Is this computer any good?

**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

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.

.

**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.

**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

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...

**Byzantine Prince** · 12-11-2005, 16:07

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

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

.

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.

**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.

.