I'm A Heathen

[Legion Kreinak]

After reading a lot of posts on these boards that support Athlons and building your own CPU, I decided to browse NewEgg. I ended up lining up a NewEgg computer with a DeLL XPS 400. As of now, I have a DeLL. Before I considered building my own computer, I was going to go DeLL. After comparing the two in a spreadsheet, I found something interesting.

The DeLL would have a 2.8 GHz Pentium D processor 800 MHz/FSB. That's a dual core CPU, even though Intel doesn't do 'em right. Windows Media Center Edition, nvidia 6800 video card, 1 GB Dual Channel RAM, 160 GB SATA HDD, Dual drives a 16x DVD-Rom and a 16x DVD-RW, built in modem (woohoo), 19" flat panel monitor (or just gonna sub in a CRT), Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS sound card, DeLL's 5.1 surround speakers, an optimal mouse, USB keyboard. That all comes put together already, no need to deal with putting thermal paste on, etc.

Now, the one I customized had all the same specs, except it was an Athlon 3500+, 2.2 GHz, 1 GHz/FSB. I also had different speakers, a mouse and keyboard, but they're all pretty generic, to match the DeLL.

What it came out to was this:

DeLL: $1,449
Custom: $1,357

A $92 difference. Thing is, the DeLL comes put together already, and even though Athlon's are better than Pentiums, it has even been said that regardless of that, a dual-core Intel will beat a single-core AMD - that's just no comparison.

If this is true, then through the example I have shown, wouldn't it make more sense for me to just get a DeLL? I have never built a CPU in my life, and I don't want to screw anything up - not to mention it seems like I get a better deal through DeLL.

I would love any and all input. I'm going to make a follow-up post with some more info, regarding my needs and thoughts on them.

 

[TreeHugger]

How do u reason a stupid pentium D being better than a 3500........only in heavy multitasking and the difference is marginal, the prescott cores of the intels awill be hot enough to cook dinner on and are all talk and no go. Your system is wayyyy better, and its custom which is just wicked.

 

[Legion Kreinak]

My cousin has a computer that's a Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 256 mb Radeon 9800 (I think? Maybe something else - it's a newer one, though), 80 GB HDD, blah blah blah. It's a DeLL that he got about two years ago. At the time, it was pretty top of the line. He added in an extra GB of RAM and the video card just recently.

Anyway, with 1 gb of RAM and the older card, he could run Battlefield 2, but not Special Forces, well. If he opened anything like music to play in the background, the game would be a little slower than usual, nothing huge. Now with 2 GB ram (on his dinky Pentium 4 ), along with the new card, he can play Special Forces (albeit not on the highest setting) with music running in the background.

Now, that game is pretty demanding. It runs flawless on a moderate setting, and I'm not one who needs the highest quality graphics (I don't see a great difference, to be honest).

Now, if his single-core PENTIUM computer can run that game flawlessly, wouldn't the DeLL I laid out be more than enough for my needs?

The only high-end stuff I'd end up using my computer for, that I can see, would be to play Battlefield 2 with him online. Other than that, I'm not an online gamer, aside from, MAYBE, some an MMO or two. Even then, I don't like to pay, so that'd likely be out. All the other stuff I do is conventional multitasking, which isn't problematic for any system these days.

That said, I can't see a reason I'd need more than what I outlined (heck, I could get away with LESS, no?). I like how F.E.A.R. looks, but even that can be played on my outlined model. I'm sure newer waves of games will come out soon, as they always do, to render my CPU obsolete, but that will happen no matter how long I wait, no matter how "top of the line" I buy. That's technology. And the thing is, I still don't own a PS2. I'm ready to buy one soon, when the PS3 comes out. Why? 'cause now every game is dirt cheap. All those RPGs are easy to pickup at $20, as opposed to $40-60. Not to mention the system is cheaper, and the kinks are worked out of it (we all remember how the first generations screwed up, huh?).

So, what does everyone think of my attempt at rationalizing this?

 

[Legion Kreinak]

How do u reason a stupid pentium D being better than a 3500........only in heavy multitasking and the difference is marginal, the prescott cores of the intels awill be hot enough to cook dinner on and are all talk and no go. Your system is wayyyy better, and its custom which is just wicked.

The latter comment, about it being "wicked" isn't practical. That's a matter of opinion, and doesn't weigh in against the specs.

From what I've learned here, even though Intel isn't great at dual-core processors, a dual-core from Intel beats out a single-core from AMD, simply because the better processing ability.

And yes, they may run hot, but DeLL would cover any problems (that's what a warranty is for) and they're sold often enough that I honestly doubt they'd run so hot that it would be that problematic...or would it?

I was actually going to bring this up, but you addressed said question for me.

 

[TreeHugger]

WHERE DO U GET THIS INFORMATION. A AMD 3500's ghz cannot be comparble to an intels and dual cores only provide moderate to slight gain in multaisking ability, and play music while playing a game does not consitute multitasking. A 3500 is not obslete, AMD still makes them, the pentium D is being yanked off the market shelfs soon since it kinda bombed. Pentium D's do not provide perfomance gain in games, sicne no games can ultilise both cores. In most cases they are known to screw games up.
-AMD 64 3500= better gaming
-Single core is better for gaming that dual core, currently.

 

[Legion Kreinak]

How can you say single-core is better for gaming? Even if dual-core doesn't provide anything extra (since, as you say, games cannot utilize both cores), that doesn't mean single is better. It's just a more costly way of achieving the same thing.

An AMD 3500 can be compared to an Intel. How can they not be? True, the operating frequency listing is different, but you can still compare them.

How can you say a dual core is only a moderate gain?

Playing music during a game constitutes multitasking. It's doing multiple tasks at once. There's no universal definition of it.

I never said it was obsolete.

How do you know there's no gain in games? Have you used identical systems (controlled variables) and then used both single- and dual-cores?

 

[GreatHype]

if you get the Dell you'll be stranded with close to no modding...

 

[HRHunteRHR]

After reading a lot of posts on these boards that support Athlons and building your own CPU, I decided to browse NewEgg. I ended up lining up a NewEgg computer with a DeLL XPS 400. As of now, I have a DeLL. Before I considered building my own computer, I was going to go DeLL. After comparing the two in a spreadsheet, I found something interesting.

The DeLL would have a 2.8 GHz Pentium D processor 800 MHz/FSB. That's a dual core CPU, even though Intel doesn't do 'em right. Windows Media Center Edition, nvidia 6800 video card, 1 GB Dual Channel RAM, 160 GB SATA HDD, Dual drives a 16x DVD-Rom and a 16x DVD-RW, built in modem (woohoo), 19" flat panel monitor (or just gonna sub in a CRT), Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS sound card, DeLL's 5.1 surround speakers, an optimal mouse, USB keyboard. That all comes put together already, no need to deal with putting thermal paste on, etc.

Now, the one I customized had all the same specs, except it was an Athlon 3500+, 2.2 GHz, 1 GHz/FSB. I also had different speakers, a mouse and keyboard, but they're all pretty generic, to match the DeLL.

What it came out to was this:

DeLL: $1,449
Custom: $1,357

A $92 difference. Thing is, the DeLL comes put together already, and even though Athlon's are better than Pentiums, it has even been said that regardless of that, a dual-core Intel will beat a single-core AMD - that's just no comparison.

If this is true, then through the example I have shown, wouldn't it make more sense for me to just get a DeLL? I have never built a CPU in my life, and I don't want to screw anything up - not to mention it seems like I get a better deal through DeLL.

I would love any and all input. I'm going to make a follow-up post with some more info, regarding my needs and thoughts on them.

K Dells suck.

A: I'd like to see you try upgrading that thing with a new motherboard.
B: What about a case??
C: Chancesa are that 6800 is a factory card that can't be overclocked or unlocked, and if it's in a Dell, it's definately been watered down.
D: How are you going to overclock your Dell??
E: What about the ram?? 20$ says that's "dell" ram that is cheap and easy to manufacture.
F: Is the 19" monitor thing a "dell" too? rofl a "dell vision"
G: All in all, that thing will BLOW. Plus, you have to use that stupid freaking windows disk with it that will install the special offers like AOL "highspeed gaming intarweb", and "dell" stuff that spams you up with special dell offers.
H: It's a freaking intel processor.


K, so IMO, I think that thing will be the worst buy EVER.

 

[Lac3y]

Single core AMD's beat dual-core INTEL's hands down.

The reason why is because games are not designed to utilize the extra core...yet.

So get your dual core intel, and just watch as the other core sits there doing nothing.

And make sure you have a bucket of water sitting next to it when it bursts into flames.

 

[HRHunteRHR]

Yea like I said before, not only does the Intel kill it, but the fact that it's not upgradeable and it has watered down cheaply manufactured parts will not get you anywhere in any game. You had better plan on playing games like Counter-Strike 1.6 and others from 2 years ago.