Replacing (5) year old P4 2.0GHz Northwood . . .

[dgsg]

with a new system with a Core 2 Duo processor. Trying to decide between the 2.13GHz 2MB L2 cache processor and the 2.4GHz 4MB L2 processor with both having 1066FSB & 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM @ 667MHz. Price difference is $150.00USD. The most demanding thing the PC is used for is Photoshop and building ProShow Gold shows after vacations. Normally I just set it to build the show and go to bed as it takes a LONG to complete the show. Is getting the 2.4 processor overkill? Does the extra 2MB of L2 cache make it worth the extra $$$? The system only ships with Vista, so I will also be purchasing a OEM copy of XP Media Center to install. Will install Vista sometime after SP3 ships.

 

[Brainonska511]

Just go with the 2.13GHz C2D. IMO, the only noticeable difference between the two will be in your wallet. Why not use Vista? If it comes with it pre-installed, no point not using it since Home Premium has all the features of MCE anyway, plus you'll save $ on not having to buy a piece of hardware + another OS.

 

[dgsg]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Why not use Vista?

I can pick up XP for less $$$ than it will cost me to upgrade my backup, DVD authoring and slide scanning software.

 

[magreen]

You'll save a good bit building it yourself, especially if you're anyway buying an OEM copy of XP. Plus, it's a crime not to overclock these Core 2 Duos and you can't with a big system builder.

 

[BladeVenom]

A Core 2 Duo 2.13GHz with 4mb cache is suppose to come out in April. It's the E6420.

 

[vailr]

I'd recommend the E6400 or E4300 CPU, on a self-built system, combined with an overclock-friendly 965 chipset mboard.
Such as the Gigabyte DS3, version 3.3 (due out in the next week or two). Maybe the Biostar 965P as an alternate choice.
Dell/HP/Gateway pre-built systems aren't going to be very overclock-friendly.