Buying an "All in one" computer ??

A

andy15star

New Member
Hi, i'm thinking about buying an "All in one" computer (just to save on space).

I don't really need anything with really high spec, but the kids do play on Flight Sim games, Photo editing, emails, viewing HD video and editing etc.

My current PC (Advent T9317) just about copes with their needs, the flight sim games they use (mainly FS2004) run at 30fps, which is pretty good. The only issues are that it's on limits for HD Video editing and watching.

I'm wanting to upgrade to a better all round PC, and may as well overspec than underspec !

My current PC as i say has the following specs:
Advent T9317
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz)
Motherboard MS 7255
Video Card nVIDIA GeForce 7300SE PCI-E 64MB (up to 512MB with Turbocache)
Memory 1.5GB DDR2 PC2-4200

I don't really want to downgrade on the above spec (but realise that it's 4 years old!).

I have been looking at a few models in Currys and want to know if it's more important to get more RAM, more CPU speed, Dual Core, Triple Core or Quad Core, Athlon or Intel, and what type of Graphics Card.

As an example, i saw one for £650 which was Triple Core AMD Athlon II x 3 (2.2GHz), with 4GB RAM, and an ATI Radeon HD5450 Graphics Card

Then another with higher spec CPU (but only Dual Core) Intel Pentium E5700 (3.0GHz Dual Core), 3GB RAM, but only an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500 graphics card.

So, basically how do i tell which is the better processor ?, is Dual core 3.0GHz nearly as good as Triple Core 2.2GHz, do i assume it's 2x3.0=6GHZ, and 3x2.2=6.6GHz ???

Is it better to have only 3GB RAM but have a higher spec processor ?, is it worth the p[rice to get a PC which does NOT have on board graphics accelerator ??


Sorry for all the questions!... i am pretty good with computers, but all these specs are confusing me now !

My computer specs are at: http://www.uktsupport.co.uk/advent/pc/t9317.htm

The one i was looking at was at: http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/lenovo-ideacentre-b305-06693703-pdt.html

Just really want to know if i'd notice a big difference buying a new PC considering mine is 4 years old now.


Best Regards,
Andy
 
Last edited:
Games, video editing, multitaking,,are the type of things that utilize extra available cores.
The ghz is what it is, requardless of the # of cores.
The cpu/video card/ram/etc, is a balancing act determind by the intinded use.
Yes, the one you picked is capable of more than your current.
If you have a monitor/keyboard/mouse, have you considered assymbling one yourself w/better components for the same $?
 
Cheers Benny Boy,

Yeah i have considered that, even considered a top spec pc (base unit) but keep coming back to wanting a touch screen PC.

It's going to be a lot harder to build your own touch-screen PC though, and that's what puts me off.

We don't really use graphics intensive games. The only intensive thing we do is edit (or try to edit!) HD Videos. This PC barely does that (and slowly!), so i was hoping a decent all-in-one would do all this for me a lot better than mine does.

So you think the GHz of the processor is the most important thing to consider ?, would you recommend AMD or Intel ?. I know people used to advise AMD for gaming, but that was years ago and i know technology has come a long way since then, so is that still the case?

If GHz is the most important thing then am i right in thinking that (e.g.) a triple core 2.8GHz is better than a quad core 2.0GHz processor (because 3x2.8=8.4GHZ, whereas 4x2.0GHz is only 8GHz) ..... or does it not work like that ?

Best Regards,
Andy
 
the only thing that would put me off an all in one, is with one big unit, if one part goes the whole thing may need to go away for repair, if you looking to save space have you thought about a mini itx cube system ?
 
I see your point, but i kinda fell in love with the touch screen models!.

Can you get a "touch screen" PC with a base unit ???, never seen one.

Regards,
Andy
 
The number of cores doesn't multiply the GHz.
That x3 in the link would serve you well.
Touch screens can be purchased separately, but i think they're pricy compared to a pre-built.
 
Cheers guys, i'm thinking that a touch screen LCD monitor would need an operating system which is compatible with touch screen technology surely ??

i.e. i couldn't just go and buy a touch screen monitor and connect it to my current base unit without any modifications to the o/s could i ?

Best Regards,
Andrew
 
That looks really good!.

Only problem is at £400, and the fact i only have XP at the moment, I may as well just buy a £650 touch screen PC in the first place.

To get a decent spec base unit might only cost me £350 (to get the equivalent spec of what i was going to pay for an all-in-one PC), but then another £400 for the touch screen monitor, which brings it to way above the cost of the all-in-one PC anyway, if you catch my drift ;)

Regards,
Andy
 
well look about andy im sure there are cheaper alternatives, that is high spec full hd acer monitor, sure you could pick up an hd ready for about £200, and with a fixed all in one wont be easy to upgrade as it ages.
 
This is true James!, that's basically why i wanted to get the best spec all-in-one (if that was the route i was going to take), so that it wouldn't get outdated as quickly !

I mean i've had this PC for 4 years now and it has been great, it still runs silky smooth as it's dual core. But when i got an HD Camcorder and found i couldn't edit HD Videos, it got me thinking about buying a new PC. I can watch HD videos no problem with The KM Player, they work without any jitters at all, but cannot really edit them on this machine.

Incidentally, and a bit off subject, when i got this PC it came with 1GB RAM (max support was for 2GB). It was in 2 banks of 512, so i bought 2 x 1GB RAM, installed it and (expecting it to show 2GB) found it only showed 1.5GB !!. Someone on another forum told me it was because i didn't have XP SP3, so i installed SP3 and it's still showing 1.5GB RAM.......... any ideas why it's not showing 2GB ?. The MB supports 2GB, and there's 2 banks of 1GB in there!:confused:


Best Regards,
Andy
 
no its pretty strange, it should show your full 2gb, try downloading either speccy 1.07 from www.piriform.com or belarc advisor, and see if they read the full 2gb speccy is the best system information tool. let us know how you get on.
 
Cheers James,

Well now the plot thickens!!, Speccy shows 2GB, but WinXP shows 1.5GB !, which one will be right do u think ??

34rj3o4.jpg


143knih.jpg



Regards,
Andy
 
i have always found speccy to be very accurate, it could possibly be you have an old bios version that is limited, and its not worth updating the bios if your planning to get rid.
 
Ah cheers!, so would you say that is was operating with 1.5GHz rather than 2 ?

What is involved in upgrading the BIOS ??, is it difficult ?

On the original specs it says the motherboard can take a max of 2GB RAM, so the BIOS surely should be capable of this ?

Best Regards,
Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top