The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Recently inspired by how easy and cheap it is to shop online from the States and an article in a PC mag, I've decided that it's too tempting just to get a new PC, with XP for my iTunes and A faster processor for my games. However, many queries arose after just a few minutes of investigation.
1) Win XP Pro
against
Win XP Home
What's the difference? I only skimmed over the specs of a couple of comps, but XP Pro seems to merit another 20 or so dollars. What makes it more pricey and would XP Home be perfectly good for my needs (see top of page)?
2) There's a manufacturer called Acer. Never heard of them myself, but do you guys know anything useful; reliability, etc. My current comp is an Evesham, although I would have prefered a Dell, and found out a treasure chest of problems. Like ME's inefficiency with system resources and how Eveshams over heat...
3) Anyone know the HMCE site better than me and can direct me to the import tax for computers or electricals in general.
Any help would be great!
:)
1) Win XP Pro
against
Win XP Home
What's the difference? I only skimmed over the specs of a couple of comps, but XP Pro seems to merit another 20 or so dollars. What makes it more pricey and would XP Home be perfectly good for my needs (see top of page)?
2) There's a manufacturer called Acer. Never heard of them myself, but do you guys know anything useful; reliability, etc. My current comp is an Evesham, although I would have prefered a Dell, and found out a treasure chest of problems. Like ME's inefficiency with system resources and how Eveshams over heat...
3) Anyone know the HMCE site better than me and can direct me to the import tax for computers or electricals in general.
Any help would be great!
:)
Page:
Finally got my GeForce 6800 GT working today, completing the build I started back in September.
Downloaded that 3D Mark program, and scored 4931, and after overclocking the graphics card (I'm not really comfortable fiddling with anything else at the moment), 5216. It looked pretty damn nice, too.
Downloaded that 3D Mark program, and scored 4931, and after overclocking the graphics card (I'm not really comfortable fiddling with anything else at the moment), 5216. It looked pretty damn nice, too.
mesh computer are quite cheap but with bad service
They do however have the upside of being the fastest 100 MHz FSB AMD processor and so have rather decent resale prices on eBay, higher than that of most XPs up to about the 2200XP. Some go for as much as £40, on occasion, more.
mermoid wrote:
> Clazon wrote:
> The PC I use now (which I intend on keeping) has:
>
> Athlon processor equivalent to 1.4GHz
>
> a 1.4GHz Thunderbird :' }
>
> AFAIK the hottest CPU known to man until Intel released the
> Prescott...
>:(
That's why I hate the bloody thing.
> Clazon wrote:
> The PC I use now (which I intend on keeping) has:
>
> Athlon processor equivalent to 1.4GHz
>
> a 1.4GHz Thunderbird :' }
>
> AFAIK the hottest CPU known to man until Intel released the
> Prescott...
>:(
That's why I hate the bloody thing.
Thanks for that, was pretty interesting.
As I say, I really can't remember much more than what I said. Besides, I did some work with a computer engineering company last week and got a bit more first hand experience with AMD machines.
I haven't really got anything against them anymore.
As I say, I really can't remember much more than what I said. Besides, I did some work with a computer engineering company last week and got a bit more first hand experience with AMD machines.
I haven't really got anything against them anymore.
Mav wrote:
> It was something like cutting corners in terms of the CPU architecture
> in order to peform more than one operation per clock cycle. Something
> like not having two separate channels for a specific input and output
> that would enhance performance but at a cost to reliability.
>
> I remember something about "p"s and "q"s being
> notation for something...
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. All processors do more than one operation per clock cycle, that's why we have pipelining. For instance, the Prescott theoretically can do 31 operations in one cycle because it has a 31 stage pipeline.
However, long pipelines are actually a bad thing, because rather than meaning more work can be done, it hampers performance because it requires the data to be in the cache. So as soon as you have a cache miss, the pipeline needs to be flushed as all the branch predictions are wrong. The longer the pipeline, the more is lost. The Athlon 64 has a 20 stage pipeline, which means that the chance of there being a cache miss with it is reduced hugely over that of the Prescott. This doesn't mean however that a Prescott with a 20 stage pipeline would perform the same clock for clock as an Athlon 64 - the implementation of things in the ALU (or FPU) is entirely different. The pipelining is between different parts of the CPU, such as the memory address register, memory buffer register, instuction register, program counter, status register and general purpose registers as well as the ALU, FPU, control unit etc.
Bit of overkill in explaining why more than one thing happens per clock cycle, but meh.
Still the bottom line is this - nothing in the processor hampers reliability. Either the processor core logic is fundamentally flawed, in which case it just doesn't work, or it is fine. If it is fine then only external factors have an effect. Environmental issues such as the core voltage, the core temperature (which is of course related to case temperature and air flow), cleanness of the power supply. Another external factor as it were would be the material the processor was made on. In reality either the silicon would have a defect or it wouldn't, although I guess feasibly different types of silicon could have an effect if it was more prone to electromigration.
If you can be more specific I can explain it better.
> It was something like cutting corners in terms of the CPU architecture
> in order to peform more than one operation per clock cycle. Something
> like not having two separate channels for a specific input and output
> that would enhance performance but at a cost to reliability.
>
> I remember something about "p"s and "q"s being
> notation for something...
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. All processors do more than one operation per clock cycle, that's why we have pipelining. For instance, the Prescott theoretically can do 31 operations in one cycle because it has a 31 stage pipeline.
However, long pipelines are actually a bad thing, because rather than meaning more work can be done, it hampers performance because it requires the data to be in the cache. So as soon as you have a cache miss, the pipeline needs to be flushed as all the branch predictions are wrong. The longer the pipeline, the more is lost. The Athlon 64 has a 20 stage pipeline, which means that the chance of there being a cache miss with it is reduced hugely over that of the Prescott. This doesn't mean however that a Prescott with a 20 stage pipeline would perform the same clock for clock as an Athlon 64 - the implementation of things in the ALU (or FPU) is entirely different. The pipelining is between different parts of the CPU, such as the memory address register, memory buffer register, instuction register, program counter, status register and general purpose registers as well as the ALU, FPU, control unit etc.
Bit of overkill in explaining why more than one thing happens per clock cycle, but meh.
Still the bottom line is this - nothing in the processor hampers reliability. Either the processor core logic is fundamentally flawed, in which case it just doesn't work, or it is fine. If it is fine then only external factors have an effect. Environmental issues such as the core voltage, the core temperature (which is of course related to case temperature and air flow), cleanness of the power supply. Another external factor as it were would be the material the processor was made on. In reality either the silicon would have a defect or it wouldn't, although I guess feasibly different types of silicon could have an effect if it was more prone to electromigration.
If you can be more specific I can explain it better.
Clazon wrote:
> The PC I use now (which I intend on keeping) has:
>
> Athlon processor equivalent to 1.4GHz
a 1.4GHz Thunderbird :' }
AFAIK the hottest CPU known to man until Intel released the Prescott...
> The PC I use now (which I intend on keeping) has:
>
> Athlon processor equivalent to 1.4GHz
a 1.4GHz Thunderbird :' }
AFAIK the hottest CPU known to man until Intel released the Prescott...
Tyla wrote:
> As for the Over heating... Do you know what's causing it? It's funny
> how you slate a firm for over heating when at the end of the day your
> current PC is ancient, which is expected with old PC's.
When we talk about the ME computer (the one I'm using now) it ISN'T the Pent 2 450 MHz. It's a 1.4GHz, ME, Evesham comp.
> One thing I was going to ask, what's the specs of your current PC?
The PC I use now (which I intend on keeping) has:
Athlon processor equivalent to 1.4GHz
256MB RAM
40GB HD
Windows ME
The one I want to get rid of has:
Pent 2 450MHZ
512MB RAM (upgraded)
20GB HD
128MB graphics card (upgraded)
Windows 98
Ask if you need other specs and I'll try to dig them out.
:)
> As for the Over heating... Do you know what's causing it? It's funny
> how you slate a firm for over heating when at the end of the day your
> current PC is ancient, which is expected with old PC's.
When we talk about the ME computer (the one I'm using now) it ISN'T the Pent 2 450 MHz. It's a 1.4GHz, ME, Evesham comp.
> One thing I was going to ask, what's the specs of your current PC?
The PC I use now (which I intend on keeping) has:
Athlon processor equivalent to 1.4GHz
256MB RAM
40GB HD
Windows ME
The one I want to get rid of has:
Pent 2 450MHZ
512MB RAM (upgraded)
20GB HD
128MB graphics card (upgraded)
Windows 98
Ask if you need other specs and I'll try to dig them out.
:)
It was something like cutting corners in terms of the CPU architecture in order to peform more than one operation per clock cycle. Something like not having two separate channels for a specific input and output that would enhance performance but at a cost to reliability.
I remember something about "p"s and "q"s being notation for something...
I remember something about "p"s and "q"s being notation for something...
When I clicked the topic you hadn't replied at the time, so I'm not stalking you!
Older AMD chips, the Thunderbird core Athlons, did overheat due to inadequate stock coolers and high voltages that were necessary to run at high frequency. I can't think of a single reason why Intel would be considered more reliable. In fact, as far as I can remember, Intel are the only company who've ever released a processor and had to recall it because it had a bug in the core logic. I can asure you, nowadays, AMD are as stable as or more stable than Intel chips. Really what I think you'll find is that the chipsets used on each platform are what are most likely to cause instability. Some VIA ones for instance have been flaky.
If a system is unstable and at stock speeds, then you should look elsewhere for the fault first - overheating, underpowered PSU, dodgy memory and then dodgy motherboard. Then consider an unstable processor.
Older AMD chips, the Thunderbird core Athlons, did overheat due to inadequate stock coolers and high voltages that were necessary to run at high frequency. I can't think of a single reason why Intel would be considered more reliable. In fact, as far as I can remember, Intel are the only company who've ever released a processor and had to recall it because it had a bug in the core logic. I can asure you, nowadays, AMD are as stable as or more stable than Intel chips. Really what I think you'll find is that the chipsets used on each platform are what are most likely to cause instability. Some VIA ones for instance have been flaky.
If a system is unstable and at stock speeds, then you should look elsewhere for the fault first - overheating, underpowered PSU, dodgy memory and then dodgy motherboard. Then consider an unstable processor.
Page: