Is this computer any good? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is this computer any good?

Adrian II

12-09-2005, 13:35

Yes, it's that bloody Dutch amateur again. So sorry.

I posted this before in the Apothecary, but it seems hardly anyone noticed it. Hence:

A friend of mine wants to purchase this Dell computer, but she is not sure if the specs are right for her purposes. She needs a comp with (1) 150 GB hard disc space, plus all the works for (2) gaming and for (3) video and photo editing.

Does the following (possible) Dell order fulfill her requirements? I am grateful for all comments and suggestions.

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 630 with HT technology (3.00GHz, 800MHz fsb, 2MB cache)
Legit version Windows® Media Center Edition 2005
1024MB Dual Channel DDR2 400MHz (2x512) Memory
256MB ATI Radeon® X600 HyperMemory graphics card
160GB (7200rpm) Serial ATA hard disc with 8MB DataBurst™ cache
Internal 13-in-1 Media Card Reader
16x max. DVD+/-RW Drive
Integrated Sound Blaster Audigy ADVANCED HD Audio
Dell USB 2Button Wheel Mouse
Dell basis USB Keyboard - US/Euro (QWERTY)
System Documentation with European Power Cord
Gedis Bundle Reference 5150 Basic D12515
Microsoft® Works 7.0
Photo Album™ SE Basic
Paint Shop™ Pro® Studio

Beirut

12-09-2005, 13:40

Adrian II

12-09-2005, 14:13

Looks tasty. Good horsepower, decent video card, lots of good RAM. Those are the basics that you need, the rest is just trimmings.

It's not the best, but it's pretty damn good. Up the CPU and the video card a bit and you'd have a top-shelf system. Which probably isn't really needed.Thanks for the quick input, dear Beirut. :bow:

Speaking of upping the CPU, what about the Intel Pentium D (Dual Core)? That is optional with this Dell.
:book:

Uesugi Kenshin

12-09-2005, 14:39

IIRC the dual core processors do not help with much, because most programs do not support multi-threading or whatever they call it. They also show hits in at least some programs iirc, including most if not all games. But if it is a much more processor than the 3.0ghz one that would compensate for it. Unfortunately Dell doesn't sell Athlon64's that I know of, otherwise I'd be able to give you a much better and cheaper processor quite easily.

Proletariat

12-09-2005, 15:09

Would she be willing to consider Athlon? I just got mine with similar specs for about $1,000. So far it's been great.

LeftEyeNine

12-09-2005, 16:42

AdrianII, just like Prole said, I need to remind you that any PC user should forget about Intel monopoly. The only reason Intel stands so strong with a market share around %80-85 (not latest ratios) is since they were in the market alone for tooooooo long. AMD processors can work out very well, and it's been a legacy that "AMDs overheat and burn". Intel's one newer CPU core had serious problems with overheating while AMD sustains its quality under performance/cost terms and never faced such problems recently.

Tip : Do not get stuck with the frequency of your CPU (that is Ghz), keep a close eye over L1, L2 caches as well. The only difference between a Celeron processor and a P4 processor was Celeron having no such caches (or very low ones) though both working at the same frequency. And that's why you would not prefer a Celeron for a gaming computer.

Gaming and photo editing will need more RAM, me thinks. 1GBs of RAM is enough, of course, but if there is any extra many I'd recommend it spending it on one or two more modules of RAM. (Consider buying 2* 512 RAM instead of buying a single 1GB RAM. So that you can benefit "Dual DDR" tech)

The ATI x600 video card did not convince me about its capabilities. For a new computer, I suggest looking at Nvidia 6600GT, 6800 (always keep off LE series) or the new Geforce 7 series. I'm not much into ATI video cards but I can easily agree on ATI 9800 Pro or XT video cards being very capable and powerful.

The x600 is not a crappy video card. But video card should have higher priority in case the configuration is changed.

Hope this helps :bow:

Once more again, the best way to build a powerful and less-costing machine is keeping off the branded systems and building your own brand with your own preferences ~;)

Ice

12-09-2005, 17:28

Good Computer. I would be good for gaming, but I would suggest the following if she wants the best or close to it:

1. 2 gigs of ram instead of 1024 (Higher speed to if possible)
2. an x800 or x850 version of the card (x600 isnt to bad, just not great)
3. A non integrated Sound Card

Overall though, good computer. It has the same exact processor as I do.

Mouzafphaerre

12-09-2005, 17:44

.
My next puter, whenever it comes to existence, will be an Athlon. :mean:
.

Adrian II

12-09-2005, 18:04

Thanks for all the comments. The RAM and videocard (integrated or not integrated) issues will be communicated. As for Athlon, I am afraid there is no way to reach across the Dell divide. You know, people either love or hate Dell for its product, service and price -- and this chick just loooves Dell...

To be honest, I passed on lovemeister Beirut's positive comment (you really are the .org's Barry White, man) and she went like 'Oh well, that's it then'.

So the deed was done. She will reconsider her order for the videocard though. Women, eh. ~:rolleyes:

Lemur

12-11-2005, 06:50

Adrian, if you do no other good deed in your lifetime, convince the lady that she must have an Athlon computer. Stalk her, write her poems, knit her a red sweater, do whatever it takes. Pry her away from the Intel zombies.

Downside of a Dell: non-standard power supply, non-standard mobo. So upgrading is zero fun.

Monarch

12-11-2005, 12:42

doc_bean

12-11-2005, 14:45

AMD isn't really "better", it's just that it isn't Intel.

Let's face it, that's also why so many people prefer Firefox over IE, or LaTeX over Word. Sticking it to da Man :san_smiley:

Byzantine Prince

12-11-2005, 16:07

.
My next puter, whenever it comes to existence, will be an Athlon. :mean:
.
Aww, why so grumpy? Did you get ripped off? I know the feeling, imagine my surprise when I find out that celeron processors are trash and that my video crad was very expensive but doesn't support most games properly. :san_angry:

Adrian II

12-11-2005, 16:13

Sorry to jack your thread a little but its on the subject of processors so perhaps you may find it of use too?Go right ahead, I found out the lady is beyond all rational calculation. It's gonna be a Dell - stamp foot, wry smile, dare-me look in eyes. Hey, it ain't my wallet. :san_kiss:

Mouzafphaerre

12-11-2005, 16:18

.
Well, I can speak for certain once I get that big HD and retire this ancient Quantum Fireball -HDs' impact on performance is higher than one my think, but the P4 doesn't seem to be as good as it should have been.

Celeron sucks and can't be blamed for that; after all, it's there for that. ~;)
.

Uesugi Kenshin

12-11-2005, 22:56

Hey,

Sorry to jack your thread a little but its on the subject of processors so perhaps you may find it of use too?

I am getting a new computer at Christmas, already bought actually. It has an Intel P4 EM64T Processor With 2MB Cache, reading this thread with all the anti-Intel threads has worried me a little. So I would like to know actually why an AMD 64 would be better? Spec wise my (or what will be) IP4 64bt processor doesnt seem to be behind too much (if at all) in specs so is it support or reliability or something where AMD have the edge?

Thanks for help you can give...

Athlon64's generally run cooler than a P4 with a comparable amount of processing power, which makes them better for overclocking. Athlon 64's are generally cheaper than P4's with a similar amount of processing power, so you could buy a better Athlon64 for the same amount of money.

Ice

12-13-2005, 23:01

Lemur

12-14-2005, 07:38

So I would like to know actually why an AMD 64 would be better?
Since your PC is already bought, you shouldn't worry about the whole AMD/Intel thing. Done is done. However, the reason gamers give AMD the love are as follows (I hope nobody minds my expanding on the points already made):

* Watt for watt, ghz for ghz, AMD chips are much faster. A 2 ghz AMD64 will usually spank the lederhosen off a 3 ghz Pentium.

* Dollar for dollar, AMD chips are much faster.

* AMD64 CPUs have a much better interface with the computer's RAM. Result: speediness. To add insult, they use cheaper RAM to achieve this result.

* The Nforce 4 motherboard is probably the best mobo for gaming yet made. And it wasn't available for the Pentium until very recently. (Honestly, I'm not sure if Nvidia's got the P4 version in production yet ...)

* Buying from the guy who doesn't have a monopoly always makes people feel warm and fuzzy.

Bottom line: Your PC is purchased, and it will give you much love, and you don't need to worry overmuch about the CPU. After all, the CPU is just one ingredient in what makes a computer fast, and not always the most important one. This lemur is a big fan of subsystems, and making sure that they're pimped out. There's nothing sadder than a good PC with too little RAM, or a slow hard drive, or a bad mobo. All the infrastructure needs to be there. Only then will you notice any difference from the CPU.

Sjakihata

12-14-2005, 11:21

AdrianII do you mind me asking how much that system will cost? If not - how much will that system cost?

Monarch

12-14-2005, 17:30

Since your PC is already bought, you shouldn't worry about the whole AMD/Intel thing. Done is done. However, the reason gamers give AMD the love are as follows (I hope nobody minds my expanding on the points already made):

* Watt for watt, ghz for ghz, AMD chips are much faster. A 2 ghz AMD64 will usually spank the lederhosen off a 3 ghz Pentium.

* Dollar for dollar, AMD chips are much faster.

* AMD64 CPUs have a much better interface with the computer's RAM. Result: speediness. To add insult, they use cheaper RAM to achieve this result.

* The Nforce 4 motherboard is probably the best mobo for gaming yet made. And it wasn't available for the Pentium until very recently. (Honestly, I'm not sure if Nvidia's got the P4 version in production yet ...)

* Buying from the guy who doesn't have a monopoly always makes people feel warm and fuzzy.

Bottom line: Your PC is purchased, and it will give you much love, and you don't need to worry overmuch about the CPU. After all, the CPU is just one ingredient in what makes a computer fast, and not always the most important one. This lemur is a big fan of subsystems, and making sure that they're pimped out. There's nothing sadder than a good PC with too little RAM, or a slow hard drive, or a bad mobo. All the infrastructure needs to be there. Only then will you notice any difference from the CPU.

Oh right, I was just curious really. I suspected it was like the other poster said about how people just like not having the HUGE companies product, but if there is specific tech specs then thats interesting :san_cool:

Xiahou

12-15-2005, 03:46

Well, while we're highjacking.... I recently aquired a x800xl vid card for my system that I'm very happy with, however I think I have a serious bottleneck in my system that's hurting realworld performance. My system is a P4 2.4ghz with a 533Mhz FSB, that, combined with it's lack of dual channel RAM support is what's killing me I think.

Here's my problem- my video card is AGP format and I'd like to look at a cheap upgrade that'd allow me to keep using this card. I have 1gig of pc3200 RAM that I could reuse, so basically I'd be looking at just a new mobo and CPU. So what's still available (AMD or Intel) in the AGP format that'd give me the best performance for my money? Any ideas?

Lemur

12-15-2005, 03:53

Xihaou, your wish is my command. Asus makes a lovely 939-socket mobo with an AGP slot. This means you could use the latest and greatest AMD64 CPU, and all the other kids in the neighborhood would envy you, and maybe want to touch it.

Here's the board. The CPU will depend on your wallet. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131541)

Xiahou

12-15-2005, 04:12

*whistles* Sweet. I could get a 3.2Ghz add another gig of RAM and still have it come in at just over $300..... I think I may be buying myself an after Christmas present. :san_cool:

Nice find- I would've probably settled on something crappier without knowing that was out there.

Lemur

12-15-2005, 04:20

I could get a 3.2Ghz add another gig of RAM and still have it come in at just over $300.
Don't forget to check whether your current RAM is compatible with the new mobo. And while I'm being a backseat geek, even if it's compatible it might not be fast enough to take advantage of your newfound 64-bit on-die memory controller sweetness.

Xiahou

12-15-2005, 04:25

I could be dense- but isnt PC3200 PC3200 for the most part? I could pull up its timings and such if you're trying to get all techie on me though... what would I be looking for?

Lemur

12-15-2005, 05:22

I thought you were moving from a P4 -- some of those use DDR2, which isn't compatible with AMD64. Yet. If it's straight-up DDR RAM, you should be fine. Just check the manual when you get it. Or better yet, download the manual from Asus online.

Adrian II

12-15-2005, 18:57

AdrianII do you mind me asking how much that system will cost? If not - how much will that system cost?Took a peek at her order for ya: 1026 euro.

Sjakihata

12-16-2005, 02:08

I'd say that is a good price, considering it is d(funny e)ll she is trading with. She didnt get ripped off :san_grin:

Xiahou

12-28-2005, 07:06

Well, I made the upgrade and I'd say the bottleneck is now gone- my pc flies now. :wink:

The only thing I'd mention is that this mobo is apparently very picky about RAM. I ordered 1gig of Kingston (2x512MB) and it runs fine, but with my other PC3200 mixed in it only sees it as 166Mhz instead of 200(runs fine at 200Mhz in another machine and cpu-z IDs it as 3200). It has a list of preferred RAM in the manual and I'd recommend sticking to it... No matter, I'll just order in another gig of the Kingston. ~D

Lemur

12-28-2005, 07:35

Many congratulations, Xihaou. Which CPU did you pick to go with your shiny new mobo?

Xiahou

12-28-2005, 07:45

I went with the Athlon64 3200+

Just to give an idea of the improvement that yielded- my 3dMark05 scores went from 3dMark/CPUMark of 4367/2206 to 4904/3887. I'm obviously seeing big jumps in gaming framerates as well- Battlefield 2 has gone from the 20-40fps range to 50-70. :rtwyes:

GodsPetMonkey

01-01-2006, 01:12

Since your PC is already bought, you shouldn't worry about the whole AMD/Intel thing. Done is done.

Good advice - but I would like to pick up on a few of your AMD v Intel points, there is plenty of propaganda on both sides - and nerds tend to get rather hot under the collar about it all.

However, the reason gamers give AMD the love are as follows (I hope nobody minds my expanding on the points already made):

* Watt for watt, ghz for ghz, AMD chips are much faster. A 2 ghz AMD64 will usually spank the lederhosen off a 3 ghz Pentium.

Yes and no - for a start, AMDs don't run 'faster', they perform more per clock cycle, and that's how they keep up with the raw-speed philosophy behind the P4.
Regardless, it's not as easy as you put it, it really depends on the generation of chips we are talking about - in 2003 the P4C 3.0 was out performing the Athlon XP 3000+ (and was sparking alot of 'AMD is really over doing it with their speed ratings' talk), but now the tables have turned, and they will turn again, they always do.

To get all techy though, AMDs philosophy has been more work per clock cycle, while Intel’s has been as much speed as possible - different ways to get to the same result, high performance. However, Intel has discovered that high clock speeds take up to much power and create to much heat, thus the Pentium M (which is the basis for their next generation of CPUs) is much slower, but, like the AMD CPUs, does more work per clock cycle - it also has power consumption that makes the AMD engineers blush (but then again, it was designed as a mobile CPU).
So hats off to AMD for coming up with the smarter philosophy - I can imagine the Intel strategists breaking down when they realised the P4's speed at all costs concept was doomed to fail.

* Dollar for dollar, AMD chips are much faster.

Depends on the CPU - at the low to mid-low range, yes, but the differences are not as glaring as they once were.

* AMD64 CPUs have a much better interface with the computer's RAM. Result: speediness. To add insult, they use cheaper RAM to achieve this result.

Yes, it is faster and much more efficient - though you have to remember that before the innovation of on-die memory controllers, AMD systems had a much slower interface to the memory then P4s did - this was meant to bridge this gap, and did spectacularly.

* The Nforce 4 motherboard is probably the best mobo for gaming yet made. And it wasn't available for the Pentium until very recently. (Honestly, I'm not sure if Nvidia's got the P4 version in production yet ...)

Nforce mobos are the best for AMD gaming systems - but lets face it, your other serious choices include VIA, it's kind of a no brainer.
For P4s, it's harder to say, Nforce4 offers SLI, but intel chipsets have always been great performers (with a few generational hiccups - but the Nforce4 has some problems with certain hardware as well).

* Buying from the guy who doesn't have a monopoly always makes people feel warm and fuzzy.

AMD has approx 40% CPU share in the home market now days (sorry, can't source, but I remember reading about it a few weeks back). Hardly an Intel monopoly - Intel still rules where the big bucks are, corporations - but that's as much down to partners (like Dell and other OEMs), resistance to change of the part of corporate buyers, and a much larger production capacity (so they can deliver the numbers required) then any sort of anti-AMD conspiracy (though you would have trouble convincing some people :no: )

Bottom line: Your PC is purchased, and it will give you much love, and you don't need to worry overmuch about the CPU. After all, the CPU is just one ingredient in what makes a computer fast, and not always the most important one. This lemur is a big fan of subsystems, and making sure that they're pimped out. There's nothing sadder than a good PC with too little RAM, or a slow hard drive, or a bad mobo. All the infrastructure needs to be there. Only then will you notice any difference from the CPU.

Exactly, excellent advice, the computer is only as fast as your slowest component - nothing worse then seeing a AMD X2 4400+ with 512MB of generic RAM (and yeah, I have), or a recent pet peeve of mine, $500 speakers coupled with onboard sound.
In the end, the CPU is unlikely to make a noticeable difference in all but the most highly optimised systems in rather specific circumstances - when you buy a brand spanking new computer, be happy with what you got, cause chances are it kicks some serious bottom - unless it's a Celeron, in which case you get what you deserve.