Changing it up a bit, I would like to pose a question to our readers to see what you think. When building/purchasing a computer, there are 3 essential hardware components which determine overall how fast the computer runs:
- Processor
- Memory
- Hard Drive (platter based, not SSD since they are not yet standard)
To address the “what about XXX” up front: I have excluded graphics cards because they are not typically found in business/budget machines and the motherboard typically does not largely impact speed (yes, you could argue the chipset, BUS speeds, etc. do impact performance, but unless you build your own you do not get to pick the the motherboard used).
Taking only performance/speed into consideration, which of the above 3 would you cut back on if you had to?
Personally, I would cut back on the processor and here is why: as a whole, your computer can only run as fast as the slowest component. The hard drive is by far the slowest of the 3 (even with a 10K RPM drive) with memory being second and then processor. Granted if you have a lot of memory, your system will not have to go to the hard drive except when initially loading a program or when you have so much open your memory limits are reached, but your hard drive is hit often enough to make a difference. By cutting back on the CPU, there certainly will be a difference but for me it would be much less noticeable than if my system had a lower RPM hard drive or slower memory.
Like what you read?
If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:
If a temporary money crunch is the constraint, I would just get the minimum RAM, because it is the easiest to upgrade later. Next, I would compromise on the hard drive. I could fairly easily add another faster drive later, keeping the original drive for backup. If the outlook is that I will never be able to upgrade my system at a later date, because financial constraints will always be at my throat, well, then, I would just have to skip over to a parallel universe.
Assuming that you specifically mean Processor SPEED vs Memory SPEED vs Hard Drive SPEED, I would have to disagree and choose to cut back on Hard Drive speed. I mainly use my pc for spreadsheets, web browsing and email (no games). I would prefer to use a slower (cooler) hard drive and have the processor and memory to do the calculations in my spreadsheet and draw my screen then worry about the time it takes to save my work. Now I have to admit that I may be “off the mark” discounting the amount that my hard drive needs to be accessed while I am working.
On the other hand, if you are talking about the amount of memory installed and the size of the hard drive, I would then choose processor. I realize that memory can be added relatively easy and an additional hard drive can be installed. Processor speed seems to be something that we just learn to live with. very few of the processors installed on new machines today would be considered “slow”. “Slower” compared to others, maybe, but not “slow.” While running low on hard drive space will cause many an unexpected affect. And I don’t think that there is any one, more common, cause for a slow pc (barring viruses and spyware/malware) than lack of memory. I don’t think that even the fastest hard drive compares with the slowest memory.
I agree with you! I’d rather spend the money to have more memory and a reliable hard drive. Cutting back on a processor doesn’t seem to bad because it feels you can get a cheap one that will have decent speeds considering you’re not using it for gaming.
When I saw the choices, before I finished your article, I said “processor”. I think anyone who builds their own would agree to this.
cuzzzzzz
Hard drive. I have noticed little difference betwee faster HDDs or IDE and SATA when you have enough memory and a decent CPU.
I’m sure if you benchmarked it you’d prove me wrong, but that is my perception and how we feel about overall performance is what counts. Isn’t it?
I’ll complete the round.
Memory. It’s the single easiest thing to upgrade, and prices are dropping all the time. What you can’t afford today, you can save and get cheaper later, and in 5 minutes you’re gold.
I agree with your opinion, but for now some of the components needed to upgrade to a better performance, we do not need to spend too much money. Although the way that you describe is very useful for cutting the budget and several other reasons.
I have built two systems from scratch and just upgraded a third one, I bought as a system five years ago. When I needed a stronger work computer to run multiple monitors, the first thing I did was do a full search on my motherboard. I got lucky, mine was upgradeable. I added new memory, 2 video cards, a hdd, a new processor and a new PSU. All in all I only spent $400, to get a machine that kicks butt running multiple programs.
I need to tell you, I do not game. All my work is Adobe, mainly Image and design programs and several language programs. I code, a lot. If I had to downsize on something, I would have left the processor, which is also the “last” thing I did, after the PSU…of course.
I would cut back on the Hard drive, assuming you mean a 10K as the top speed. The fastest processor and the most memory the system can handle or that I can afford.
I’d also cut back on the hard drive
they really only need to be large enough to hold the operating system these days – seeing as most things have portable versions available now
If it was a PC strictly used for Office apps, I would say cut back on the RAM and upgrade at a later time. If it is going to be used for something graphic intensive, I would cut back on the CPU slightly. A lot of people under estimate how much the speed of RAM effects the performance of the machine.