Processor Bus?
solidsnake204
very good.
I sent the page to my friend, who said it is good for the price, but the low
processor bus means that the computer wont be as fast as I think.
Processor Bus: 800 MHZ
My friend said that this is low, is that true?
Full system specs:
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.203-4621.aspx
Paul
To a first order approximation, a computer's performance depends on
Core_clock * IPC
For a Core 2 processor, this would be 2.2GHz * 1.5 = 3.3GHz P4.
The machine will have roughly the same speed as a 3.3GHz P4,
which is enough for ordinary tasks.
The FSB is a secondary concern. If it was FSB800 or FSB1333,
I doubt you could tell the difference.
The FSB on my current computer is FSB800 (and your friend's
comment has made me cry :-) )
The part of that deal that isn't so good, is Vista. (In
the sense that, it may seem slower than what you're used
to.)
The machine has "integrated graphics", and you may find a
cheap $50 PCI Express video card will help it a bit. It really
all depends on what you intend to use it for, as to whether
a video card upgrade will help. For example, if you are a
gamer, then more horsepower is always better.
I don't know the UK prices at all, so cannot say whether
£349.00 is a "deal" or not.
I notice another computer on Tesco uses 1.86GHz core and
FSB1066. And that would be slower than the 2.2GHz core
machine, even though that machine is FSB800. The core is
what counts.
And if I were you, I'd visit the Dell UK site, and compare
what Tesco is offering, to what you can customize on the
Dell site. For example, for £100 more, you can get a quad
core Q6600. Or for £80 extra, the E8300 dual core at 2.83GHz.
So price around a bit, and see if you're getting a good deal
or not. (Quad core is mainly useful, if you do a lot of
DVD shrinking or movie rendering etc. Stuff that is slow
and grinds on your existing machine. With four cores, the
machine stays perky, while stuff runs in the background.
For web surfing or email, the dual core is better, runs
cooler and is powerful enough most of the time.)
You can always add memory to the machine yourself, if the
machine on the Dell site doesn't have enough memory.
Memory is about $25 per gigabyte, so it doesn't cost much to
do an upgrade yourself.
Paul
OldDuke
Why ask here? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do
with the OS.
Ask elsewhere
M.I.5¾
"OldDuke" <no...@nobody.net> wrote in message
news:maf424llfo1b8r35n...@4ax.com...
OldDuke is our resident fuckwit.
Ignore him. He just cannot get his head around this strange concept that
hardware questions belong in this *hardware* newsgroup.
Bob Willard
Ignore OldDuke. Most of us think this is a proper NG for the question.
--
Cheers, Bob
Walter Wall
A hardware question in a hardware newsgroup. What is the world coming to?
Bjarke Andersen
news:4822d463$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
> A hardware question in a hardware newsgroup. What is the world coming
> to?
Not really. This NG is regarding hardware relations to Windows XP. Not
internal hardware relations.
So OP is actually in the wrong NG, but if the question was related to if
Windows XP would perform better with higher FSB, then the question was
relevant.
--
Bjarke Andersen
JohnO
"Bjarke Andersen" <bjarke....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A988D5E...@207.46.248.16...
But at the same time, who cares? It's not like the Master of Newsgroup
Charters and Subjects or Bill Gates himself is going to toss an EMP pulse
through the tubes at your system if a question isn't related to Win XP
directly...or like this group is loaded with spam or tons of unanswered
questions...
BTW, OldDuke is the resident troll who lately morphs into new identities.
He's a sad, sad character.
-John O
Bjarke Andersen
news:u8sNq1Qs...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
> But at the same time, who cares? It's not like the Master of Newsgroup
> Charters and Subjects or Bill Gates himself is going to toss an EMP
> pulse through the tubes at your system if a question isn't related to
> Win XP directly...or like this group is loaded with spam or tons of
> unanswered questions...
Users care. Else we could manage the entire usenet with one group.
--
Bjarke Andersen
Walter Wall
The problem is that there are not really any other realistic places to put
hardware questions. here are a number of other groups, but the patronage
varies from zero to not very many. The reality is that if you have a
hardware problem, this newsgroup is the one in which you are most likely to
get a useful response. Virtually all the users seem quite happy with that
situation except one, but I have never seen any useful contribution from the
resident troll.
Are you throwing your hat into the ring with this troll?
JohnO
> Users care. Else we could manage the entire usenet with one group.
>
Two of you 'users' care so far: you and the Troll of No Consequence. BTW,
you're saying you could compress 50,000+ groups into one? That's a
ridiculous argument.
If somebody comes here complaining about a NASCAR driver or Photoshop bug,
there are lots of appropriate places for that. But if it's any kind of PC
hardware even distantly related to Windows, this group has plenty of
capacity to handle it. There is a lot of experience being shared here, and
no good reason to artificially limit the sharing of knowledge.
If you don't think a topic belongs here, then use your newsreader to zap the
thread away. In the meantime, virtually all questions are getting answered
politely and professionally. Even the majority of off-topic questions are
redirected tactfully, except for the troll--who has no manners.
All IMHO, of course.
-John O
Robert Moir
> To a first order approximation, a computer's performance depends on
>
> Core_clock * IPC
>
> For a Core 2 processor, this would be 2.2GHz * 1.5 = 3.3GHz P4.
> The machine will have roughly the same speed as a 3.3GHz P4,
> which is enough for ordinary tasks.
You can't really measure processor speed this way.
See:
http://rhymeswithgeek.com/blogs/someone_else/archive/2006/07/13/CPU-FAQ.aspx
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core2-duo-knocks-athlon-64,1282-12.html
Multicore processing isn't about combining the power of two processor cores
or more to do one thing really fast, but more about doing two things at
once. And core by core, the Core Duo / Core2Duo processor design is a lot
more efficient than the pentium 4 design, a case of working smarter not
harder.
> The FSB is a secondary concern. If it was FSB800 or FSB1333,
> I doubt you could tell the difference.
>
> The FSB on my current computer is FSB800 (and your friend's
> comment has made me cry :-) )
Yeah, that didn't seem helpful of the friend. It might not be the fastest
setup money can buy, but it's plenty fast enough for business type use and
any home use that doesn't involve hard-core gaming.
> I don't know the UK prices at all, so cannot say whether
> £349.00 is a "deal" or not.
About $700 USD. It's not a bad price going on local market conditions.
> I notice another computer on Tesco uses 1.86GHz core and
> FSB1066. And that would be slower than the 2.2GHz core
> machine, even though that machine is FSB800. The core is
> what counts.
>
> And if I were you, I'd visit the Dell UK site, and compare
> what Tesco is offering, to what you can customize on the
> Dell site. For example, for £100 more, you can get a quad
> core Q6600. Or for £80 extra, the E8300 dual core at 2.83GHz.
> So price around a bit, and see if you're getting a good deal
> or not. (Quad core is mainly useful, if you do a lot of
> DVD shrinking or movie rendering etc. Stuff that is slow
> and grinds on your existing machine. With four cores, the
> machine stays perky, while stuff runs in the background.
> For web surfing or email, the dual core is better, runs
> cooler and is powerful enough most of the time.)
I heartily agree with this bit. Dell do some keenly priced machines, but
some people are just weirded out by buying things like that mail order.
> You can always add memory to the machine yourself, if the
> machine on the Dell site doesn't have enough memory.
> Memory is about $25 per gigabyte, so it doesn't cost much to
> do an upgrade yourself.
I'd definately second this part too. A lot of the big box shifters soak
users on memory upgrades. Dell, Apple, all of them get beat hollow by places
like crucial.com on the price of extra memory.
OldDuke
wrote:
A hardware question that has NOTHING to do with the XP OS. Read the
group title and you'll notice WINDOWSXP preceding the word HARDWARE.
Put them togehter. Then realize what I am saying is CORRECT.
Walter Wall
I believe that someone else has already pointed out that you are the *only*
person who seems to have a problem with that. No one else cares. I
certainly have no problem with people posting hardware questions in this
hardware newsgroup.
I do, however, object to your continuously posting the same identically
worded unwanted post. And AFAICT so do many others. I would ask where you
expect people to post such questions, but I won't as I know exactly what
your unhelpful answer will be.
Now go away and die.
Bill in Co.
He does it because that is ALL he is capable of. For him, that is his
life.
OldDuke
wrote:
There are DOZENS of web-based forums that qualify.
As for your objections, wah. Deal with it.
Walter Wall
As predicted, your response was as unhelpful as ever.
> As for your objections, wah. Deal with it.
>
I don't have to deal with anything. You are the one with the problem.
JohnO
> There are DOZENS of web-based forums that qualify.
This one included. Deal with it.
OldDuke
And how is "this one" a "web-based forum"? Dumbass.
Walter Wall
Even you can't be so thick as not to realise that he meant that *this*
newsgroup was a included in the valid places that qualify for the question.
On second thoughts: you probably are.
OldDuke
wrote:
>
I'm not the one who compared USENET to a web-based forum. You are the
thick dumbass here, not me.