New PC spec questions?

[Mark]

I was looking at the Dell website as I consider a new PC. The choices are starting to overwhelm me.My primary use is for amateur photography with no graphics. I plan to run CS4 and LR2. What amount of RAM and what processor will be best suited. RAM options can be 6 or 8gb--is that needed? Any other suggestions to lengthen life of system? Thanks for the help.

Mark

[Eero Makela]

4GB RAM would be fine always the more you have then better
LR2 needs speedy computer.

You need to have Windows 64bit for ram above 4gb

[LeeF]

I was thinking the same thing as my old Gateway just bit the dust.

I ordered a Dell Inspiron 530,
Q8200 2.33 GHz processor (for power and speed),
4GB DDR2 (2GB was never enough and 3GB was good, more is better),
4MB L2 Cache,
1333 MHz Front side bus,
500GB HDD - need more space. I would have gone with more but I use external hard drives for backup.
Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bit
Office 2007
No monitor
I ordered it through Costco On-Line for under $700.00
There are similar versions on Dell's website.

Good luck

[cadmium]

Lightroom and Photoshop are hungry applications. The most processor and ram you can throw at them the better. So just pick the most you can reasonably afford.

Ram is easier to upgrade later compared to the processor, but don't go under 4GB for a modern system. Anything above 3GB should get you a copy of Vista 64, which is good. CS4 and Lightroom 2 both have 64bit versions. Don't worry if you have older copies, they will run just fine too, but they won't be able to use more than 3GB of RAM.

Corei7's are the fastest out there and photoshop loves them, but they are still terribly expensive. Core2 Duos/Quads are decent and most likely in your price range. In all cases the higher the number, the faster the processor. Clock speed is more or less meaningless these days other than comparing one core2 to another core2, or a corei7 to another corei7.
It's pretty easy to tell which is which by the naming scheme:

EXXXX - Core 2 Duo (ex. E8400, E8500, etc)
QXXXX - Core 2 Quad (ex. Q9400, Q9775, etc)
9XX - Core i7 (ex. 920, 940, etc)

I probably wouldn't bother with Core2 Quads, a faster Core2 Duo will get you more bang for the buck. If you can afford a Corei7, they are the bees knees.

[aram535]

Also keep in mind that you pay a premium on all upgrades, specially hard disk and memory. Do yourself a favor and order the least amount of memory you can when you create your order.

Than go online and buy the memory you want with or without heatsinks... stick that in your system and you'll pay less and end up with better/faster memory.

[cadmium]

Though getting less then 4GB of ram might net a copy of Vista 32, which would make adding ram pointless later.

[00silvergt]

If you are NOT running Vista 64 bit, then >4GB will be wasted. RAM is now cheap, unlike 10 years ago when it was selling for about $15 a MB (yes, not a typo, MB) and 15 years ago, when it was $30 a MB. So if you need RAM later, it would be a cheap upgrade. For most applications, a dual core is sufficient, since an application would need to scale before using the multiprocessor. PS CS4 scales, so a quad maybe in order, but for the most part a dual core should suit just fine. Buy as much HDD space as you can possibly afford now, since these RAW files are getting larger. If you can afford it, I say get a Bluray writer, a good video card, even if you don't plan to game since CS3 and newer can take advantage of the GPU. So I think 3.0GHz dual or Quad, processor, Intel, 4GB RAM or more if running Vista 64, Nvidia Quadro NVS 450/420 512MB video card, 1 TB or more HDD, Bluray Writer/Reader.

[Sidebyte]

O.K., I owned a computer store for 5 years and imported systems from China to Colombia and have owned virtually all of them.
First off if you can afford it today BUY a 1366 mhz system with a quad core CPU otherwise it will be obsolete before you take it out of the box. I'm running an Intel board and quad core 800mhz and it's OK but not killer. I have 4 operating computers in my home and run different operating systems on them including Linux. I Beta Tested new Windows 7 and find it's just Vista with a diff, name and a couple small improvements. Had to remove it because all of my periphery systems won't work with it until the software manufactures update their systems. CS3 runs great on XP Pro so I will keep that for now. Use as much memory (ram) as your system will support and if possible buy a "BTX" motherboard system because they run much cooler and heat is the biggest enemy of PC's, the cooler the better.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

O.K., I owned a computer store for 5 years and imported systems from China to Colombia and have owned virtually all of them.
First off if you can afford it today BUY a 1366 mhz system with a quad core CPU otherwise it will be obsolete before you take it out of the box. I'm running an Intel board and quad core 800mhz and it's OK but not killer. I have 4 operating computers in my home and run different operating systems on them including Linux. I Beta Tested new Windows 7 and find it's just Vista with a diff, name and a couple small improvements. Had to remove it because all of my periphery systems won't work with it until the software manufactures update their systems. CS3 runs great on XP Pro so I will keep that for now. Use as much memory (ram) as your system will support and if possible buy a "BTX" motherboard system because they run much cooler and heat is the biggest enemy of PC's, the cooler the better.

You are of course taking about the bus speed, not the CPU clock speed right? As for the memory, that may have been true years ago(2-6 years ago), but things have changed, a lot. We now have easily and affordably hit the limit of addressable space within a 32-bit OS, whether it is Windows, OS X, Linux, etc. The Maximum addresses the 32-bit OS can address or use is 4GB.With Windows, this is a little different, since the system "reserves" the first GB for caching and other system related functions. It will also reserved the first 640K (remember DOS) for 16-bit and legacy applications + it needs the space to address memory that is on your peripherals such as your 512MB video card, if you tweak the boot.ini you can force windows to address 4GB, but your true usable space will be 3.5GB max with a 512MB Video card. At least that's what will be available, your real usable memory will be around 3GB. So why buy as much RAM as you can afford, if you planning to run a 32-bit OS, like XP or 32-bit Vista? RAM is cheap( I just bought 4GB, 2X2GB DDR2 CAS 5-5-5-12 for $39.99), so you can always buy it later when and if you decide to upgrade to a 64-bit platform, but this may not be for awhile. Spend the money on the storage (HDD) and/or video and/or other peripherals instead. BTX form factor has been cancelled by Intel (HEXUS.net - Beans :: HEXUS.beans :: Intel shuffles BTX in to its deep dark closest. : Page - 1/1) so it may not be an option, albeit Dell has been using it for years now, the newer boards may not be BTX. BTX also can not help AMD or Newer intels (i7) since the northbridge is located on the die, and not on the motherboard, so it will not help these systems.

BTW, saying Windows 7 is the same as Vista with a different name and some improvements is like saying Windows XP is like Windows '98 with a different name and some improvements. Windows 7, naturally would look like Vista, since it uses a lot of the same interfaces, Longhorn looked a lot like XP before it released and became vista. Windows 7 is a 64-bit OS (build 7000), uses a more familiar XP-like Start menu, has virtual hard disk support and other "improvements" over Vista. Windows 7 is still Beta, so it is way too soon to dismiss it. It is understandable that many of your peripherals didn't work in Windows 7, it is a 64-bit environment so you would need the 64-bit drivers. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and I just want to caution everyone else from dismissing the next Windows, even before it becomes final.

[Sidebyte]

I in NO way dismissed Windows 7, it simply will not work YET with my periphery because the software HAS NOT been written for it. In the future it may be better than sloced bread but for now it is NOT an alternative operating system, simply a BETA.

BTX is still available from most of the major fabricators and it is a cooler running system, dispute that fact.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

I in NO way dismissed Windows 7, it simply will not work YET with my periphery because the software HAS NOT been written for it. In the future it may be better than sloced bread but for now it is NOT an alternative operating system, simply a BETA.

BTX is still available from most of the major fabricators and it is a cooler running system, dispute that fact.

Dell and HP is using BTX for older Intel applications, but it will be phased out soon. The main advantage was to cool the Northbridge chipset, which AMD and the newer Intel i7 no longer have, since it has been integrated into the die or the CPU. Check your peripheral's websites for a 64-bit driver.

[tekdiver500ft]

I would caution you against Dell. HP are far better machines for far less money. Ask any qualified computer repair tech, and he will tell you that Dell used to be great, but they are now poorly built and unreliable -- this is, of course, relative. I suspect that they are as they always were, but everyone else has upped their game so much that Dell has been left in the dust.

[TheRileyFactor]

There is lot of talk on this thread about Intel processors, but no one has said anything about AMD. You can get a great AMD Phenom II for cheap and while it can't compete with the Core i7 (what can other than the new Xeons?) or most Core 2 Quads, it is a much better processor than the Core 2 Duos, and for about the same price. I am going to assume that you have never built a pc before? If you have, then definitely build it yourself, thats is BY FAR the route with the MOST bang for your buck. Also, if you're planning on getting more than 2gb of RAM, then you're going to need a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS can only handle a maximum of 4gb, but you have to subtract all other system memory from that number before you get to your RAM, so if you have a video card with 1gb of memory, then you can only use around 2.8 or so GB of RAM.

Originally Posted by cadmium

I probably wouldn't bother with Core2 Quads, a faster Core2 Duo will get you more bang for the buck. If you can afford a Corei7, they are the bees knees.

The Core i7 is an incredibly processor, but you have to pay for more than just the processor because the motherboards that accept it are MUCH more expensive because they have the newest X58 chipset and only take DDR3 memory, which is also more expensive than the cheaper DDR2. As far as Duos being more bang for your buck than quads, applications are moving toward muti-threading and using multiple cores in a single application. With this direction the benefits vastly outweigh the cost difference between a duo and a quad. CS4 already supports multi-threading, and I'll just about guarantee that the next version of Lightroom will support it as well.

As far as the discussion between computer brands, the brand is the name on the case. They all use about the same components, so the big difference is in customer service and support. I haven not had a lot of experience with HP/Compaq in that respect (although I have owned a couple computers from them and never had any problems) I know Dell has some of the best service around. They have great warranties, and they use really good components (Western Digital Hard Drives, Intel motherboards, name-brand video cards, etc), and GREAT warranties, tech support and service. Given, Dell used to be the best with no one competitive, but now pretty much all of the big pc manufacturers are very competitive, which makes Dell look lesser than before, as tekdiver said.

As a reference, my old computer crapped out about a month ago (hence why I haven't posted any photos in a while b/c all I have is my old laptop that turns running lightroom into a waiting game) and I just got my new system finished being built a few days ago. Things that will be pertainable to configuring a computer from a big manufacturer:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400
Western Digital Black 640gb HDD 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
LG DVD+-RW 22x
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD4670 1gb GDDR3 (tons of video memory, plenty fast, power efficient)
500W Dual 12v-18a Rail Power Supply

As was stated above, heat is the end of all computers. Make sure no matter what that you get a computer with good cooling. I don't know about HP or other manufacturers, but Dell's XPS series has really great cooling with plenty of fans. All of this also depends on how much you were planning/wanting to spend, and if you need a monitor.

Basic price structure would be:

$250-500: AMD Athlon 64 X2, Celeron, Pentium Dual Core (slower clocked Core2Duo with less cache)

$750-1000+ AMD PhenomII X4, Core 2 Quad with a good video card and 4+ GB RAM

$1200+ Core i7 920 with 6GB RAM (6gb RAM or MORE works best with the Corei7, much better than 4gb b/c of the way the chipset and memory is set up on X58 motherboards) The higher up the Core i7 goes, the more it costs. 920 is the base processor and it has models that run in price up to $1500 for the processor alone.

That turned into a much longer post than I had intended. I hope at least some of it was useful!

-Daniel

[TheRileyFactor]

Also, forgot to mention, I have 4gb 1066 RAM and triple-boot Vista 64, Win7 64 and Ubuntu Studio 64

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

If you are NOT running Vista 64 bit, then >4GB will be wasted. RAM is now cheap, unlike 10 years ago when it was selling for about $15 a MB (yes, not a typo, MB) and 15 years ago, when it was $30 a MB. So if you need RAM later, it would be a cheap upgrade. For most applications, a dual core is sufficient, since an application would need to scale before using the multiprocessor. PS CS4 scales, so a quad maybe in order, but for the most part a dual core should suit just fine. Buy as much HDD space as you can possibly afford now, since these RAW files are getting larger. If you can afford it, I say get a Bluray writer, a good video card, even if you don't plan to game since CS3 and newer can take advantage of the GPU. So I think 3.0GHz dual or Quad, processor, Intel, 4GB RAM or more if running Vista 64, Nvidia Quadro NVS 450/420 512MB video card, 1 TB or more HDD, Bluray Writer/Reader.

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

You are of course taking about the bus speed, not the CPU clock speed right? As for the memory, that may have been true years ago(2-6 years ago), but things have changed, a lot. We now have easily and affordably hit the limit of addressable space within a 32-bit OS, whether it is Windows, OS X, Linux, etc. The Maximum addresses the 32-bit OS can address or use is 4GB.With Windows, this is a little different, since the system "reserves" the first GB for caching and other system related functions. It will also reserved the first 640K (remember DOS) for 16-bit and legacy applications + it needs the space to address memory that is on your peripherals such as your 512MB video card, if you tweak the boot.ini you can force windows to address 4GB, but your true usable space will be 3.5GB max with a 512MB Video card. At least that's what will be available, your real usable memory will be around 3GB. So why buy as much RAM as you can afford, if you planning to run a 32-bit OS, like XP or 32-bit Vista? RAM is cheap( I just bought 4GB, 2X2GB DDR2 CAS 5-5-5-12 for $39.99), so you can always buy it later when and if you decide to upgrade to a 64-bit platform, but this may not be for awhile. Spend the money on the storage (HDD) and/or video and/or other peripherals instead. BTX form factor has been cancelled by Intel (HEXUS.net - Beans :: HEXUS.beans :: Intel shuffles BTX in to its deep dark closest. : Page - 1/1) so it may not be an option, albeit Dell has been using it for years now, the newer boards may not be BTX. BTX also can not help AMD or Newer intels (i7) since the northbridge is located on the die, and not on the motherboard, so it will not help these systems.

BTW, saying Windows 7 is the same as Vista with a different name and some improvements is like saying Windows XP is like Windows '98 with a different name and some improvements. Windows 7, naturally would look like Vista, since it uses a lot of the same interfaces, Longhorn looked a lot like XP before it released and became vista. Windows 7 is a 64-bit OS (build 7000), uses a more familiar XP-like Start menu, has virtual hard disk support and other "improvements" over Vista. Windows 7 is still Beta, so it is way too soon to dismiss it. It is understandable that many of your peripherals didn't work in Windows 7, it is a 64-bit environment so you would need the 64-bit drivers. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and I just want to caution everyone else from dismissing the next Windows, even before it becomes final.

Originally Posted by TheRileyFactor

There is lot of talk on this thread about Intel processors, but no one has said anything about AMD. You can get a great AMD Phenom II for cheap and while it can't compete with the Core i7 (what can other than the new Xeons?) or most Core 2 Quads, it is a much better processor than the Core 2 Duos, and for about the same price. I am going to assume that you have never built a pc before? If you have, then definitely build it yourself, thats is BY FAR the route with the MOST bang for your buck. Also, if you're planning on getting more than 2gb of RAM, then you're going to need a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS can only handle a maximum of 4gb, but you have to subtract all other system memory from that number before you get to your RAM, so if you have a video card with 1gb of memory, then you can only use around 2.8 or so GB of RAM.



The Core i7 is an incredibly processor, but you have to pay for more than just the processor because the motherboards that accept it are MUCH more expensive because they have the newest X58 chipset and only take DDR3 memory, which is also more expensive than the cheaper DDR2. As far as Duos being more bang for your buck than quads, applications are moving toward muti-threading and using multiple cores in a single application. With this direction the benefits vastly outweigh the cost difference between a duo and a quad. CS4 already supports multi-threading, and I'll just about guarantee that the next version of Lightroom will support it as well.

As far as the discussion between computer brands, the brand is the name on the case. They all use about the same components, so the big difference is in customer service and support. I haven not had a lot of experience with HP/Compaq in that respect (although I have owned a couple computers from them and never had any problems) I know Dell has some of the best service around. They have great warranties, and they use really good components (Western Digital Hard Drives, Intel motherboards, name-brand video cards, etc), and GREAT warranties, tech support and service. Given, Dell used to be the best with no one competitive, but now pretty much all of the big pc manufacturers are very competitive, which makes Dell look lesser than before, as tekdiver said.

As a reference, my old computer crapped out about a month ago (hence why I haven't posted any photos in a while b/c all I have is my old laptop that turns running lightroom into a waiting game) and I just got my new system finished being built a few days ago. Things that will be pertainable to configuring a computer from a big manufacturer:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400
Western Digital Black 640gb HDD 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
LG DVD+-RW 22x
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD4670 1gb GDDR3 (tons of video memory, plenty fast, power efficient)
500W Dual 12v-18a Rail Power Supply

As was stated above, heat is the end of all computers. Make sure no matter what that you get a computer with good cooling. I don't know about HP or other manufacturers, but Dell's XPS series has really great cooling with plenty of fans. All of this also depends on how much you were planning/wanting to spend, and if you need a monitor.

Basic price structure would be:

$250-500: AMD Athlon 64 X2, Celeron, Pentium Dual Core (slower clocked Core2Duo with less cache)

$750-1000+ AMD PhenomII X4, Core 2 Quad with a good video card and 4+ GB RAM

$1200+ Core i7 920 with 6GB RAM (6gb RAM or MORE works best with the Corei7, much better than 4gb b/c of the way the chipset and memory is set up on X58 motherboards) The higher up the Core i7 goes, the more it costs. 920 is the base processor and it has models that run in price up to $1500 for the processor alone.

That turned into a much longer post than I had intended. I hope at least some of it was useful!

-Daniel

Hey, Daniel, it's me chopped liver...LOL...I didn't recommend AMD, because by their own admission in a seminar, when compared to the i7 or the Nehalem, their processors are still performing a little behind, but that's because the are clocked much slower than the intels due to the process they use 45nm and the heat limitations, the new Shanghai core (opteron) has Intel nervous since it will scale to an Octo-core before Intel can and AMD has been doing the integrated Northbridge first, something intel is just now implementing with the i7 and Nehalem. So when AMD takes it's next step up (according to AMD, it will be 3rd quarter 2009 or 1st quarter 2010), AMD's will be clocked up as fast or faster than the Intels. AMD is also doing this mind you with DDR2 800, from the seminar I attended, AMD has no plans to go to DDR3 1066 as Intel has done. They figured the modest gain in performance v. the High cost would offset the system cost. (they mentioned going to DDr3 when the prices drop) Which is AMD's strongest selling point, they are a cheaper, yet valid alternative to Intel. At least for now, anyway.

[aram535]

Originally Posted by tekdiver500ft

I would caution you against Dell. HP are far better machines for far less money. Ask any qualified computer repair tech, and he will tell you that Dell used to be great, but they are now poorly built and unreliable -- this is, of course, relative. I suspect that they are as they always were, but everyone else has upped their game so much that Dell has been left in the dust.

Well I think I qualify as a computer tech (20+ years of working in computers) and I can tell you that you're 100% wrong. They all suck in one way or another. Looking at a specific model and how it was setup is one thing but to chuck an entire company down is completely an arrogant point of view.

ALL computer companies have problems, they have bad models, they have bad installs, and yes sometimes there are even lemons. You can not and should not judge them in one paint stroke. Look at the specs you want, get a decent deal (don't go for the bottom of the barrel), stay away from the cutting edge of technology and you'll be fine 95% of the time. The other 5% there isn't anything you can do about, you have 30 days to return it, don't chuck anything out, don't rip anything and remember on how to put it back.

As far as "old" vs "new" dell. Again it's very short sighted, they all (computer companies) have moved their level 1 support off-shore. Nothing you can do about it. If you do have a problem, try to work with the level 1s, BE NICE! If you don't get anywhere after an hour or so, than ask to be escalated, NICELY. Most of the time with these companies they get a bonus on their customer satisfaction, you get further and faster if you work with them instead of yelling and screaming.

If you're not getting anywhere, call customer service which is usually not outsourced and ask to return the unit as it is defective. They will usually put you in touch with their inhouse level 3 people, so they'll either fix it or replace it for you.

Oh! Do stay away from Best Buy and Sears and such places. All they do is make support/exchanges harder. You also usually end up with 3rd generation equipment that was left over from a previous build.

I hope that helps.

[TheRileyFactor]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

Hey, Daniel, it's me chopped liver...LOL...I didn't recommend AMD, because by their own admission in a seminar, when compared to the i7 or the Nehalem, their processors are still performing a little behind, but that's because the are clocked much slower than the intels due to the process they use 45nm and the heat limitations, the new Shanghai core (opteron) has Intel nervous since it will scale to an Octo-core before Intel can and AMD has been doing the integrated Northbridge first, something intel is just now implementing with the i7 and Nehalem. So when AMD takes it's next step up (according to AMD, it will be 3rd quarter 2009 or 1st quarter 2010), AMD's will be clocked up as fast or faster than the Intels. AMD is also doing this mind you with DDR2 800, from the seminar I attended, AMD has no plans to go to DDR3 1066 as Intel has done. They figured the modest gain in performance v. the High cost would offset the system cost. (they mentioned going to DDr3 when the prices drop) Which is AMD's strongest selling point, they are a cheaper, yet valid alternative to Intel. At least for now, anyway.

You're definitely spot on, AMD can in no way compete with Core 2 Quads or the Nehalem i7, and they can barely compete in the dual core market as well, but they are all much cheaper than their Intel-made counterparts. For instance, the Phenom II 240 clocked at 3 GhZ is less than $200 (190 at newegg), while the Q9400 clocked at 2.66 GhZ is around $220+, but the Q9400 kicks the crap out of the 940 on nearly all benchmarks at factory settings, yet its still a good processor. Price has always been the huge selling factor for AMD over Intel. The Nehalem, however, just blows EVERYTHING out of the water, its fast and has an integrated memory controller which makes everything run way faster, and a ridiculous FSB, but its EXPENSIVE (especially the 965 Extreme).

I hadn't heard the Shanghai was going octo-core, thats ridiculous! The Shanghai is still the 45nm process as well though, unless its changed? But by the time AMD comes out with its next newest processors (the Phenom II's came out only a few months ago) Intel will drop prices on the Nehalem and they'll have something out on the horizon... its a neverending process that drives computers to be faster and faster!

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by TheRileyFactor

You're definitely spot on, AMD can in no way compete with Core 2 Quads or the Nehalem i7, and they can barely compete in the dual core market as well, but they are all much cheaper than their Intel-made counterparts. For instance, the Phenom II 240 clocked at 3 GhZ is less than $200 (190 at newegg), while the Q9400 clocked at 2.66 GhZ is around $220+, but the Q9400 kicks the crap out of the 940 on nearly all benchmarks at factory settings, yet its still a good processor. Price has always been the huge selling factor for AMD over Intel. The Nehalem, however, just blows EVERYTHING out of the water, its fast and has an integrated memory controller which makes everything run way faster, and a ridiculous FSB, but its EXPENSIVE (especially the 965 Extreme).

I hadn't heard the Shanghai was going octo-core, thats ridiculous! The Shanghai is still the 45nm process as well though, unless its changed? But by the time AMD comes out with its next newest processors (the Phenom II's came out only a few months ago) Intel will drop prices on the Nehalem and they'll have something out on the horizon... its a neverending process that drives computers to be faster and faster!

According to AMD, they will be going to 25mn by 3rd qtr 2009 - 1st Qtr 2010, but they closed their fab plant so a contractor would have to do for them. The AMD/Intel battle is a result of the fact that AMD sat on it's laurels with the Athlon for years of kicking Intel, where it hurts in fps with gamers...but Intel wised up and AMD got caught with sitting. The biggest reason a higher clocked AMD is less robust in "some" applications, is due to the fact that AMD doesn't have a decent chipset to take advantage of the on-die Northbridge and separate bus for the I/O. Intel's chipset is amazing right now and albeit they are a little behind on the die design, but they do have AMD when it comes to Chipset and manufacturing process, since they are a bigger company and still has their own fab plants, unlike AMD who closed all their plants down due to the rocky economy and loss of business to Intel when Intel passed them by and kept passing. They are predicting by the time they go octo or even 16 cores, whereas Intel will still be at quad, nearing octo. they will once again take the lead. That's is their optimistic view, at least. The Shanghai took the server market by storm last December with a low price, competitive option as it pertains to virtualization and scaling. So Intel is the one playing catch up in that realm. You're right in the workstation side of things, it is much different, since the Phenom team has not quite "evolved" as the Opteron group has. We assumed, heck even the Opteron team I was talking to, assumed that the Phenom would adapt many of the advances that the Shanghai brought to the market, but to this day, the workstation side of the CPU business, still has Intel very much on top. I think with the economy in the shape it is currently in AMD may enjoy some defacto business due to the lower price of their systems, but it will not stay down forever, if AMD doesn't get something out by 3rd QTR 2009, it will have to live with second string again, when the economy recovers circa 2nd or 3rd QTR 2010 (optimistically).

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by aram535

Well I think I qualify as a computer tech (20+ years of working in computers) and I can tell you that you're 100% wrong. They all suck in one way or another. Looking at a specific model and how it was setup is one thing but to chuck an entire company down is completely an arrogant point of view.

ALL computer companies have problems, they have bad models, they have bad installs, and yes sometimes there are even lemons. You can not and should not judge them in one paint stroke. Look at the specs you want, get a decent deal (don't go for the bottom of the barrel), stay away from the cutting edge of technology and you'll be fine 95% of the time. The other 5% there isn't anything you can do about, you have 30 days to return it, don't chuck anything out, don't rip anything and remember on how to put it back.

As far as "old" vs "new" dell. Again it's very short sighted, they all (computer companies) have moved their level 1 support off-shore. Nothing you can do about it. If you do have a problem, try to work with the level 1s, BE NICE! If you don't get anywhere after an hour or so, than ask to be escalated, NICELY. Most of the time with these companies they get a bonus on their customer satisfaction, you get further and faster if you work with them instead of yelling and screaming.

If you're not getting anywhere, call customer service which is usually not outsourced and ask to return the unit as it is defective. They will usually put you in touch with their inhouse level 3 people, so they'll either fix it or replace it for you.

Oh! Do stay away from Best Buy and Sears and such places. All they do is make support/exchanges harder. You also usually end up with 3rd generation equipment that was left over from a previous build.

I hope that helps.

Hit the proverbial nail, yes both HP and Dell suck! lol That's why they offer expensive warranty! We use the Gold Service, which is BS btw, basically it is still the same Dell service with two exceptions 1. It is only offered to High Tier or business clients and the only advantage is that you are guaranteed to speak to a North American representative-US or Canada, otherwise, you get the same service as the standard Dell warranty.

We use Dell workstations and Lenovo Laptops at work, So I don't know too much about HP warranty, but I have worked on Compaq/HP machines and yes, they are both pretty crappy. The problem with these "box builders" is that they build mass produced machines for the price point. They will usually get the cheapest parts available to keep prices down, you will never hear of an Asus or Tyan or even Shuttle mobo on these computers since those motherboards are expensive.

Hence Dell's GX-2x0 series got plague with those cheap bulging capacitors a couple of years back. If you want a good box builder, you will have to pay a premium for it. Falcon Northwest and Alienware are two of the best out there. Falcon has been around since the 80's and for many years their PC's have stood as the top benchmark for testing. So if you can not build your own, which takes a lot of homework-I got so used to working in IT, I'm a bit rusty and will always have to visit the boards (Anantech, Tom's Hardware, etc.) to do some researching each time my PC is up for an upgrade. Too many things to keep up with and things change so quickly, to a point where years of experience without continued education is almost worthless in this aspect. I mean my years of building PC's gives me the background to know what to look for, but that's about all I can rely on.

Case and point, there was a time where it was prudent to keep the PC plugged in while working on the computer to prevent static discharge, this was on the A+ test I took many years ago. More recently, because there is active power to the motherboard and the power supply still supplies some power to the PC even if the PC is off (look at that green LED on the mobo), it is now recommended you unplug the PC from the wall so insure you are not zapping the computer.

[TheRileyFactor]

I just read some about the Istanbul and a couple new AMD processors that are going 6, 8, 12 and 16 cores, which is crazy! I was out of the loop for a few years, and man have things progressed! I also read about that real soon they'll be out with the 35nm process, and then 25nm shortly thereafter. I also found out some information about a few Intel processors in the works, namely the Larrabee which is rumoured to have around 32 cores, but theres nothing official other than that its pentium based, which should be an interesting development. AMD was definitely caught sitting with Intel's Core 2 lineup, no question. The Pentium4 ran hot and slow, while the Athlon 64 was much faster, had a higher FSB and could overclock like crazy. I have been reading that the Nehalem architecture has an Octo-Core in the works, we'll see when it comes out tho.The Opterons are definitely winning out in the server/workstation market tho, IMHO because they are so much cheaper than Xeons. Xeons are great processors, but DAMN they're pricey! The system I just got supports virtualization, I'll have to try that out... i've never worked with it before...

We are definitely finished with the GhZ battles now though, its time to see how many cores we can cram into a system!

Oh... and to get a little bit back on topic (I think this has evolved into a much more in-depth discussion than Mark originally intended!) Aram is definitely right, all of the big computer companies have their strengths and weaknesses! HP makes some great media computers and some great monitors, but so does Dell. Given, I'm from central Texas and have MANY relatives and friends that work/have worked at Dell, so I will admit I am somewhat biased, but their systems are all great, and their service is even better. However, the best way to access that service is to buy the computer directly from them. Best Buy is an intermediary, and you can often get better deals buying directly from Dell because of the huge sales they so often run, and shipping is nearly always free. They even have a system based around the Core i7 (Studio XPS series) for under $800. HP also has a similar offering, but its at $949 base. The only company that I would advise you stay away from is eMachines. Their computers have good specs and are cheap, but they are made from very low quality components. I have had 1 eMachine, and my grandmother and uncle have each had one and all 3 died within 4 years, which in my book (I still have a Dell XPS that I got new with a 733MhZ Pentium III in it so long ago that runs just as well as it did new) is unacceptable. Dell has some great offerings, and they're having a huge sale on monitors and consumer electronics right now (I just bought a new monitor from them a couple days ago)

-Daniel