So after a whole long fiasco with my Toshiba Satellite, I've decided to renovate one of the desktops I have sitting around. It's from 2004, and has a 2.8 gHz processor, 640 mb of RAM (though the max it can go up to is 2 GB, which I will surely be doing when I can find some memory) and a 70 GB hard drive. I haven't started using it yet, and don't plan to until I at least install the wireless adapter I have into it (yeah it doesn't come with one built in). So the basic question here is, will a 2.8 gHz processor and 640 mb of RAM run faster then say, a 1.8 processor with 2 GB of RAM? Will the 2.8 processor compensate enough for 2 GB of RAM so tasks that would normally require 4 GB would work anyway?
Post by Fleet Foxes on Dec 9, 2014 13:05:35 GMT -5
It has less to do with speed and more to do with if it can even handle the workload. Think of RAM as like a table and your harddrive as a toy box. You want to play with your toys from your toy box but you can only play with them at the table. If you have a smaller table, the less toys you can play with at a time. The bigger the table, the less toys you have to take back to the toybox in order to retrieve a new toy and so on. Processing power is more in line with how fast you can take toys out of the box and how efficiently you can play with them.
So the two are exclusive in that they work in different ways. Faster processor will open and run programs faster, but more RAM will allow you to run those programs together simultaneously. RAM is more important these days, IMO, but its relatively cheap compared to CPUs.