Purchasing new computer

[Smurfs]

I currently have a Dell Pentium 4 1.3ghz, 128 mb. I am looking to
purchase a new computer, but it is very confusing. I need a computer
that runs fast & doesn't get hung up. (my current one constantly
freezes, runs extremely slow. Talked to Dell, there is nothing we
can do to fix it) Anyway, Dell is trying to sell me a Dimension 3000
Pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb. When I shopped at other stores they are
saying that the AMD Athlon 64 3200 is better than the 2.8 ghz. Is
this true?

I need the computer for office work & internet access. Maybe a
little online gaming.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Noozer]

I currently have a Dell Pentium 4 1.3ghz, 128 mb. I am looking to
purchase a new computer, but it is very confusing. I need a computer
that runs fast & doesn't get hung up. (my current one constantly
freezes, runs extremely slow. Talked to Dell, there is nothing we
can do to fix it)

Don't believe them... 1.3ghz may be slow by todays standards, but is more
than good enough unless you're a gamer.

Have you tried formatting and re-installing? The PC should have come with a
recovery disk. This will erase anything on the hard drive, so copy anything
you want to CD or another hard drive, etc.

Anyway, Dell is trying to sell me a Dimension 3000

Pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb. When I shopped at other stores they are
saying that the AMD Athlon 64 3200 is better than the 2.8 ghz. Is
this true?

If I were to build a new machine today, I'd get something based on a 939pin
AMD64 chip. I'd avoid Intel due to the heat/performance ratio. DDR2 memory
and PCI-e slots as well. Onboard video/sound will work for what you plan to
do, but you should consider future upgradablility for the video if you ever
plan to get into gaming.

 

[philo]

I currently have a Dell Pentium 4 1.3ghz, 128 mb. I am looking to
purchase a new computer, but it is very confusing. I need a computer
that runs fast & doesn't get hung up. (my current one constantly
freezes, runs extremely slow. Talked to Dell, there is nothing we
can do to fix it) Anyway, Dell is trying to sell me a Dimension 3000
Pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb. When I shopped at other stores they are
saying that the AMD Athlon 64 3200 is better than the 2.8 ghz. Is
this true?

I need the computer for office work & internet access. Maybe a
little online gaming.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I am a serious computer user...running heavy apps such as photoshop...
yet my machine ai just an AMD-1100 (1200 clocked down)
It runs absolutely fine...
However I have more RAM ...512 megs.

If you bump your RAM up
and run msconfig and take most of the junk out of startup
(leave in your virus checker and firewall)
I bet your system runs fine.

May want to empty your inernet cache,
delete temp files
and run defrag.

Also make sure all your fans are running and not dusty...
especially the cpu cooler...

I bet you do not need a new machine,regardless of what the sales
guys say.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

I currently have a Dell Pentium 4 1.3ghz, 128 mb. I am looking to
purchase a new computer, but it is very confusing. I need a computer
that runs fast & doesn't get hung up. (my current one constantly
freezes, runs extremely slow. Talked to Dell, there is nothing we
can do to fix it) Anyway, Dell is trying to sell me a Dimension 3000
Pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb. When I shopped at other stores they are
saying that the AMD Athlon 64 3200 is better than the 2.8 ghz. Is
this true?

I need the computer for office work & internet access. Maybe a
little online gaming.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I wouldn't even consider an Intel based machine these days, the Athlon 64
is better in every dimension. The A64 outperforms the P4 in virtually
every application, in some case by a huge amount. The power consumption is
also vastly better. The P4s are almost uncoolable, the A64s run cool
enough that the CPU fan is off most of the time. On my Athlon 64 3800+
desktop and my 3400+ laptop the fan only runs when I'm doing heavy duty
crunching.

If you want a name brand machine look at HP/Compaq, they have a number of
A64 systems. My 3800+ desktop and my 3400+ laptop are both Compaqs and
I've been happy with both. If you want a custom system then look at
MonarchComputer, I have a dual core X2 4400+ system that I got from them.

http://www.monarchcomputer.com

http://www.shopping.hp.com

 

[Gojira]

is better in every dimension. The A64 outperforms the P4 in virtually
every application, in some case by a huge amount. The power consumption is
also vastly better. The P4s are almost uncoolable, the A64s run cool
enough that the CPU fan is off most of the time. On my Athlon 64 3800+
desktop and my 3400+ laptop the fan only runs when I'm doing heavy duty
crunching.

If you want a name brand machine look at HP/Compaq, they have a number of
A64 systems. My 3800+ desktop and my 3400+ laptop are both Compaqs and
I've been happy with both. If you want a custom system then look at
MonarchComputer, I have a dual core X2 4400+ system that I got from them.

How was your experience with Monarch ?I was thinking of getting a 4400+
system from them myself,but from reading their forums there seems to be a
rash of problems with late deliveries and faulty systems lately,seems like
they're having trouble with the workload that their success has brought.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

How was your experience with Monarch ?I was thinking of getting a 4400+
system from them myself,but from reading their forums there seems to be a
rash of problems with late deliveries and faulty systems lately,seems like
they're having trouble with the workload that their success has brought.

The system was well put together but it did take them longer to deliver it
then I was expecting. However I ordered mine on the day that the dual core
chips became available so I attributed the delay to the availability of
4400+s. They were very good about e-mailing me about the delivery date and
it was clear that I was exchanging e-mail with a real person, it was not
an automated response. I would have liked faster delivery but overall I
was happy with them. I wasn't able to find any one else on the web who was
selling comparable A64 systems.

 

[Schrodinger]

I currently have a Dell Pentium 4 1.3ghz, 128 mb. I am looking to
purchase a new computer, but it is very confusing. I need a computer
that runs fast & doesn't get hung up. (my current one constantly
freezes, runs extremely slow. Talked to Dell, there is nothing we
can do to fix it) Anyway, Dell is trying to sell me a Dimension 3000
Pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb. When I shopped at other stores they are
saying that the AMD Athlon 64 3200 is better than the 2.8 ghz. Is
this true?

I need the computer for office work & internet access. Maybe a
little online gaming.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

1) Try getting to the bottom of this problem first. I wonder if you have
recently changed something? Upgraded the OS?

XP will run very slowly with 128MB. Increase your ram - should only cost $40
for another 368MB.

Reformat and reinstall windows.

Dell are trying to sell you a new PC.

2) For your needs, your existing set up is fine - you would certainly get a
good enough system brand new for £500 here in the UK - presumably $500 in
the US.

 

[JANA]

Most likely adding more RAM to your computer will fix it for you. The speed
of your computer is adequate for general office type work, and simple photo
work with a home digital camera.

The minimum to have is 512 mb with XP. 1 gb would be much better. If you are
running Win 98, anything past 256 mb of RAM on a computer will not make much
difference.

--

JANA
_____


I currently have a Dell Pentium 4 1.3ghz, 128 mb. I am looking to
purchase a new computer, but it is very confusing. I need a computer
that runs fast & doesn't get hung up. (my current one constantly
freezes, runs extremely slow. Talked to Dell, there is nothing we
can do to fix it) Anyway, Dell is trying to sell me a Dimension 3000
Pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb. When I shopped at other stores they are
saying that the AMD Athlon 64 3200 is better than the 2.8 ghz. Is
this true?

I need the computer for office work & internet access. Maybe a
little online gaming.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Albert Grennock]

I have done a power consumption evaluationin a later post and
I worked out that intel costs about £25 more per annnum to run.
Probably closer to £34.

 

[kony]

I have done a power consumption evaluationin a later post and
I worked out that intel costs about £25 more per annnum to run.
Probably closer to £34.

When considering details as minor as which CPU is installed,
one must also itemize the other factors, choices that can be
made. For example the number of drives, speed of the
alternative CPUs, length of time until power management
would be invoked, and types of tasks the system will
perform.

If someone "only" does light tasks, something like a Via CPU
might suffice if ultimate power savings are really
warranted. If someone does demanding tasks and has an
aggresssive power management inteval to soon power down the
box, the most savings could come from having the CPU (and
other system parameters) which have the highest performance
per that/those jobs such that the job gets done and system
sleeps.

CPU alone is but one variable, easily one can get more
processing done per watt used by choosing the most optimal
CPU per task, and in those cases, overclocking the CPU to
higher speed and voltage can actually SAVE power, again, if
the system is set to power down when the jobs are finished.

 

[Albert Grennock]

When considering details as minor as which CPU is installed,
one must also itemize the other factors, choices that can be
made. For example the number of drives, speed of the
alternative CPUs, length of time until power management
would be invoked, and types of tasks the system will
perform.

If someone "only" does light tasks, something like a Via CPU
might suffice if ultimate power savings are really
warranted. If someone does demanding tasks and has an
aggresssive power management inteval to soon power down the
box, the most savings could come from having the CPU (and
other system parameters) which have the highest performance
per that/those jobs such that the job gets done and system
sleeps.

CPU alone is but one variable, easily one can get more
processing done per watt used by choosing the most optimal
CPU per task, and in those cases, overclocking the CPU to
higher speed and voltage can actually SAVE power, again, if
the system is set to power down when the jobs are finished.

All those factors weretaken into account.
Overclocking, of course, WASTES power as we all (should) know.

 

[kony]

All those factors weretaken into account.
Overclocking, of course, WASTES power as we all (should) know.

No. You might do better rereading what I wrote.

It's quite simple- many tasks are CPU constrained but the
CPU is but one, only one consumer of power in a system.
When the CPU is overclocked, there is a disproprortionately
higher performance to power usage (of whole system) ratio.
That can (and does) allow many types of jobs to get done
faster, thereby allowing system to go into sleep mode sooner
or be turned off entirely.