• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would like second opinion : single or dual core ?

M

MarcLeFou

Junior Member
Hey guys

I'd like a second opinion on this one.

I manage computers at my job. We're a small business and we're currently using 3 workstations and a server (plus about 10 laptops).

2 of the workstations are old. I mean really old. Duron 1000 old. They're starting to show signs of aging but performance-wise they are still very acceptable as they have plenty of RAM that was added through the years as other systems died (768M per box). Unfortunately, some components are starting to die.

So they're going to be changed.

The uses of the computers are very basic : window xp, word 2007, excel 2007, outlook 2007 (tied to an exchange server), adobe reader, occasional powerpoint, light internet browsing. All the order taking and the like is done through terminal services so that's irrelevant to the workstations. All in all a pretty light load. And our software set is very stable and it shouldn't evolve in the next 5 years. I don't see a need to move up to either windows vista (or windows 7 down the line). The only software that might see an upgrade is office when newer versions launch if they bring productivity gains (aka office 2007 ribbons).

My question is then this one :

I want to build the cheapest possible system that would last about 5 years. Currently dual-cores, for our usage, are a waste. However, I know multi-threading is just around the corner so are there going to be tangible gains (meaning longer lifespan of the system) by going to a dual core vs a single core in our light office usage setting ?

There is a price difference of 40$ per computer between a single and dual core. That's almost a third of the price of the system in extra (under 300$ for both systems in the single core config as we have no need for screens or any peripherals). Would dual core extend the life of the system significantly given this light usage scenario ?

Thanks.
 
I can't imagine any reason to buy a single core. The dual cores will generally be faster, even on single threaded apps.

The E5XXX are in the $80 range.....
 
The thing I like about dual-core processors in an office environment is that they can run all the background processes that most companies like to install (firewalls, update packages, anti-virus, anti-spyware) without getting the noticable slowdown when they kick in. That being said, I don't see a reason not to get the single-core if they are really that much cheaper. I wonder where you are getting it from though, as I haven't seen a single core processor for sale in years. They must be very old, or maybe they are Cyrix C7 processors? (It could be an Atom too I guess?)
 
The two processors I'm looking at are these two :

Sempron LE-1200 (2,1 GHZ) for 30$

X2 5000 (2,6 GHZ)+ for 70$

The closest dual-core Intel equivalent (meaning no celerons if I compare it to the X2) is 75$ which is all right but intel mobos are generally more expensive so its not an option.

I scheduled AV scans for the lunch time so it doesn't have an impact.

I also should point out we do deal with excel spreadsheet on a regular basis (and excel 2007 is multithreaded for calculations) but the sheets we deal with are very light in calculations as they usually are price lists and the such.
 
One thing I would keep in mind is that 5 years is a long time in the computer industry. I would imagine that the vast majority of the software you will be using at the end of that time will be multi-threaded. That said, it may be worthwhile to save the money now and buy better computers when you actually need them. Although the difference in price is only $120 for all three workstations, so I would get the upgrade if it were me. It will help with productivity slightly, and it costs almost nothing.
 
Thanks.

My main concern is especially that I don't want to get cornered into having to change workstation because even basic apps start requiring multiple cores 2-3 years from now (or if not required, seriously degraded performance - we all know how software writers can get lazy when we start taking about code optimization).

PS : I also should point out I'm in Canada. These prices come from directcanada.com.
 
Newegg.ca is brand new so I don't think about looking at it yet.

Newegg has a x2 3800+ at 38$ and has a OCZ Vista upgrade kit 2 x 1 gigs for 33$ but has 14$ shipping.

That's a 20$ difference than the Sempron + similar OCZ memory from directcanada.

I think that just solved my dilema. For 10$ extra per system, this is a no brainer.

I'll still get the mobo + HDD from directcanada though as I found a nice gigabyte mobo right within my price range.

Thanks for the input.
 
I would get the Sempron and Mobo combo at newegg.com for only $55 + shipping.

That is a deal hard to beat. And you can upgrade to dualcore/quadcore later on if you want too with that mobo as well. 🙂

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top