Prioritise RAM or processor?
Prioritise RAM or processor?
Hello Comrades,
Thanks for all your advice about setting up Linux. It was a success. The problem is that I’m now I’m intrigued and I’d like to play around a bit more.
I’m thinking of building a cheap-ish computer but I have a few questions. I’ll split them into separate posts to make things easier. Note: I won’t be installing anything that I can’t get to work on Linux.
Should I prioritise RAM or the processor? My budget is limited so I will have to make a choice between RAM and the processor. Would it be better to go for e.g. 32GB RAM and a slower processor, or 8GB RAM and a faster processor? Or is balance better? Say, 16GB RAM and a 'medium' processor (that's 'medium' between the 'slower' and the 'faster' option within my budget, not 'medium' for the market).
Intel or AMD?
You're viewing a single thread.
I think nowadays 8GB of RAM doesn't really make the cut anymore depending on the workload, but you should keep in mind that upgrading a CPU will most likely force you to upgrade your motherboard as well, since by that time there will be newer CPUs that your motherboard won't support. Upgrading RAM in the future will be less expensive as you can just use new RAM sticks alongside the ones you already have though it will probably affect performance if they are mismatched.
I think that having a fast CPU now will definitely be better on the long run, but that's just my opinion. There are probably other comrades more knowledgeable than me.
That makes sense. So I'd go for a motherboard that works with a decent processor and get the best processor I can afford? Then add 16GB RAM if it's still within the budget, knowing that I can add another stick in a year?
When looking for a CPU, should I be overly concerned with the number of cores/threads and clock speed? Or is there a more important consideration? I see that manufacturers mention the overclock speed, too, nowadays; I'd have thought it's better to stick to its standard max speed – is that an outdated view?
For RAM, it's better to go 2x8GB than 1x16GB due to the way the CPU interfaces with the memory. You can get just one stick and the system will work, but having two for dual-channel mode improves performance.
Cores and clock speeds and boost clocks are...complicated, and most of the numbers are only useful with comparison between other products in the same line and sometimes competing products in the game generation. A 4GHz processor from five years ago will probably be slower in almost every task than a 3GHz processor from today due to improvements in instructions-per-cycle and other things.
The way I would go about this: first, figure out what your budget is. Find a current-generation processor within that budget and find some benchmark data for it. Then, start looking at previous-gen or even older, used processors at the same price point and find benchmark data from them to compare. In terms of performance-per-watt, newer is almost always better, but performance-per-dollar takes a bit more digging. Also worth considering, while the motherboard itself will have a negligible impact on performance in most cases, the prices of older (and, again, especially used) motherboards can be substantially cheaper so you might be able to save even more money by going previous-gen than the difference in CPU prices alone. To a point though, beyond a certain age, motherboards/RAM are hard enough to come by that they tend to increase in price again.
Thanks for explaining. Is there a similar risk with used processors and motherboards as there is with GPUs, re: the possiblity of having been used for mining?
As far as I know, it's not really a concern. CPUs are so much worse at mining compared to GPUs that putting any mining workload on a CPU isn't cost effective. Obviously any used product is going to be a bit of a crap shoot though and there's always the small chance you get scammed.