Processor speed vs. RAM: what to get

[eddiearniwhatever]

I have a T40 with 1.5gHz Pentium M processor & 1.25gigs of RAM. I'm running it on Ubuntu Linux. It takes longer than I'd like for the computer to boot up, and when networks are crowded it takes a while for web pages to come up, updates to download.

Because of this I'd like to upgrade, and I've noticed T43s with 1.8GHz & 2gigs RAM, also 2GHz processors, at a larger cost and harder to find. I took a look at T60s with similar specs but found them to cost around $300 more.

My question is, what's more important when it comes to the performance speed of the computer, the processor or RAM? Is it foolish of me to demand 2+ gHz over 1.7 or 1.8 if I'm going to have 2+gigs RAM anyway?

thanks!!

Admin note: Thread moved from Utility Work Area forum and duplicate post in T4x was locked.

[Harryc]

I think most would agree that in terms of best perfoormance gains, do RAM first, then a fast hard drive, then CPU in that order. As far as a CPU, the best bang for the buck in the T40 series was and continues to be the 1.8Ghz Pentium M 745.

[aaa]

It takes longer than I'd like for the computer to boot up, and when networks are crowded it takes a while for web pages to come up, updates to download.

First issue is with hard drive speed, second issue you can't do much about (aside from use a less crowded network).

As a fellow 1.5ghz/Ubuntu user, the 1.5 bothers me occasionally with Flash video but is good for everything else. I am fine with 1gb of ram, and upgraded to an HM160HC drive some time ago.