Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (1544)	6/26/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: Spots	Respond to of 14778

>> Processor Speed..vs..64 MB RAM..vs..128 MB RAM The telling point to my mind is that with planning you can add RAM incrementally and don't lose your past investment. That isn't so with processor speed. What can you do, practically speaking, with that old processor you just yanked? Of course there are practical limits; you can't go to the very top of the line economically. I must add that my view planning is open-ended. I never know WHAT I may want to do next, so I tend to look for the most upgrade flexibility. For limited purposes (if you're SURE of them), another approach might make sense. Even there, though, I'd worry as to what the future of that limited purpose was in tomorrow's new improved state of software bloat. Spots PS, yes the memory graph shows virtual memory (i.e., real plus swap space).

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (1544)	6/26/1998 1:25:00 PM
From: Sean W. Smith	Respond to of 14778

Zeus, my traditional rule of thumb is to get the best processor possible and add memory later. You don't want to skimp on memory but its better to overkill on the CPU as they traditionally have been costly and difficult upgrades where adding memory is relatively easy as long as you leave you self some empty slots for memory. Sean

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (1544)	6/26/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Dave Hanson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

Sorry if I've asked this before, but what apps will typically be loaded on this machine at once? Keep in mind that a faster processor may not appreciably cut times of 100% CPU utilitzation, depending on what's causing that utilization. Full blown use of serial ports, for instance, can bring any speed of processor to full use if the app doesn't use it efficiently. Perhaps you'd notice a difference between PII 233 and, say 300 mhz performance, but I very much doubt it would be significant. Perhaps a good compromise would be 128 megs and 266 PII, since the 266 is now within $30 of the 233, and offers a better jump than the one to 300 anyway (keeping in mind that all 3 are the same silicon to begin with.) "My guess is that a PII 333 with 64 MB RAM is faster than a PII 233 with 128 MB RAM for many web surfing and some trading machine tasks." You may be right. Still, the difference in RAM pricing is <$75, whereas the processor difference is more like $250. Don't know how much of a concern this might be though. Were it me, I think I'd go for the RAM, but there are certainly good arguments both ways.