Re: Dell vs. eMachines T6420

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
<dennis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140713449.713725.64170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dannysdailys wrote:
dakota7wrote:
My one Windows computer is a Dell, now six years old. The whole
setup
including monitor cost around $1800 in early 2000 when we got it,
and
then I've since added a second hard drive, USB 2 ports, and a DVD
writer
drive (had to go to a new case), plus bumped the memory to 512 meg.

After reading all the rest of the posts, I have your final answer.

Don't buy the Compaq, don't buy an HP, don't buy a Dell, don't buy a
Gateway and don't buy an e-machine.

Whatever you do, DON'T buy Intel!! They just missed their numbers and
it's going to happen again. DON'T buy Dell!! They've just missed
their numbers and it's going to happen again. They're stuck with
Intel, remember? This is very important.

Dell is in talks with AMD now, but AMD is in no hurry and I wouldn't
be either. Michael Dell bad mouthed AMD in public and I remember it.
Intel is now relegated to Apple. Now that's an honor...

Never buy obsolete tech no matter who
builds it. I can't believe I have to say this on
[i:4fae10d229]these[/i:4fae10d229] boards...

Do yourself a big favor and have your local shop custom build you an
AMD machine. It's most probably the only thing he uses anyway. I can
almost guarantee the quality will be better then a store bought
machine. I have a micro cube that has a power supply as big as any
Dell. With a local shop, you only get what you need. This keeps the
cost down.

Local shops (white boxes) have by far, the highest customer ratings
and there are many reasons why.

One thing you don't get is needed hardware upgrades before you've even
plugged it in. Most any computer you buy at the store will need a
video upgrade right out of the box.

The "majors" computers don't like to be upgraded and only
very limited things can be done. Generally, what you buy is all it
will ever be. Maybe they are throw away after all. Why buy a throw
away? It's not even good for the environment.

Heaven forbid your warranty should be one day out of date.

The White Box will have all standardized parts that are cheap, and
easily available. That means your local guy can easily fix it.

He's only a local phone call away. With them, you call India.

He won't give you any software you don't need. With them, you'll spend
a week getting rid of all the crap. And, most all of it wants to be on
the Internet when you're trying to do something. Not ever good.

And, I think if you look, you'll find your local shop to be very price
competitive with the majors.

Best of luck

I really enjoy reading the comments of amateurs whose only information
comes from other amateurs and journalists who almost never have a clue
what they're writing about.
Its funny that the only real advantage AMD has is in its power
consumption, and here you are bragging about the size of your P/S. Its
almost pure comedy.

The truth is that, dollar for dollar, AMD and intel are about the same.
Intel can price their products any way they want, and they price them
slightly lower than an equally performing AMD product. An intel 3.4Ghz
P4 is about the same performance as a 2.0Ghz Opteron, and the 3.4P4 is
generally a better deal, and it also has a larger cache.

Performance-wise, a like performing Intel will beat the crap out of the
AMD for smallish tasks, as its much faster out of the cache.
Compression, computation, compact routing code..intel is king. Once out
of the cache, AMD scales better at the same price. BUT (and its a big
***), Intel MB+CPU is usually more cost effective, so dollar for
dollar intel is usually a better deal, unless you care about power
consumption. If you have 100 computers this may be a factor; if you
have one its not going to make any difference except for religious
arguing.

As for dual core, Operating systems don't yet utilize it very well, so
its usually a waste of your money. There are too many variables to
really compare them, but you certainly can't just look at the
architecture and decide. The OS is the bottom line and depending on
what you use as a benchmark, you can make any one look a lot better
than the other. No O/S yet has mastered MP processing to the point
where you can definitively say that its worth the extra expense.

DB


I really enjoy reading comments from idiots that have their facts completely
ass-backwards. Every major test in every major magazine, head to head, has
AMD beating Intel in every category you mention. And you have the bawls to
compare an Intel 3.4 GHz P4 to an Opteron...that in and of itself destroys
any credibility you may have had left.

The you say Intel Proc and Mobo are more cost effective... which leads to
the only conclusion that can be drawn form such a statement...you have to be
on drugs.

Get a clue, then get a life.

Your whole post is one big pile of completely wrong information.

Research before you post.

Bobby

Listen to yourself for Pete's sake. How do you think Intel prices their
products? This is not cost+ here; they can set any price they want. Do
you think they sit in board rooms and say, "well the Opteron 2.0 is
much faster than our 3.4Ghz P4, so lets price them the same". You're
the one that needs to get a clue, bobby-boy, about how things work in
the real world.

Unlike those who get their information from "engineers" who work for
magazines, I live in the real world, where calculus expressions don't
ever come out to whole numbers. My company sells high performance
products that use both AMD and Intel processors, and I promise you that
I know more about both than anyone in this little group of teenage
geniuses.

Magazine articles use benchmarks, and they are conducted by "engineers"
who don't understand the distinction between the benchmark and real
world applications. If the test doesn't show multiple settings for the
SAME processor, then its not credible. Suppose I have a given MB that
runs Xeons running some OS. The OS is as much of a factor, if not more,
than the cpu. You run tests with 1 processor with HT, then without HT.
How efficient is the HT scheduler in the OS? HT enabled will have
negative effect on many apps. Then run with 2 processors. How well done
is the threading in the benchmark? Then you run some other benchmarks
of the same type. Then you do it on another motherboard, and then
another. Every mobo is different. Personally, I don't use typical
benchmarks at all. The apps that I run don't work the way benchmarks
do, so the benchmarks aren't relevant to what I'll be doing. You test a
system the way you're going to use it. See what its breaking point is.
See what the utilization is at certain levels of use. Because that's
what the machine will really be doing.

You can talk about architecture and "potential" all you want, but the
proof of the pudding remains in the taste. What I stated is accurate
and makes sense even in coordination with what the "magazines" say.
Intel isn't stupid. They price their products so they are competitive.
If you think for the same $$$ you're getting more bang for your buck
with AMD then you just don't understand anything. Intel could squash
AMD like a bug any time they want, just like microsoft could have
squashed Apple. Dollar for dollar, Intel is a better deal, because a
3.4ghz processor with a 2Meg cache will beat a 2.0Ghz opteron with a
1Meg cache for most real non-memory intensive applications for the same
money. At best there are marginal differences in performance depending
on the application, one way or the other. If you believe that AMD blows
Intel out of the water at any particular price level then you are not
only a technical fool, but a business fool as well.

Aside from incompetent testers, the big problem with this argument is
that you can't even compare intel to intel on different motherboards,
so how can you make a generalization about processors? You can get 25%
variation between the exact same processor on 2 different motherboards,
so most of what you read is just a lot of unsubstantiated bunk when
comparing different processors on different motherboards. Most bearded,
four-eyed lab guys want AMD to win, so they do. Its not in fashion to
root for the big guys.


DB

.

Quantcast