Computer - faster cores v more cores

Computer - faster cores v more cores

Didn't find your answer?

I'm looking to get a new computer and want to have the 'fastest' for a budget of £2.5k+vat (I know that is generous, but it's our tool of the trade and if it makes my life a lot easier over a few years, then it is worth it).

However, I need to decide between fewer but faster cores or more cores but slower clock speed, given the typical use in an accountancy practice.

My thinking is to go for more cores as task manager shows about 5 Application and 87 background processes on my current PC, so the cores will all be used, with less multi tasking per core. This increase in speed may compensate for a slighly slower clock speed.

I'm no expert and could be completely wrong - any advice appreciated.

Replies (16)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By SThornton
20th Mar 2015 13:36

Is more cores with the same speed an option?

Thanks (0)
Replying to rockallj:
avatar
By stt
20th Mar 2015 14:16

I believe there are technical limits which mean the more cores then the speed has to be less - it's do with how much heat is generated

Thanks (0)
Img
By MissAccounting
20th Mar 2015 14:10

Cores and speed

With my limited knowledge I believe more CPU cores means you can do more multitasking which is why they are particularly useful for video editing and 3D rendering etc.  However I do believe that the core usage is based more on how the software has been written and whether or not it can utilise more than one core.

Speed on the other hand is never a bad thing!  The more speed you have the better!

£2,5k on a "accounts" computer seems absolute madness to me.  Spend £750 and spend the rest on a holiday!

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By stt
20th Mar 2015 14:18

I'm hoping it will whiz through various tasks very quickly, such as processing large payrollls and filing larger FPS reports (although I appreciate the network speed may be a bottleneck). If it lowers my blood pressure, then I can try and justify the price that way :)

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to rockallj:
Img
By MissAccounting
20th Mar 2015 14:35

Whiz it will!

stt wrote:

I'm hoping it will whiz through various tasks very quickly, such as processing large payrollls and filing larger FPS reports (although I appreciate the network speed may be a bottleneck). If it lowers my blood pressure, then I can try and justify the price that way :)

 

Im sure it will whiz but youre just wasting money as you'll never use it to its full potential.  It would be the same as buying a Ferrari and only ever reversing it out of your garage and back in again. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Bisazza_Malta
20th Mar 2015 14:22

That type of computer could run complex machine learning algorithms and generate a neural network.

I would suggest you take a look at those 87 applications to see what is showing you down because a well run desktop computer that does the job for accountants could be had for £800.

Source: my computer science degree.

Thanks (0)
By Howard Marks
20th Mar 2015 14:22

£2500????

You're throwing money away, £1k max should do you then replace in a few yrs.

 

If you're adamant about spending the money, buy a Mac and get it dual booted with Windows.  Sturdy and fast as hell but with the operating system you most likely need.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By stt
20th Mar 2015 14:36

Thanks for all your comments

Out of interest, what is the fastest processor that you would go for on a "sole practitioner" machine

Thanks (0)
By Howard Marks
20th Mar 2015 14:39

Processor

I believe i've got Intel core i5 - more than sufficient.

 

Custom build from CCL Online - £466 + VAT (that's with upgraded graphics card to allow additional monitors)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Mick Milne
20th Mar 2015 15:14

Amstrad 1512

My Amstrad PC1512 is starting to play up a little now....

Kidding aside, I seem to go through a new laptop every 3 years max these days.

I spend around £600 per time - consumables.

Thanks (0)
AS
By AS
20th Mar 2015 15:21

Modern software, if well written, is faster on more cores at slower speed than faster processers with less cores. Therefore, unless you are using old software, I would go for more cores.

I am not a fan of Apple Mac os but they have great hardware. If you have money to burn then buy an Apple iMac with the 5k screen an use Parallels or similar to use Windows on it.

Whatever you buy, get a SSD instead of a HDD as that will have a much greater impact on speed than a faster processor.

Thanks (1)
Out of my mind
By runningmate
20th Mar 2015 17:14

My guess is you will be replacing the PC within 3 years anyway.  So spend under £1,000 & get a multi core i5 with at least some SSD.

RM

Thanks (0)
By Captainblack
20th Mar 2015 21:16

Wrong focus
Focussing on CPU performance is missing the point. The biggest difference you can make to the performance of a PC is to employ solid state disks (SSD). The conventional electo-mechanical disk drives in a PC are almost always the limiting factor. An Intel I5 CPU will be quite sufficient.

Captain

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Stuart.thomson
21st Mar 2015 00:18

More cores would allow more processes to run at the same time. But I think most of what you are doing is linear driven calculations and whilst they maybe truncated into multi-fire calculations it is not heavy weight multi-core stuff.

Server licensing is moving to licensing core opposed to machines so if you buy a centralised server solution then you need to be aware of licensing issues but thats a software matter.

In my opinion your budget is overkill. The general view is that macs are better but more expensive but if you spend the same on a windows machine (just harder to find) you get the same performance as a mac but the virus protection will over time slow it down. Macs currently don't suffer from this.

Given what you want to do almost any desktop would suffice, expect change from £1000.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dnicholson
21st Mar 2015 00:56

No
"The general view is that macs are better"

Mac OS has around 5% share, Windows around 90%. Saying that price sensitivity accounts for that is stretching a point way too far.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Stuart.thomson
21st Mar 2015 04:31

Dnicholson, it is all a matter of opinion. The Op was looking to spend £2.5k for some reason so it is only fair to point out that you can buy bespoke PC with the same components as a mac at broadly the same price.

Macs have 5% of the market but there are multiple pc manufacturers. The two are very different machines due to there OS. You can get the same hardware in both but the PC market is noticeably cheaper than the mac price point and surprise surprise PC components less well spec'd to accommodate that general saving. Personally I'd go for windows save the money and replace more frequently once the anti-virus/malware stuff slows down the machine too much. Most business software is windows based so keeps things simple.

Thanks (0)