Not by itself, especially not if you're not doing any processor-intensive things like video editing. However, an increase in the speed of the front-side bus (FSB) or the size of the L2 cache can make a heftier difference.
Still, assuming you're already getting a Core 2 Duo, unless you really need the extra boost, I find that it's usually best to go for the sweet spot on price for a computer that is going to gradually become obsolete anyway. So I would stay at 2.4.
I would also run any computer purchase you're about to make by your good friend Jordan so he can make sure you're getting a good deal. :P
I agree, except that you probably don't need the cache and the FSB speed isn't really going to make much difference unless you use a lot of peripherals (especially at the same time).
I'm considering getting an iMac. There aren't too many versions of it, just minor things to adjust and price is just never going to work in my favor, but I'd love to have your opinion all the same.
...how much faster do you want webpage scrolling to be?
I mean, the short answer is not really. But unless you're doing something intensive with your computer that I don't know about (it's mainly for media consumption and web stuff, right?) you would probably be fine with hardware from a year and a half ago. They've managed to keep making the numbers go up more, but the thing is that we're finally reaching the point where they don't have to in order to get good home-user performance.
No. CPU lines always hit a point of diminishing returns, and unless you've got money burning a hole in your pocket - possibly only if you LITERALLY do - it's worth getting one a speed grade or two below the fastest.
This is pretty much what I thought. It's sorta like megapixel counts on cameras. After a certain point, unless you're doing something that really taxes the limit of the machine you're using, there's no point in upgrading.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 03:49 pm (UTC)Still, assuming you're already getting a Core 2 Duo, unless you really need the extra boost, I find that it's usually best to go for the sweet spot on price for a computer that is going to gradually become obsolete anyway. So I would stay at 2.4.
I would also run any computer purchase you're about to make by your good friend Jordan so he can make sure you're getting a good deal. :P
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 07:17 pm (UTC)(I'm getting a desktop, btw.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 05:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-19 07:01 pm (UTC)I mean, the short answer is not really. But unless you're doing something intensive with your computer that I don't know about (it's mainly for media consumption and web stuff, right?) you would probably be fine with hardware from a year and a half ago. They've managed to keep making the numbers go up more, but the thing is that we're finally reaching the point where they don't have to in order to get good home-user performance.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 02:33 pm (UTC)