago. This statement here is what i was commenting on.
    "Nvidia will pretty much render the system unsusable"

    60% of vista crashes sure, but that depends on the number of crashes globally right? On various nvidia/vista configs, at home and at work, we've not experienced these problems at all. So i'ts likely driver conflicts between certain hardware anway.
    There are still an awful lot of faulty Nvidia cards in machines, in which case we can't really conclude if it is absolute rubbish based on your experience.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,705
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Chief wrote: »
    To be honest, realising that has pretty much decided it for me but I'd still be interested to hear about these dual core processors if someone could help.
    Avoid both those.

    Take a look at the dell vostro site, its better value:

    http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/vostronb?c=uk&cs=ukbsdt1&l=en&s=bsd

    Dell Vostro 1310 (13.3 inch screen)

    Core 2 Duo Processor T5870 (2.0 GHz)
    Windows Vista Home Premium
    13.3" Widescreen WXGA (1280 x 800) Display with Anti-Glare Coating
    2048MB (2GB) RAM
    160GB (5400rpm) SATA Hard Drive
    Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
    Internal Slot Loading 8X DVD+/-RW Drive
    1Yr Next Business Day Onsite Warrenty

    Total Price inc. Vat & Shipping: £410.08

    Dell Vostro 1000 (15.4inch screen)

    AMD Turion 64 X2 TL60 (2.0Ghz)
    Windows Vista Business
    15.4" Wide Screen WXGA (1280 x 800) Display with TrueLife
    2048MB (2GB) RAM
    160GB (5400RPM) SATA Hard Drive
    ATI Radeon Xpress 1150 HyperMemory
    Internal 8X DVD+/-RW Drive
    1Yr Next Business Day Onsite Warrenty

    Total Price inc. Vat & Shipping: £368.95

    -Chris
Sign In or Register to comment.