Which computer should I get?

F

Floyd

New Member
I'm looking to buy a relatively inexpensive desktop computer for the family. I will be running some memory/CPU intensive applications and have cable internet so I want a fast, powerful computer that won't become obsolete too quickly. I figured I'd get some opinions before I decide, probably on one of the following two systems:

HP Pavilion Media Center a1310n
AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3700+ (2.2GHz)
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
2000MHz HyperTransport System Speed
64KB Instruction Cache + 64KB Data Cache, 1MB Level 2 Cache
1.0GB Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR RAM (Expandable to 4.0GB)
200GB 7,200RPM Serial ATA Hard Drive
ATI Radeon Xpress 200 graphics

or

Dell Dimension E310
Intel Pentium 4 Processor 640 w/HT Technology (3.2GHz,800FSB)
Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz -2DIMMs
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900

Both are around the same price ($630 - 650). I'm just interested in hearing how you would rate these two systems based on these specs. Which one seems like the better choice in your opinion? How does the AMD Athlon 64 3700+ compare to the Intel Pentium 4 640? I notice the Intel has HT tech and a higher processor speed, but I've heard good things about the Athlon chips. Also, the Dell has DDR2 RAM compared to the HP's PC-3200 DDR. What difference, if any, does this make? Please keep in mind that I really don't want to spend any more than this so dual-core based computers are pretty much out of the question. Thanks to everyone for your feedback.
-Mike
 
I'd say the HP... I've heard ppl say intel is better for multitasking and othe roffice applications and AMD is more for gaming but im not shure thats true.. I've also seen test results where amd outclasses intel on every test.

Both could be good but i know Dell is very unpopular. They are office pc's and dell's support doesn't want ppl messing around with the system... so they lock stuff or something. Not shure tho.. never had any experiance with Dell.

You could also try to build one yourself(it's really easy). That may save some bucks.

I'd say look around A LOT. There is always some shop with better prices or something.

Oh well enough of my nonsense
 
well if u wont be gaming, or u dont plan on upgrading in the future then get the dell. but the hp will allow for good gaming hte graphics card is upgraded and the dell probably wont be nearly as good.

but since u said u will be multitasking then go with the dell. but dont plan on major upgrades in the future.
 
Floyd said:
I will be running some memory/CPU intensive applications and have cable internet so I want a fast, powerful computer that won't become obsolete too quickly.
Click to expand...
For your requirements either computer would be good, but I would advise you to buy the HP. If you would like this computer to last it will need to be able to support the new software that will begin to come out towards the end of 2006, (ie. Windows Vista, Office 12) which are both to be offered in 64-Bit editions. The P4 you are looking at will not support this.) Yes, i realize there will be 32-Bit releases as well, Microsoft already confirmed it, but this computer has the power to last you longer than two years, if your needs do not change dramatically.

Floyd said:
How does the AMD Athlon 64 3700+ compare to the Intel Pentium 4 640? I notice the Intel has HT tech and a higher processor speed, but I've heard good things about the Athlon chips.
Click to expand...
Intel and AMD both make quality chips. AMD has a different way of marketing processor speeds, but I assure you the AMD 64 3700+, is be able to preform to level on par with the P4 3.2.

Floyd said:
Also, the Dell has DDR2 RAM compared to the HP's PC-3200 DDR. What difference, if any, does this make?
Click to expand...
DDR2 (or Double Data Rate 2) is simply a newer type of RAM, which allows for high speeds (ranging from 400Mhz-1066Mz) although, a stick of DDR2 400Mhz ram has been proven to run slower than its DDR 400MHz counterpart. AMD does not yet support DDR2, that is why they cannot fully take advantage of the massive FSB (1600MHz, 2000MHz)

B-Man said:
I've heard ppl say intel is better for multitasking and othe roffice applications and AMD is more for gaming but im not shure thats true.
Click to expand...
Traditionally, people have believed that. But I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2, and I had a Athlon 64 3200+, before that and I have never experienced any problems while trying to multitask, or run large programs.. (such as DB2, Oracle, Visual Studio.Net, SQL Server etc)

Yes, I realize that AMD does not have FSB, it has HyperTransport Technology. Before someone blasts me for saying that...
 
Last edited:
Get the HP.

It has a better processor (for gaming at least), larger hard drive, and better graphics.
 
geoff5093 said:
Get the HP.

It has a better processor (for gaming at least), larger hard drive, and better graphics.
Click to expand...
I agree. Think the HP is the better deal. Processor is very important and the rest can easily be upgraded in the future if needed.
 
Thanks to everyone for the advice so far. It seems most people are recommending the HP, mainly because of the Athlon. To answer tractorboy, building a computer isn't necessarily out of the question, I'm just not convinced that it would be cost effective. I'm sure there's a lot more that goes into building a system than the 7 components you listed, and it all adds up quickly. I'm really just looking for a general all-purpose computer here. I'll soon be getting a desktop for the specific purpose of music recording and production. In that case, having a custom PC configured will be a no-brainer.
 
I'm just not convinced that it would be cost effective
Click to expand...
Uh :) (especially since you say you want a general purpose machine, my box will more than likely give you a better experience than either the above boxes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top