<p>What is a good processor speed and company? I do multitask a lot on the computer, I open like like 10 web browsers and whatnot. What could handle opening up a lot of browsers, watching a movie, etc... I only play games sometimes so it isn't a big factor on me.</p>
<p>intel i7 is probably the way to go</p>
<p>IS there a noticable difference between Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P7350 (2.0GHz) and
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P8600 (2.4 GHz) / Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9400 (2.53 GHz) ?</p>
<p>Intel i7 would be overkill unless you're willing to spend well over $1000 on your desktop -_-</p>
<p>If you are looking at a desktop any quad core would be great for multi tasking.</p>
<p>On a laptop even a new dual core could handle that kind if thing. Look for something with 2+ GHz and at least 2 cores.</p>
<p>there would be a noticeable speed difference at times between 2 and 2.4, but between 2.4 and 2.5 the difference would be negligible</p>
<p>no it wouldnt.... just enough .... seriously... if you take a look at what a processor at our time can do... its pretty sad its that slow at this SLOW....</p>
<p>itoushiro: if you are saying that processor clock rate is a good indicator of performance then you ought to take a look at this article.</p>
<p>Megahertz</a> myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>not to mention from the processors he listed he's looking at a laptop so an i7 isn't even possible</p>
<p>i still dont think its fast enough....still want a petaflop of processing</p>
<p>so you can produce enough heat to drive a steam turbine?</p>
<p>I wouldn't sweat a few Ghz on proc speed as much as making sure you have something with at least a dual core and plenty - 4GB or so - of fast (800Mhz) RAM. That will have much more effect on your user experience.</p>
<p>A 2.0GHZ with about 3gb of ram should do you good.
and this is about standard.</p>
<p>For someone who plays high end games online and multitasks (browser w/6 tabs open, IM, MSWORD) like me, lol.</p>
<p>2.4+ is good.</p>
<p>If you are like me, and ** if you know what your doing**, overclocking is always a good option.</p>
<p>overclocking + laptop = bad idea.</p>
<p>lol you get a george foreman grill !!!</p>
<p>haha my laptop gets hot enough as it is. Overclocking I'm sure would burn a hole right through the wooden desk.</p>
<p>a couple extra mhz doesn't help you that much. If its not that much more, then bump it up, otherwise, it's not worth it.</p>
<p>What does help is getting the processor with more cache, if you get one with 4 MB cache instead of 2 MB that helps a lot more than a couple extra mhz.</p>
<p>Also, it's not worth getting a super processor if you have to skimp on the RAM. Get at least 4 GB before thinking about upgrading the cpu.</p>
<p>I just bought a 2.53 ghz Intel Dual Core Processor and I'm not a gamer. Was that a stupid investment? lol. </p>
<p>I do watch movies, videos and stuff on my computer and sometimes I do have like 8 windows on the bottom.</p>
<p>No, that's not a stupid investment. Having a better processor would extend the life of your laptop in terms of obsolescence.</p>
<p>not really... we got quad now and i7 ... twice and 3 times as much power as 1 dual core...</p>
<p>though it does also depend on what os you are running as well...</p>
<p>there are not an laptops except for the very highest end have quad cores, and they only ave them because a desktop CPU is able to fit in and be cooled in them.</p>
<p>A 2.5 GHz dual core is about the best you can get in a laptop without a huge price jump to te slightly higher, and even bigger jump to a quad core.</p>
<p>Yes, there are now quad cores and i7, but until I see common software written for quad core computing, dual core isn't exactly obsolete. That's like saying the Bugatti Veyron can do 250+mph now, so my Camry is obsolete.</p>