fastest for general use?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Need to put together a system for a family member, which would be the
fastest processor to go for bearing in mind general usage and nothing
intensive:  Pentium D Dual Core 64 Bit or AMD Athlon 64 Bit Dual Core?


Re: fastest for general use?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The A64x2 probably has the better performance/price ratio.

Re: fastest for general use?

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:40:37 -0500, Dave

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You're talking two extremes here. Nothing intensive means
it's a waste of money to pay for the performance.  There is
no "free" performance unless your'e talking about
overclocking and whether that's free is in itself arguable.

The best choice is made within context of total system
budget and other parts cost within that budget, that the CPU
is a relative % of total system cost and with "general
usage" there is no real justification to pay for more CPU at
a loss of other system features or parts in any given price

In other words, dual core is unnecessary.  64 bit,
unnecessary.  Pentium D and Athlon 64, unnecessary.  Celeron
or Sempron make the most sense without any clear need for
higher performance.  Perhaps the budget is large enough to
go for the more expensive CPU instead, but going by only
what you have written so far, the CPU is not going to be the
place to spend a large % of system budget.

Re: fastest for general use?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I agree with this, precisely because I am one of those dual proc, ram
out the wazoo graphics guys. But I was recently given an Apple G3 and
actually found the next day a MultiSync monitor in the garbage.
Someone at my service bureau thinks he can find a 256 meg DIMM kicking
around that will fit the G3, bringing it to 512. So this free-to-me
piece of so-called junk, with a performance way better than my 1997
PII dualie and not a lot less than my 2001 PII dualie will make a
great learning computer for my kid, and if I can find a Mac version of
Net Nanny, I'll plug in my router and let him play around.

My point? This is still a pretty nice rig...I could easily run Quark 5
and InDesign on it (slowly...), but it was going to the dump. The
monitor WAS in the dump, and yet it can get a new life as a low-demand
computer for a kid.

That's why I recommend to people that they get old Thinkpads and
whatnot for e-mail and surfing. They are cheaper than PDAs, and yet
frequently more versatile. If I can get Windows 2000 on a decent 2002
laptop (going for $500 or less around here), I can have a very nice
general purpose machine.

Having said that, I pick up my new "God Box" tomorrow morning <G>


Site Timeline