RAM vs Processor? What to spend money on?

[Geodetic]

A dual core processor with 6-8 GB of RAM or quad core with 4-6 GB of RAM? All for about the same cost. Whats really more important when it comes to running Windows smoother? Assuming I play games that are a couple years old what would really matter?

[paradox]

Assuming I play games that are a couple years old what would really matter?

Neither. Unless the game is compiled for 64-bit, it won't use more than 4gb of ram. None of the older games were multi-threaded enough to saturate more than 2 cores.

If you want something cheap that can run all your office stuff and older games, get an AMD and a 4gb of ram. You won't know the difference between that and a top of the line Intel filled to the gills with ram.

[Scratch705]

quad with 6gb ram.

[Rekrab]

Cost being equal I'd go with the dual core. Most tests haven't shown a significant user experience improvement with quad core unless you're doing video, photos, cad, or other CPU intensive applications that actually take advantage of the quad core architecture.

Also, unless you're running 64bit you're not going to take advantage of more than 3 gigs of ram.

[bombadillo]

I'd go processor because you can always buy more ram at a later date and throw it in. To me its more of a pain to replace a processor.

[Barbarossa]

Processor = Big engine (<-- this)

Ram = More (easily added) seats in the car

[bigmike82]

I'd go with the RAM.

A lot of it will let you do more at once, far more than two extra cores will.

[Mute]

Buy the best processor you can afford, but only if you're building a new system. RAM is almost always cheaper to upgrade and the cost seems to continue to get more affordable. In my experience, by the time you consider upgrading the CPU, the rest of your system is more or less outdated or will be in need of upgrading also.

Of course if you don't run any applications that taxes the CPU this may all be a moot point.

[sniper4usmc]

4gb ram is enough memory...I would buy quad core.and OverClock the CPU with Good CPU cooler llike Corsair H series water cooler

[Pyrodyne]

Unless you are running a milsim like arma 2, a quad won't help one iota. No games are yet compiled for 64 bit and won't address more than 2GB per discreet thread. 32 bit OS can only address 3 GB total. 64 bit OS won't work with all old games.

The core speed is more critical for games. A 3.4 ghz dual will run most games much faster than a 3 ghz quad.

Intel costs more, AMD costs less. i5/i7 can overclock automatically when only 1/2 cores are saturated.

Coming to memory, timing gets you more than raw speed. 800mhz with 4-4-4-12 is faster than 1200mhz at 8-8-8-24. G.Skill has "HK" series memory that can run really good clocks at normal spec voltages and overclocks very nicely if you like to burn hardware for all it's worth.

ATI is currently much much cheaper for similar performance cards than nVidia. A relatively cheap radeon 4770 will beat a GTS 250 by a long shot and costs the same and if your motherboard supports crossfire you can run two when the one isn't enough.

Do note that newer duals/triples in the AMD Phenom line are actually quads with disabled cores - I would avoid these on general principles of not wanting a partially defective unit.

[0x80884]

Don't want to be a downer, but you haven't told us what you're currently running.

If you have a home built machine that's already decked out, upgrades would be different than a cookie-cutter store-bought machine, or a super-economy class machine.

If you could tell us your frontside bus speed (unless it's an i/5/7) and current configuration, we could better describe your possible upgrades.


or...
Take the couple hundred and go buy another case of ammo

[ZX-10R]

Buy the best processor you can. Memory can be added later.

[JDay]

No games are yet compiled for 64 bit and won't address more than 2GB per discreet thread.

This is an old list (by several years) of 64-bit games, just to name a few. There are many more out now, in fact I bet all the new PC games have 64-bit support.

http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=116

* Half-Life 2
* Lost Coast
* Bet On Soldier: Blood Sport
* Codename: Panzers (Phase one)
* Colin McRae Rally 2005
* Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
* Far Cry
* Fahrenheit
* Shadow Ops: Red Mercury
* Unreal Tournament 2004
* WWII Tank Commander
* S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl
* Dreadnought

Do note that newer duals/triples in the AMD Phenom line are actually quads with disabled cores - I would avoid these on general principles of not wanting a partially defective unit.

Most of these are not defective in any way and just had cores disabled so they could be sold as a dual-core CPU. You can also enable those cores.

I also highly recommend installing 64-bit Windows 7, if you decide to install 4GB or more RAM in the future you will need 64-bit Windows and you cannot upgrade from 32-bit.

[Satex]

Ignore everyone else, spend you money on RAM. Buying the next best processor will give you overall performance gain of several percent. For the same money you can double your RAM providing the system with much more resources to work with.

[Twinsen]

4GB of RAM is enough to max games out. A slow processor is not enough to max games out.

The 'OMFG 19GB OF MEMORY' thing confuses me. If you go Intel, get the triple channel 6GB, if you go AMD, 4GB is good in 2 2GB sticks.

Unless you want to run 19 games at once on minimum settings and don't mind them running at 1FPS. Which I guess is what a lot of RAM is for.