Fast CPUs for office PCs - Does it matter?

Gone2mars · 10 Jan 2009 at 10:45

Hey guys,

I'm curious on oppinions here, i'm the senior programmer for a company here in brum ... The computers here run a .Net 2.0 program, poccomail, a large and nasty VB6 program, IE7 and a load of other little nasties in the background.

I've just got the go ahead to get in a few more PCs for the company to replace the ancient machines they are running the warehouse and i'm having an arguement with the boss about the specs.

I personally want to future proof the company and buy 3.0 e8400s ... my boss wants to buy 2.6 e7300s or even 2.5 e5200s arguing that we won't see any difference in speed when only running office applications

I don't really know the difference in noticable speed between these processors and wondered would the e8400 be NOTICABLY better than the e5200 when only running office applications?

Thanks guys ... answers on a postcard

ConnectionFX · 10 Jan 2009 at 11:07

first the specs.

E5200
Speed 2.5GHZ
Cache 1MB L2
Cost £68.99

E7300
Speed 2.66GHZ
Cache 3MB L2
Cost £103.49

E8400
Speed 3.00GHZ
Cache 6MB L2
Cost £149.99

E5200
I think would be a waste of time due to the low L2 Cache level.

E7300 is a more capable chip with its higher clocks and more L2 Cache it will number crunch better at a reasonable cost

E8400 is the obvious winner with its 3GHZ and 6MB L2 Cache makes it a nice speedy chip but the cost is a little off putting.

As its for business use i wont go into which one is better for overclocking.

I would say go for the mid range with the 3MB cache to

Hope this helps

95thrifles · 10 Jan 2009 at 21:54

If you're likely to be using several of the apps at the same time it would be worth considering a quad tho, just to add more confusion

I_M_Weasel · 10 Jan 2009 at 22:35

My dads new 7300 is surprisingly quick far better than I expected, my e8500 doesnt feel at all quicker in office apps (but importantly, I know it is), shame the PC has a whole as issues with booting but this isn't anything to do with the impressive little CPU.

Tuvoc · 10 Jan 2009 at 23:43

Our office PCs are still HP Pentium 4 HT boxes. They do the job very well, although from memory they must be 3-4 yrs old now and due for replacement.
In my opinion your boss is right, the E8400 are overkill, save the money and go for the cheaper CPUs.

SinaiSound · 11 Jan 2009 at 00:02

I'd rather the E5200, but with more RAM

Doubt you'd notice the difference between the lot, but more RAM would be much better for multi-tasking imho

The Halk · 11 Jan 2009 at 00:38

Office PCs suffer from storage, memory and integrated graphics speeds, not so much processor.

yantorsen · 11 Jan 2009 at 00:45

Hefner said:
I'd rather the E5200, but with more RAM

Doubt you'd notice the difference between the lot, but more RAM would be much better for multi-tasking imho

Agree with this tbh

caithomas44 · 11 Jan 2009 at 02:10

More Ram is far more important for office pc's! go for the basic C2Ds and just make sure you have 2/4gb of ram in each.

p4radox · 11 Jan 2009 at 10:49

Hefner said:
I'd rather the E5200, but with more RAM

Doubt you'd notice the difference between the lot, but more RAM would be much better for multi-tasking imho

Agree

JTrickle · 11 Jan 2009 at 11:24

I agree with your boss. e8400 is a waste in the office.

EvilOne · 11 Jan 2009 at 11:41

My office still runs P3/P4's in most the computers. Its fine, the pc's that need higher for graphics ect have a little bit higher quality cpu's but for the most part it makes little diffrence. Just make sure there is plenty of ram and a decent hard drive. No excuse for low ram/hd space with the prices these days.

edit, agree that e8400 is a waste too.