On 2015-09-19 05:19, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , david-
lid says...

On 16/09/2015 21:23, PeterN wrote:
[]
Thanks, sounds like good information. Since I am doing pre-purchase
research, I will not be doing the experiments. I am thinking quad core
with about a 3.5 - 3.8 CPU. I know there are faster, but I am not yet
convinced that the additional price is worth the extra cost.

The price vs. performance goes up very steeply at the top end of the
performance range. I always try to come down one or two steps as you're
unlikely to notice the performance difference in typical use - unless
you are a games or doing a lot of very heavy video processing. Lower
clock speed may also result in lower temperatures, and hence better
system reliability.

It's often helpful to plot whatever performance figure-of-merit is of
interest against cost--one usually finds that there is a "knee" in the
curve where the rate of change increases drastically. That "knee" is
generally the best value.

For a home user it can be a moot point. I maxed this machine out in
order to 'future' proof it and increase its resale value when that time
comes. Certainly paid off with the prior machine.

Well, I can still 'max' it a bit more by changing out 8 GB for 16 GB for
a total of 32 while selling the 8 GB modules to offset the cost.