This looks like a real good deal to me

[risktaker]

nitro,
The deal from dell is a 2.8 GHz machine.
I bought a couple of the 3.5 or 3.6 GHz from dell in the past year and don't notice much difference in performance from the 2.8GHz systems. Technically, how much "performance" do you get by spending more for the faster chips? Is it better to spend it on extra ram?

Thanks.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from nitro:

1) The Dell 3000 machine is not DDR2
2) The Dell 3000 is not an 800 Mhz FSB machine
3) The Dell 3000 does not support dual core
4) The Dell 3000 does not have a PCI-E slot

All in all, I would say these prices are comparable to that deal at that time, especially this machine

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=4d91h7&s=bsd

If they were not throwing in the monitor, it would be still be an above average deal. You can upgrade to digital monitor for $80.

nitro

I am typing this right now on a DEll 3000 bought last Jan.


It has 512MB DDR.

It is also a 3GHZ processor with HT technology and 800 mhz fsb.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from risktaker:

nitro,
The deal from dell is a 2.8 GHz machine.
I bought a couple of the 3.5 or 3.6 GHz from dell in the past year and don't notice much difference in performance from the 2.8GHz systems. Technically, how much "performance" do you get by spending more for the faster chips? Is it better to spend it on extra ram?

Thanks.

I spent an extra $40 to get 3 ghz versus 2.8.
As far as ram you can never have to much especially if you run a lot of applications simultaneously.

 

[gnome]

Quote from volente_00:

"... As far as ram you can never have to much especially if you run a lot of applications simultaneously...

That depends upon how much is being used. If your rig uses only 350MB at full load, having 2 or 4GB will just be a waste of money.

 

[joeyata1]

THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 2.6 OR A 3/5 PENTIUM 4. ALL THIS EXTRA POWER IS WASTED FOR TRADING. I RECCOMMEND 1G OR MORE RAM THOUGH

 

[volente_00]

Quote from gnome:

That depends upon how much is being used. If your rig uses only 350MB at full load, having 2 or 4GB will just be a waste of money.

Yes you are correct. 1 gb will do fine for most everyone.

 

[nitro]

Quote from volente_00:

I am typing this right now on a DEll 3000 bought last Jan.


It has 512MB DDR.

DDR2 not DDR.

It is also a 3GHZ processor with HT technology and 800 mhz fsb.

It does? Hmmmm, lemme look at the specs more closely. According to what I saw, the MB only had 533 Mhz support. I will get back to you on this one.

nitro

 

[nitro]

Risktaker,

Many people don't use the computer power they have now let alone the machine they upgraded to with even more speed.

However, there can be many reasons that your machine is not performing well or at least according to expectation:

1) Processor speed is not indicative of speed ups on every application. It greatly depends on things like cache coherency and other issues way too complicated to go into here. Take a look at the clock rates on AMD processors. They have considerably lower clock speeds than the INTC processors. How is it then the AMD processors are the hottest CPUs on the market for speed freaks? If you are interested in learning about that, Google and you will learn quite a bit. It is worth knowing and may answer your question directly. Here is a link to get you started:

http://www.osdata.com/holistic/speed/speed.htm

2) The memory is not paired well with the CPU. High CAS rating RAM can slow down a system. This is not likely to be the case in your situation, but people blindly get faster CPUs without thinking about the CAS rating of their RAM or even the rest of their system.

3) The motherboard is of poor design.

4) The OS is of poor design.

5) Probably the biggest single issue of being dissapointed with a faster CPU is very likely that the CPU is starved and is sitting idlely most of the time. So when you go and upgrade a machine to a faster CPU, it is just idleying more. A reasonable estimate of this is to bring up the task manager and watch it all day long. If you are using less than 50% of your CPU with rarely going over 75%, you don't need a faster machine.

It general it is very hard to say because I am just waving my hands in the air theorizing about your situation. It is also possible that the software you use is poorly written so that going to a machine e.g. that is dual core with 700 Mhz faster CPUs won't be noticed.

nitro

Quote from risktaker:

nitro,
The deal from dell is a 2.8 GHz machine.
I bought a couple of the 3.5 or 3.6 GHz from dell in the past year and don't notice much difference in performance from the 2.8GHz systems. Technically, how much "performance" do you get by spending more for the faster chips? Is it better to spend it on extra ram?

Thanks.