Shuttle XPC or Dell XPS?

[A_Pickle]

..they just dont have the Juice when you want it

That I can agree with. My 3D Mark 05 score is positively dismal.

...and no, I won't tell it to you.

[PerfectCr]

..they just dont have the Juice when you want it

That I can agree with. My 3D Mark 05 score is positively dismal.

...and no, I won't tell it to you.

Let me guess. 400?

[Vrock]

Regardless, I still think the P4 is an excellent desktop processor, particularly for the multitasking, typical computer user.

The typical computer user doesn't need more than a P III at 1ghz. The typical computer user may type some letters, balance their checkbook, and surf the internet. That's it. The Pentium IV is no better suited for this than any other processor. That being said, there other cheaper, quieter, and cooler processors out there than the P IV.

[A_Pickle]

Let me guess. 400?

Ouch. You think Dells are THAT bad?

The Pentium IV is no better suited for this than any other processor. That being said, there other cheaper, quieter, and cooler processors out there than the P IV.

One word. Hyper-Threading. Sit on that for awhile.

[PerfectCr]

Let me guess. 400?

Ouch. You think Dells are THAT bad?

The Pentium IV is no better suited for this than any other processor. That being said, there other cheaper, quieter, and cooler processors out there than the P IV.

One word. Hyper-Threading. Sit on that for awhile.

I love Dell for monitors, and for the average person they work great. It's not that I think "Dells ar that bad", but you are running a PIV and a 9600XT, not exactly a screaming gaming machine. Its the hardware, doesn't matter that it's a Dell or not. Sure for surfing the web there is no issue.

[Vrock]

Let me guess. 400?

Ouch. You think Dells are THAT bad?

The Pentium IV is no better suited for this than any other processor. That being said, there other cheaper, quieter, and cooler processors out there than the P IV.

One word. Hyper-Threading. Sit on that for awhile.

One word: irrelevant. Average Joe needs hyper-threading about as much as he needs a GF 7800GTX. 'Cause, you know, email and word processing just can't be handled without it.

You probably think that Netburst architecture enhances your internet experience too, don't you?

[A_Pickle]

I love Dell for monitors, and for the average person they work great. It's not that I think "Dells ar that bad", but you are running a PIV and a 9600XT, not exactly a screaming gaming machine. Its the hardware, doesn't matter that it's a Dell or not. Sure for surfing the web there is no issue.

Yeah. It plays most games pretty well, but I can't get any anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering with that 9600. I've recently purchased an X800 XL which'll be just fine for me, but I won't be putting that in 'till I get my PSU.

Y' know -- just in case.

'Cause, you know, email and word processing just can't be handled without it.

Yeh. But they can be handled faster at the same time. Which is what average Joe does, he multitasks across numerous browser windows and maybe Quicken.

You probably think that Netburst architecture enhances your internet experience too, don't you?

dUDE ya! Imean, opH corse ur pros3ssy tingy lik... makes tings beter! Intrnet splorer lkie... pwns frfx with tat Netbrust stfuf ya!

...or... don't... insult my intelligence.

[Klyith]

'Cause, you know, email and word processing just can't be handled without it.

Yeh. But they can be handled faster at the same time. Which is what average Joe does, he multitasks across numerous browser windows and maybe Quicken.

But multiple browser windows and quicken and even 5 other apps all open at the same time still don't need HT. Normal office applications require zero cpu time when they're not active and in focus. Most of them use pretty close to zero even when they are in focus. Perhaps one might occasionally have a heavy excell spreadsheet or quicken report that takes some background cpu, but it's both rare and not a big deal when it happens. Most office apps are programmed to run such tasks as background processes anyways, so they get out of your way when you need some cpu for what you're currently focused on. And if they don't the answer isn't get a better processor, it's get a more intelligently designed program.

Hyper Threading, just like the SMP it mimics, is useless 99% of the time for the average user. If Joe Sixpack is having problems with his computer being slow, if it's not malware it is almost always lack of ram.

[flip-mode]

Damn...guy sounds like a carbon copy of Porkster doesnt he

I'm late to this thread, but to compare this guy to Porkster is verging on slander or some other criminal behavior.

That being said, try the Dimension 8100 if you want to see a quintessential turd.

And I'll be pissed at Intel for the Rambus manuver for some time to come. Every Rambus machine I've used has felt inexorably slow and laggy. The wisdom of Intel's obsession with clock speed still has to stand the test of time. All those Prescots out there running at 50-70c ... how long will they last? Intel has made some poor decisions and all from a company that is supposed to be The Best computer chip designer and manufacturer. AMD has made some silly decisions too, but the most encouraging this is that those silly decision are made in the marketing department, and not in the technology department. On a level playing field, AMD would be the #1 x86 cpu provider (equal fab capacity, equal marketing, pure competition) Their shiz runs cooler, performs better, and has historicly cost much less.

My major complaint against *every* oem is their usage of generic parts - expecially the motherboard, and second, the PSU. I recently opened up an HP that served a 3.0E with a 240W PSU - that's a dicey union. And I hope never to own a motherboard that doesn't have its own product page and user manual.

[Vrock]

Yeh. But they can be handled faster at the same time. Which is what average Joe does, he multitasks across numerous browser windows and maybe Quicken.

Dude, you've got to be kidding me. That's the weakest justification for hyperthreading I've ever heard in my life. Please. Numerous browser windows being open doesn't tax a CPU that way. Face it: hyperthreading is useless for the average person.

...or... don't... insult my intelligence.

Well, you're defending the Pentium IV as being more suited for the average Joe because it's got hyperthreading. This makes you sound like an idiot. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[A_Pickle]

The wisdom of Intel's obsession with clock speed still has to stand the test of time. All those Prescots out there running at 50-70c ... how long will they last? Intel has made some poor decisions

From a computer hobbyist/engineer's perspective, Netburst might be viewed as a dismal failure. I think it was okay, I just think it was dumb of Intel to continue pushing it as "modern" after AMD launched the 4000+ and the FX-55.

From a marketing perspective, the decision to go to the Netburst core is nothing short of corporate genius. Clockspeed was what sold. So clockspeed was what was given. Sure, the Pentium 4 didn't do as much work per clock cycle as the Pentium III... but Fred doesn't need to know that. He just needs to see AMD Athlon 64 3000+ at 2.0 GHz versus the mighty Pentium 4 530 at 3.0 GHz.

Perhaps not a superior processor, but most Intel executives don't consider the Netburst move a bad one. Now, AMD and, in particular, Apple, are pushing the "Megahertz don't matter," notion, which is true. It's just become very true to the major populace -- a few years too late. Now Intel is doubling back on that, the Pentium M is following that very philosophy.

I'm late to this thread, but to compare this guy to Porkster is verging on slander or some other criminal behavior.

WOW.

Dude, you've got to be kidding me. That's the weakest justification for hyperthreading I've ever heard in my life. Please. Numerous browser windows being open doesn't tax a CPU that way. Face it: hyperthreading is useless for the average person.

I dunno. I guess, yes... those examples wouldn't be very taxing to the CPU. Maybe burning a CD whilst watching a DVD, I dunno. I played with an Athlon 64 3000+ powered system recently... and I wasn't thoroughly impressed. It was choppy, and ran HL2 more smoothly than it ran Windows. This was after a fresh format, as well.

Before the debut of the 4000+, P4's enjoyed supremacy in the simulated multitasking benchmarks, and, to a more real world scenario, they enjoyed supremacy in just about any multithreaded application. This was why they tended to underperform in gaming, an arena notorious for it's monothreading.

Ehh, whatever. I find it useful... playing CoD smoothly whilst a CD copies in the background... I just don't think I could have done that with out hyperthreading... and I simply think that hyperthreading makes things run niiice and smooth.

Well, you're defending the Pentium IV as being more suited for the average Joe because it's got hyperthreading. This makes you sound like an idiot.

Well... I think the average Joe's of the world multitask. To see an average home user burn a CD is not far fetched. To see them watch a DVD is not far fetched. To see them rip music, or copy it to their iPod is not far fetched. To see them do all of these at the same time is, henceforth, not, far fetched.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Bwe heh heh. Chekov.

[flip-mode]

As has already been mentioned, this thread is completely irrelevant to its original poster. It has unforntunately become another InDell/AMD bickering thread.

A_Pickel, I don't have any qualms with your opinion - you basicly acknowledge the shortcommings of both parties but continue to prefer on for whatever fanboy reasons you have - and there's nothing wrong with that. Porkster was completly disinterested in acknowledging any crediblity on behalf of AMD in any form whatsoever, and furthermore acted on an agenda in favor of Intel (with no tact or finesse at all), and this community, I'm glad to say, won't tolerate that.

What is bothersom is proselytizing your own preferences under the guize of a technical superiority that really helps out Joe and Jane Six. I'd like us to stop talking about the Sixes. They've got nothing to gain from hyperthreading or speeds over 2.0 / 2000+. They doesn't game, they rarely burn cds, they rarely use USB - maybe for a mouse or keyboard, they don't fold, the most demand they put on the machine is when opening a program. For such a person, any computer will do - Dell, HP, Compaq, White Box, Emachine, Gateway - it won't make a difference. Indell, AMD - they'll *never* know the difference, they have enough trouble doing one thing at a time on the computer.

The gamer, the enthusiast, and many professions are those who are clamoring for more power. Hyperthreading may help many of them, but the great majority of the time these people are concentrating on one task at a time. And checking email or a web browser every thirty minutes is no problem, unless its Firefox with a lot of Flash to deal with, and then you're screwed anyway.

Hyperthreading is nice for certain people, I could undoubtably use it at work on a daily basis, but here at home I've run into only one or two scenarios where it would be useful. If I was to buy a P4, it would be a 3.2C - that was the P4 that had implemented all the technical responses to the AXP, and not the marketing responses of the Prescots.

But my heart rests with the A64, and the X2 in particular - runs cool, doesn't guzzle power, no thermal throttling, absolutely class leading performance, and in the case of the X2, unbeatable performance. And the issue of power consumption / dissipation is an issue that has some import to the Sixes as well.

And besides that, I have an ethical problem with Intel telling its suppliers and oem customers how many AMD chips they are allowed to sell, and for this reason I really hope Intel gets its teeth kicked in, legally speaking.

[LicketySplit]

Aye...ive a similar feeling as well...and i hope they kick em when their down

[kitsura]

My workplace uses Dell desktops. About 400+ of them. My main beef with Dell is their flaky BIOs and proprietary PSU. I've lost count of the number of time I had to open a Dell machine and reseat all the components just because it refuses to post even when there is clearly no hardware problem.

[A_Pickle]

A_Pickel, I don't have any qualms with your opinion - you basicly acknowledge the shortcommings of both parties but continue to prefer on for whatever fanboy reasons you have - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Well, yes and no. Given $600 and a task to buy a processor, I couldn't go and feel right buying a Pentium. I think 3.6 GHz is the "last" speed bump that means anything, 3.8 does nothing and, oddly enough the 3.73 with the 1066 FSB doesn't either.

In all likelihood, I would buy one of the X2's with perhaps some inkling for a Pentium M. But that's it... I don't think high end P4's deliver.

However, given $200 and the same objective, I would buy the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 in a heartbeat, as I find the lower end P4's are just dynamite performers for the price.

My two cents.

I'd like us to stop talking about the Sixes. They've got nothing to gain from hyperthreading or speeds over 2.0 / 2000+.

In one sense, I agree, in another, I do not. My parents run under 2000 MHz, 1300 and 800, respectively. They do O.K, I suppose, but there is no question but that they utilize exactly what the average computer users do.

Sure, there's a lot of fluff to their CPU ops. Web browsing and finances. An occasional game of solitaire.

Across the same board, my parents DO burn CD's, and they DO use a hell of a lot of USB. Printers. Kodak EasyShare. The cellphone thingymabobs. USB drives. They also maintain their computers, through antivirus scans, defragmenting their hard drives, antimalware scans, things of that sort.

From experience, that single core 1.3 GHz Athlon XP does not run silky smooth when Norton is scanning, and you're trying to browse the internet. It just doesn't work. Similarly, the 800 MHz Pentium III, bless it's little heart, has a whopping trouble of a time just scanning for malware. This, in my opinion, is alleviated with hyperthreading.

I dunno. I just think hyperthreading makes for a better user experience. I like it... but I do stuff in 3D Studio Max... so I don't count.

All in all, I love my P4. I'm not going to brag or say it could whip anything into discrete oblivion, but... it's time will come. And I'll buy an A64 then... unless Conroe has come out.

[zgirl]

I'd like us to stop talking about the Sixes. They've got nothing to gain from hyperthreading or speeds over 2.0 / 2000+.

In one sense, I agree, in another, I do not. My parents run under 2000 MHz, 1300 and 800, respectively. They do O.K, I suppose, but there is no question but that they utilize exactly what the average computer users do.

And this site isn't for the average computer user. Which is why we generally don't factor them in. So get off the sixes.

From experience, that single core 1.3 GHz Athlon XP does not run silky smooth when Norton is scanning, and you're trying to browse the Internet. It just doesn't work. Similarly, the 800 MHz Pentium III, bless it's little heart, has a whopping trouble of a time just scanning for malware. This, in my opinion, is alleviated with hyperthreading.

Gee I guess I better tell my 1.3 Ghz Athlon XP, which is my printer server, Terminal server, MP3 streaming, scanner box, that it just doesn't cut it anymore. Gee it runs just fine when both my wife and are listening to music, I am remoted in to scan something and she is printing school work. Oh yeah and I might even be surfing the web too while at it to find something.

It might crash if I tell it you said it cannot do those things.

*And Norton is a resource pig on any system, come talk to me when you get ride of that crap*

I dunno. I just think hyperthreading makes for a better user experience. I like it... but I do stuff in 3D Studio Max... so I don't count.

I have a 3.0 GHz P4 and HT isn't the end all be all. My A64 seems to run smoother and I know I am going to love an X2.

[A_Pickle]

And this site isn't for the average computer user. Which is why we generally don't factor them in. So get off the sixes.

*sigh*

...fine.

Gee I guess I better tell my 1.3 Ghz Athlon XP, which is my printer server, Terminal server, MP3 streaming, scanner box, that it just doesn't cut it anymore. Gee it runs just fine when both my wife and are listening to music, I am remoted in to scan something and she is printing school work. Oh yeah and I might even be surfing the web too while at it to find something.

Yeah, I know. It did pretty well when people copied stuff from my shared documents while I searched the web and listened to music. I also recall printing being a CPU intensive task, ohh yes.

It still did NOT do well multitasking when I had a Norton scan going, or 3D Studio Max rendering, or Adobe Premeire exporting, or when I was burning a CD.

I have a 3.0 GHz P4 and HT isn't the end all be all.

Never said it was. I said it contributed to smoother computing, especially while multitasking.

My A64 seems to run smoother...

Depending on the model, it might do that.

...and I know I am going to love an X2.

X2. Dual core. Two threads. You probably will.

[indeego]

My Shuttle CPU/ICE fan died yesterday, it was only about a year old. Here is my solution for now:

[PerfectCr]

Indeego? Posting on the forums? I think I have seen a ghost!

[lex-ington]

I love these threads that had a purpose then became a war zone. They make my day go by alot quicker from the amount of amusing posts.

By the way . . .A_Pickle . . .if you use 3D Studio Max . . . AMD is for you . . .

[A_Pickle]

My Shuttle CPU/ICE fan died yesterday, it was only about a year old. Here is my solution for now:

That is feckin' shweet.

I love these threads that had a purpose then became a war zone. They make my day go by alot quicker from the amount of amusing posts.

Oh. Well, I'm happy for you. I'm glad you seem to enjoy feeding flame wars, maybe it'll get you banned! Boy, what a victory that would be. Please, keep making your day!

By the way . . .A_Pickle . . .if you use 3D Studio Max . . . AMD is for you . . .

If you're talking about dual cores, then yes, AMD is for me.

If you're talking about my li'l Northy 3.0, then it soundly beats the 3400+, and even the 3500+ in some cases. In Cinebench 2003, the Northwood 3.0 even takes the FX-53. I'm... I'm thinking I'm going to stick with my Pentium 4, thanks anyways.

[Turtle]

A_Pickle your 3.0 P4 is not going to give the higher end type of 'enthusiast' the same experience as an A643000+ and above period. That's because most enthusiasts game quite frequently. I really don't think the normal gaming enthusiast burns CD's while gaming and consitently works on taxes while tabbing out of games while burning CD's. An a643000 with an X800Gt or 6600Gt is going to get 15-25 more frames than your 3.0 P4 easily. This means in effect that the Intel user really doesn't have a 6600GT or X800GT in the same way that the AMD user has. It would make the Intel user (3.0e vs. A643400) feel that he is running a 6200 TC or 6600 nonGt when up against the AMD user (A64). In several games the FPS gap widens even more.

But then...if you really do tab out of games and work on quicken back and forth while copying DVD's or CD's then i guess the P4 might actually give you a slightly better experience. I run a lowly SIS chipset board with an 3400+ @ 2.4 Ghz and i will own your Dell easily. In any game you pick i'll be 25-30 FPS ahead of you and yes...it really does make a difference.

[Usacomp2k3]

I might disagree with the 25-30fps. Depending on the game, if you are running at more than 640x480, then the performance difference isn't going to be that great. As long as the bottleneck is still reasonably on the GPU, then I'd be inclined to put the figure at <10%.

[Turtle]

Yeah 25 FPS would really be a 4000+ VS. the 3.0 FPS from 3400 A64 vs. 3.0E would be more like 5-15 FPS depending on the game. I kinda overstated that one - but the A64 does solidly hold a lead nonetheless.

[Vrock]

A_Pickle your 3.0 P4 is not going to give the higher end type of 'enthusiast' the same experience as an A643000+ and above period. That's because most enthusiasts game quite frequently. I really don't think the normal gaming enthusiast burns CD's while gaming and consitently works on taxes while tabbing out of games while burning CD's. An a643000 with an X800Gt or 6600Gt is going to get 15-25 more frames than your 3.0 P4 easily. This means in effect that the Intel user really doesn't have a 6600GT or X800GT in the same way that the AMD user has. It would make the Intel user (3.0e vs. A643400) feel that he is running a 6200 TC or 6600 nonGt when up against the AMD user (A64). In several games the FPS gap widens even more.

But then...if you really do tab out of games and work on quicken back and forth while copying DVD's or CD's then i guess the P4 might actually give you a slightly better experience. I run a lowly SIS chipset board with an 3400+ @ 2.4 Ghz and i will own your Dell easily. In any game you pick i'll be 25-30 FPS ahead of you and yes...it really does make a difference.

In case you haven't noticed, A_Pickle is an irrational Intel/Dell fanboy/troll. Anybody who thinks that "Dells Rule" is clearly just trolling or clueless. Don't waste your time with this guy.

[mac_h8r1]

way to go digging, guys. At least you gave the SFF Station some attention; the last post was a month ago!

[PerfectCr]

way to go digging, guys. At least you gave the SFF Station some attention; the last post was a month ago!

There's been a lot of thread ress going on lately, who knows why.

[Usacomp2k3]

Well, halloween is in a couple weeks

[PerfectCr]

Well, halloween is in a couple weeks

MUHUHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!