The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Clazon wrote:
> Lol.
>
> "wonderous"
>
> ***************
> Have they been thoroughly tested?
>
> If so, have you got a link to a simple comparisons table or
> something.
[URL]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2[/URL]
[URL]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=4[/URL] Although this does feature higher speed processors admittedly than you would be getting, it does show how clock speed and performance rating measure up. That Athlon 64 4000 incidentally runs at only 2.4 GHz.
>
> Plus if you get an Athlon, doesn't it mean you have to buy Athlon
> compatible items, or are motherboard, etc. unaffected?
Well you would have to buy a motherboard that has a socket for an Athlon, in the same way that if you buy an Intel you have to get one that takes an Intel chip. Other than that, memory, drives, graphics cards etc are all standard parts.
> I'm sure I've heard problems with large caches...
I haven't. Find any, let me know. Bigger cache is good. Ideally we would only have cache, not hard drives or memory.
> Lol.
>
> "wonderous"
>
> ***************
> Have they been thoroughly tested?
>
> If so, have you got a link to a simple comparisons table or
> something.
[URL]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2[/URL]
[URL]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=4[/URL] Although this does feature higher speed processors admittedly than you would be getting, it does show how clock speed and performance rating measure up. That Athlon 64 4000 incidentally runs at only 2.4 GHz.
>
> Plus if you get an Athlon, doesn't it mean you have to buy Athlon
> compatible items, or are motherboard, etc. unaffected?
Well you would have to buy a motherboard that has a socket for an Athlon, in the same way that if you buy an Intel you have to get one that takes an Intel chip. Other than that, memory, drives, graphics cards etc are all standard parts.
> I'm sure I've heard problems with large caches...
I haven't. Find any, let me know. Bigger cache is good. Ideally we would only have cache, not hard drives or memory.
Athlon chips = Athlon motherboard.
Socket 939 or 754 depending on what the chip is.
Otherwise, picking components isn't really any different.
If you head google for "athlon 64 benchmarks" or "athlon 64 3200 review" etc, you'll find what you're looking for.
Athlons are superior in most ways, as Biggles said.
Intel just has the brand image of being the best.
Socket 939 or 754 depending on what the chip is.
Otherwise, picking components isn't really any different.
If you head google for "athlon 64 benchmarks" or "athlon 64 3200 review" etc, you'll find what you're looking for.
Athlons are superior in most ways, as Biggles said.
Intel just has the brand image of being the best.
Lol.
"wonderous"
***************
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Best on the market. Bang for buck they win. Over equivalent Pentium
> 4s they win in all but some forms of encoding. Much better gaming
> performance. Better content creation performance. Run cooler as well,
> so none of the thermal throttling kicking in because the processor
> gets too warm when under load that happens with some Pentium 4s.
Have they been thoroughly tested?
If so, have you got a link to a simple comparisons table or something.
Plus if you get an Athlon, doesn't it mean you have to buy Athlon compatible items, or are motherboard, etc. unaffected?
I think £80 quidish for a graphics card would be decent.
> 8MB cache? Why!?
>
> Bigger the cache the better. Cache is much faster than the drive
> itself, so it you manage to load to cache before you need to access
> the data you save yourself some time. And same with saving. Basically
> better performance, and since the hard drive is where you have all
> your programs and files, it's somewhere you can really notice the
> difference.
I'm sure I've heard problems with large caches...
"wonderous"
***************
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Best on the market. Bang for buck they win. Over equivalent Pentium
> 4s they win in all but some forms of encoding. Much better gaming
> performance. Better content creation performance. Run cooler as well,
> so none of the thermal throttling kicking in because the processor
> gets too warm when under load that happens with some Pentium 4s.
Have they been thoroughly tested?
If so, have you got a link to a simple comparisons table or something.
Plus if you get an Athlon, doesn't it mean you have to buy Athlon compatible items, or are motherboard, etc. unaffected?
I think £80 quidish for a graphics card would be decent.
> 8MB cache? Why!?
>
> Bigger the cache the better. Cache is much faster than the drive
> itself, so it you manage to load to cache before you need to access
> the data you save yourself some time. And same with saving. Basically
> better performance, and since the hard drive is where you have all
> your programs and files, it's somewhere you can really notice the
> difference.
I'm sure I've heard problems with large caches...
ebuyer's customer service is dire.
Oh my!
What a wonderous shop!
What a wonderous shop!
gamesfreak wrote:
> What is the website address of this shop you speak of, rah?
I think it's
WWW.EBUYER.COM
Here! [URL]http://ebuyer.com[/URL]
> What is the website address of this shop you speak of, rah?
I think it's
WWW.EBUYER.COM
Here! [URL]http://ebuyer.com[/URL]
Clazon wrote:
> Interesting to see you opted for the Athlon 64. Any particular reason
> why?
Best on the market. Bang for buck they win. Over equivalent Pentium 4s they win in all but some forms of encoding. Much better gaming performance. Better content creation performance. Run cooler as well, so none of the thermal throttling kicking in because the processor gets too warm when under load that happens with some Pentium 4s.
> I wouldn't need this much, more like 512mb would do I guess.
If you can afford it however, get it. More RAM makes a system perform better. You'd notice this more than having an Athlon 64 3500 for instance.
> Only need a 64mb graphics card really.
The amount of memory on the card is less relevant now than in the past. Nowadays the chip on the card is far more important. But since you say you aren't much of a gamer, I'd recommend more of a mid-range card like this:
OcUK GeForce 6600 GT 128MB DDR3 TV-Out/DVI (AGP) - Retail £107.50, £126.31 inc VAT.
This would keep the PC able to play the latest games at decent speeds for the next couple of years for sure. However, if it really wasn't important, and all you planned to do was watch DVDs, then consider something like an ATI Radeon 9550 or 9600. They would play current games alright but not necessarily be up to much in the next year or so. Cost around £50, inc VAT.
> 8MB cache? Why!?
Bigger the cache the better. Cache is much faster than the drive itself, so it you manage to load to cache before you need to access the data you save yourself some time. And same with saving. Basically better performance, and since the hard drive is where you have all your programs and files, it's somewhere you can really notice the difference.
> What about all the internal extras, like wires, cooling fans, etc.?
The CPU I listed was a retail one, which has a fan. The motherboard ought to come with the wires it needs to connect up drives. The DVD drive ought to have the audio cable with it. Throw in a couple of case fans at around £2 each and that is just about you.
> Yeah, I'll keep my keyboard, monitor, etc.
> It did. Thanks. Helpful as always.
> :)
Anymore questions, just ask.
> Interesting to see you opted for the Athlon 64. Any particular reason
> why?
Best on the market. Bang for buck they win. Over equivalent Pentium 4s they win in all but some forms of encoding. Much better gaming performance. Better content creation performance. Run cooler as well, so none of the thermal throttling kicking in because the processor gets too warm when under load that happens with some Pentium 4s.
> I wouldn't need this much, more like 512mb would do I guess.
If you can afford it however, get it. More RAM makes a system perform better. You'd notice this more than having an Athlon 64 3500 for instance.
> Only need a 64mb graphics card really.
The amount of memory on the card is less relevant now than in the past. Nowadays the chip on the card is far more important. But since you say you aren't much of a gamer, I'd recommend more of a mid-range card like this:
OcUK GeForce 6600 GT 128MB DDR3 TV-Out/DVI (AGP) - Retail £107.50, £126.31 inc VAT.
This would keep the PC able to play the latest games at decent speeds for the next couple of years for sure. However, if it really wasn't important, and all you planned to do was watch DVDs, then consider something like an ATI Radeon 9550 or 9600. They would play current games alright but not necessarily be up to much in the next year or so. Cost around £50, inc VAT.
> 8MB cache? Why!?
Bigger the cache the better. Cache is much faster than the drive itself, so it you manage to load to cache before you need to access the data you save yourself some time. And same with saving. Basically better performance, and since the hard drive is where you have all your programs and files, it's somewhere you can really notice the difference.
> What about all the internal extras, like wires, cooling fans, etc.?
The CPU I listed was a retail one, which has a fan. The motherboard ought to come with the wires it needs to connect up drives. The DVD drive ought to have the audio cable with it. Throw in a couple of case fans at around £2 each and that is just about you.
> Yeah, I'll keep my keyboard, monitor, etc.
> It did. Thanks. Helpful as always.
> :)
Anymore questions, just ask.
Pfft, edited :P
gamesfreak wrote:
> I'd suspect you'd get a CPU with the processor in that deal
You would hope so really....
> I'd suspect you'd get a CPU with the processor in that deal
You would hope so really....
gamesfreak wrote:
> Wires? :p
Yes, I'm into Athlete. (or else I just mean the internal cabley things)
:D
> Wires? :p
Yes, I'm into Athlete. (or else I just mean the internal cabley things)
:D
Page: