Should I upgrade my CPU or my RAM?

[Fonon]

Same as above

I have a 1.8 Ghz Dual Core Processor, and 512 mb RAM. I was planning on adding a gig to my RAM, but I'm having doubts, and thinking of upgrading my processor to a 3.0 Dual Core processor. Any opinions?

[SOULRiDER]

Can you add less memory? Say another 512 and change the processor to a slowe one?

[monsieurdozier]

I would monitor my system and do what I normally do. Then upgrade which ever one performs the worst.

Monsieur Dozier

[GFree678]

Dude, I have a SINGLE core CPU with 2GB RAM. I consider this fairly powerful and have absolutely no desire to upgrade the CPU for a long time, but your system is being hampered by lowish level of RAM.

Upgrade the RAM.

[starcraft.man]

Same as above

I have a 1.8 Ghz Dual Core Processor, and 512 mb RAM. I was planning on adding a gig to my RAM, but I'm having doubts, and thinking of upgrading my processor to a 3.0 Dual Core processor. Any opinions?

Just a thought but do you know how/have you install(ed) a CPU? It's a bit more involved than just slotting in a RAM module. If your perfectly comfortable installing a CPU and RAM then in a perfect world I'd upgrade your RAM first.

With RAM it is important to keep it paired (most modern boards support this called "dual channel", even my ancient one). Thus if you have 2 or 4 slots you want to pair the modules and make sure their the same speed and make ideally. If you want 1 GB then and have two slots, buy two 512 modules (assuming you have 2 256 ones). 1 GB should be enough, if you need a lot like running Virtual Machines or other intensive things then go for 2.

As for the CPU, I'd probably just get a new machine to replace that. Make sure the CPU is supported/works with the board.

Best of luck.

Oh and your CPU ain't that bad, I'm still running on my old P4 (no HT) at 2.4 Ghz. :)

[LookTJ]

upgrade your RAM. CPU is fine.

[popch]

Add some RAM

[RageOfOrder]

As everyone else says. RAM.

512 ram just doesn't cut it anymore. 1GB minimum. I have 2GB in my laptop, dual core processor. My gentoo desktop has an athlon 64 1,8GHz single core and 1GB ram. What will I upgrade? RAM.

With ubuntu you don't compile a lot of packages, but all your graphical **** uses ram. Upgrade that first.

[AusIV4]

I upgraded from a 1.6 Ghz Celeron M to a 2 Ghz Core 2 Duo about a week after I added 1 GB of ram to my system (previously 512). I noticed a huge boost when I added the RAM, and a small boost when I upgraded the CPU.

A while later, my stick of RAM crapped out so I RMA'd it to newegg. During the week I didn't have it, I severely missed it. In my system, RAM was definitely the bottleneck. No matter how much you boost your CPU, just having 512 MB RAM will hold you back.

That said, a Core 2 Duo is great for virtualization if you intend to do that. With my 1.5 GB Ram and 2 Ghz processor, I can run Windows in a virtual machine at speeds comparable to my mother's system that's just a few years old.

In short, my advice is to upgrade RAM first, and if you still feel you need a boost, look at a new CPU. (RAM's cheaper anyway)

[langster]

How much do you want to spend?

$584.00 will buy you a 4400+ dual core AMD with 2 Gig RAM. i just did

on the cheap, 512 MB of RAM is cheap nowadays.

If i am limited with either RAM or CPU, i believe you need more RAM first.

When i monitor RAM usage, Bit torrent and other Apps can eat a good chunk of 512 MB. 1 Gig left me plenty of room. I have not yet been able to saturate.

Ubuntu 7.04

[Dimitriid]

Linux has ( imho ) better memory management ( Desktop environments excluded since I have noticed memory leaks on some applications, but those can be restarted on the fly anyway ) but even then you are not really taking too much advantage of more than 1 core anyway if you are not using at least 1 gb of ram but more likely 2 gb.

Adding more ram will make a huge difference for your system, more processor will just fill up the bottleneck faster and wait, so it would be kind of a waste.

[K.Mandla]

I'm kind of surprised that the "add RAM" solution is so popular. Is 1Gb really necessary, except on Windows gaming systems? My machine has been running for more than two hours, surfing, playing music, sorting files, system updates, downloading, compiling -- everything a normal desktop does, and memory load is only 110Mb of 512. Boot to desktop only needs 34Mb.

Forgive me if I missed a point, but I would look for a faster processor, if you don't actually need, and I mean need, the memory.

[jackmc]

+1 to ram..

I have a gig in my laptop, which has a 1.7ghz CPU. I can run virtual machines pretty well, and basically can't slow it down at the moment :)

If it's one or the other, definately do the ram. The jump from 512 to 1024 was awesome.

[ruibernardo]

Another one to RAM.

I used to have 512 MB, but Gnome likes RAM. From Breezy to Feisty I've notice that after I opened Firefox and Ooo, Ubuntu was using each time more swap. If I opened few other applications, than swap was always used, even if I had some free RAM, but used as cache.

Recently I've put 1 more GB (1,5 GB now) and now Ubuntu rarely uses the swap, even if I open some virtual machines (Vista and a Ubuntu server) in Virtualbox and/or VMware.


memory load is only 110Mb of 512. Boot to desktop only needs 34Mb.

Forgive me if I missed a point, but I would look for a faster processor, if you don't actually need, and I mean need, the memory.

Desktop with 34Mb? I think you are talking about installing Ubuntu Desktop with the Alternate CD, right?

[Fonon]

Just a thought but do you know how/have you install(ed) a CPU? It's a bit more involved than just slotting in a RAM module. If your perfectly comfortable installing a CPU and RAM then in a perfect world I'd upgrade your RAM first.

Best of luck.

Oh and your CPU ain't that bad, I'm still running on my old P4 (no HT) at 2.4 Ghz. :)

I built this PC, so I am very comfortable installing the CPU. It's not that hard, I actually had some fun with it.

RAM it is. Tomorrow I will order it. Should I get another 512 stick, so I pair, or have a 512 stick and buy a 1gb stick?

[vexorian]

RAM.

You got a dual core processor you can do fine with it for some time.

Instead those 512 MB of RAM are actually less than what I have (unlike the processor), it will not hurt to double it...

Not to mention a RAM chip is very cheap, at least less expensive than the processor.

Make sure to do a mem test after installing the new RAM though, I once upgraded my RAM and it caused me a lot of issues since it was failed...

[slimdog360]

Id just upgrade the RAM, maybe another 512MB.

[Andrewie]

its a 100 dollars (cdn) for a GiB of ram so get that its cheaper, but you should really be upgrading them both. Just flip a coin to figure out which on to upgrade first.

[forrestcupp]

+1 for the RAM. You need more RAM way more than you need a better proc.

[Compucore]

OVer the years that I have notices when asked when upgrading either the memory or the CPU. I would highly suggest memory ifrst since you'll notice the boost when loading any operating system and applications. I've done it with my laptop over here. Bumped it from 256 megs up to 768. (Thats 256 + 512 for a nice jump and noticable performance boost.) Then took my old 256 out and slipped in another 512 meg into that. Now my lilttle lappy doesn't even swapped at all. And It's been good. The only time that I would go with a cpu upgrade afterwards. If I was really going to be crunching huge doses of numbers or accessing huge amount of information that requires computational power. THen thats when I would go with a CPU upgrade after the memry upgrade.

Compucore

[DreamcastJack]

your CPU is fine, I have a single core 2.0 GHz AMD Athlon 3200+. so yeah, Ram for sure. its a fast and super easy upgrade!

[southernman]

+1 RAM

Depending on how old your box is though (the sum of all components) You may look into Dells Small Business site. Not that long ago I saw a beefy little box for under 300 bucks. Just the box minus any OS (well FreeDOS), monitor, keyboard, or mouse.

[Fonon]

Well, I built this a little less than a year ago for a science project...so it's pretty new.

Again, RAM it is. Tomorrow, I'm gonna order 512 DDR2 SDRAM.

[mckryptyk]

Whenever I'm asked this question its almost always "Upgrade the RAM".

Most people only use a small fraction of their CPU's available abilities.

The exception to this is when someone for example,
does a lot of video encoding where you want as much CPU and RAM as possible for quickest results.

For the average person the most noticeable way to improve responsiveness is to upgrade the RAM.

This is not distro specific or even OS specific it applies equally to all.

I hope that helps.

Cheers.

[wersdaluv]

Same as above

I have a 1.8 Ghz Dual Core Processor, and 512 mb RAM. I was planning on adding a gig to my RAM, but I'm having doubts, and thinking of upgrading my processor to a 3.0 Dual Core processor. Any opinions?

First of all, do you really need to upgrade anything? If you are not having problems with your hardware, then don't upgrade.

Monitor on htop or on gnome system monitor your RAM and CPU usage if you are having problems. If you notice that you often use much of your RAM or CPU, upgrade what is not enough. I guess, you use much of your RAM.

[kiran_aryan]

Your PC is fine. Adding 1 more GB of Ram will be sweet.

[K.Mandla]

Desktop with 34Mb? I think you are talking about installing Ubuntu Desktop with the Alternate CD, right?
No, I'm talking about booting an installed system from grub menu to a desktop in 27 seconds on less than 34Mb RAM. That's a 1Ghz Pentium III laptop with 2x256Mb PC133 and a 7200rpm 60Gb IDE drive.

I had a 300Mhz Pentium II (1x256 PC133, 20Gb 5400rpm) that did the same trick in 36 seconds and only needed 17mb for the entire system. After browsing, watching movies, listening to music, etc., memory usage peaked around 96Mb.

I just don't encourage people to spend more money on their computers unless they actually need the hardware.

[Dimitriid]

I'm kind of surprised that the "add RAM" solution is so popular. Is 1Gb really necessary, except on Windows gaming systems? My machine has been running for more than two hours, surfing, playing music, sorting files, system updates, downloading, compiling -- everything a normal desktop does, and memory load is only 110Mb of 512. Boot to desktop only needs 34Mb.

Forgive me if I missed a point, but I would look for a faster processor, if you don't actually need, and I mean need, the memory.

Thats highly unfair: in the terms you're speaking of he already has a grossly overpowered processor, dual cores is beyond any user needs for 85-95% of the time. If he wants more performance, then its more important to give room to the already overpowered processor so it can actually start multitasking with several intensive applications at once, all of which are not only intensive on clock cycles, which he has, but on memory usage too, which he does not have.

[aimran]

I think most of us missed this important question before answering: What does the OP use his computer for?

K.Mandla raises some valid points and I have to agree with him. Still, what does the OP use his computer for? Folding@home? :P

[K.Mandla]

Thats highly unfair: in the terms you're speaking of he already has a grossly overpowered processor, dual cores is beyond any user needs for 85-95% of the time. If he wants more performance, then its more important to give room to the already overpowered processor so it can actually start multitasking with several intensive applications at once, all of which are not only intensive on clock cycles, which he has, but on memory usage too, which he does not have.
You're right in that sense. I'll concede that point if I can find out what applications the OPer is using, and whether or not it's really necessary.

If the OPer works with Blender and does 3D rendering, then I'm on board: Get more memory. If the OPer dual boots to play Oblivion then by all means -- put as much memory in there as you can.

On the other hand, if the machine is something to type letters on, download music and send e-mails to an ailing grandmother ... no, I can't suggest spending money on memory -- or a processor, for that matter. Put the money aside for something else -- like a phone call to grandma instead. ;)

Sorry if I'm being a stickler on this one; I just don't like to suggest someone put more money into a computer if they don't really need it. I've seen too many people buy more memory or a bigger hard drive or something else, usually to the tune of $200 or so, because a salesman-geek at Staples told them it would make the computer "run faster." Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but without the need for it, I don't know that it's money well spent.


Still, what does the OP use his computer for? Folding@home? :P
Again, I think that's the most important point.

[karellen]

RAM, obviously

[Dark Star]

I would bet people will say a higher ghz processor :) but I am thinking you are having Core 2 Duo E4300 isn't it ? Its a hrll of a processor :D Dude believe me :) Its way better than AMD X2 and all .Ghz race is now gone.. Update yourself now a days the thing that matters is core architecture.. not the speed Intel Core are awesome and even AMD unable to find sloution for C2D .. till date .. Add 1 Gb ram stick :D

[ruibernardo]

No, I'm talking about booting an installed system from grub menu to a desktop in 27 seconds on less than 34Mb RAM. That's a 1Ghz Pentium III laptop with 2x256Mb PC133 and a 7200rpm 60Gb IDE drive.

I had a 300Mhz Pentium II (1x256 PC133, 20Gb 5400rpm) that did the same trick in 36 seconds and only needed 17mb for the entire system. After browsing, watching movies, listening to music, etc., memory usage peaked around 96Mb.

I just don't encourage people to spend more money on their computers unless they actually need the hardware.

Yes K.Mandla,

512 MB is more than enough to use Ubuntu. But if you're kind of a "heavy" user like me, swap is used if you open some applications, reducing the speed of the computer, and there is no processor that can fight swap.

In this case, if I had to choose between upgrading RAM or the processor, I'd choose RAM.

[mips]

I would buy RAM.

Make sure the stick you are buying is identical (timings etc) to your existing and use the dual channel setup if your board supports it which it probably does from the age you mentioned.

[salsafyren]

No, I'm talking about booting an installed system from grub menu to a desktop in 27 seconds on less than 34Mb RAM. That's a 1Ghz Pentium III laptop with 2x256Mb PC133 and a 7200rpm 60Gb IDE drive.

I had a 300Mhz Pentium II (1x256 PC133, 20Gb 5400rpm) that did the same trick in 36 seconds and only needed 17mb for the entire system. After browsing, watching movies, listening to music, etc., memory usage peaked around 96Mb.

I just don't encourage people to spend more money on their computers unless they actually need the hardware.

Sorry, but I have a really hard time believing you, since I have a laptop with 256 MB RAM and after boot about 120-130 MB is used. This is Ubuntu edgy with gnome.

34 MB? Come on!

[mips]

Sorry, but I have a really hard time believing you, since I have a laptop with 256 MB RAM and after boot about 120-130 MB is used. This is Ubuntu edgy with gnome.

34 MB? Come on!

He never said what OS he is using but I'm assuming it is something like DSL, Puppy etc.

K.Mandla likes getting old useless (considered by others) hardware functional again.

[tomcat-55]

Been said many a time but go for Ram every time. don't stop to you max it out :guitar: Got 3 gig in mine just need to get 2 new gig sticks and IM maxed out.:popcorn:

[K.Mandla]

K.Mandla likes getting old useless (considered by others) hardware functional again.
:D

He never said what OS he is using but I'm assuming it is something like DSL, Puppy etc.
True, but I'm not trying to trick anybody, either: It's Ubuntu. I don't want to steer the thread off course, but I have this link (http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/feisty-openbox-on-1ghz-pentium-iii-start-to-finish/) that explains how I set it up. It's a little old, and it doesn't have all the information we've been talking about, but the rest is elsewhere on the blog.

Now no more about that. The OPer wants to know if he should buy RAM or a processor. :)

[Fonon]

Well, my Dad just bought me 512 mb RAM stick that seems to match the one in my motherboard, so..thanks! I'm trying to be a Linux gamer, so it appears I made the right choice. Thanks again!

[ruibernardo]

K.Mandla, I knew there was a catch :). Ubuntu-Gnome+openbox+tweaking=a_great_hack! Very nice indeed. I use XFS too. It's a very good filesystem with the greatest performance, far better than ext3.

Fonon, enjoy it. You will notice that swapping will be reduced, if any.

[mips]

Well, my Dad just bought me 512 mb RAM stick that seems to match the one in my motherboard, so..thanks! I'm trying to be a Linux gamer, so it appears I made the right choice. Thanks again!

Can you see a improvement in performance ?

[Fonon]

Yeah, nowe my computer runs a hell of a lot faster.

[OrangeCrate]

...If the OPer works with Blender and does 3D rendering, then I'm on board: Get more memory. If the OPer dual boots to play Oblivion then by all means -- put as much memory in there as you can.

On the other hand, if the machine is something to type letters on, download music and send e-mails to an ailing grandmother ... no, I can't suggest spending money on memory -- or a processor, for that matter. Put the money aside for something else -- like a phone call to grandma instead. ;)

Sorry if I'm being a stickler on this one; I just don't like to suggest someone put more money into a computer if they don't really need it. I've seen too many people buy more memory or a bigger hard drive or something else, usually to the tune of $200 or so, because a salesman-geek at Staples told them it wouldmake the computer "run faster." Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but without the need for it, I don't know that it's money well spent...


I ran across this thread looking for something else, and I know it's a little old, but maybe an additional post would add insight to users with a similar question...

Though ram is certainly cheap, I have to agree with the above assessment. Comparing my Dell 530N, a 1.6 GHz dual core processor, with 1 gig of ram, to my second machine which is an older HP 512n, with a 1.4 GHz Celeron with 512 meg of ram, without the eye candy features ( I don't use them anyway), both work very well. Frankly, I don't notice any appreciable difference in running Linux on either box. I have a fast 10/1broadband connection, and any lag is due to the servers at the other end, not on my computers.