I want a computer for web surfing and msn msgr.

[NervousNovice2]

I know I don't really need a fast computer for office work. But what If I want one (reasonable budget), what should I go for?

I do these:
1. web surfing with firefox
2. msn msgr
3. write doc, load pdf, run xls, etc..office work
4. occasionally watch dvd movie
5. sometimes run mathematica

I don't do these:
1. play games, just any games
2. do graphics or 3D stuff
3. video encoding

Ok. So I don't play games so AMD is not a must. And I don't do encoding either so Intel is no a must either. So what should I get? How much ram? What graphic card?

Is onboard graphic suffice? I afraid it will slow down my CPU a bit. How much performance is reduced ? And how much performance gain on CPU will I have if I go for a discrete graphic card ?

 

[BitByBit]

It sounds like a Sempron system would be ideal for you, if your activities don't involve heavy multitasking.

 

[NervousNovice2]

Now I have a XP 2500+. But I want it really fast to boot up my computer everday morning and load stuff faster than now. I had a Pentium D 820 in mind, or sth around that level in my mind before.

 

[freethrowtommy]

I think a PD would be overkill for what you are doing. All of the stuff you are doing now is single threaded so you would be better off with just a Pentium with HT to multitask that lightly if you aren't gaming. The XP 2500+ is actually pretty damn good for what you are doing. if you want Windows to boot up faster and load faster, you might almost be better off investing in a Western Digital Raptor hd or some more RAM. What are your specs?

 

[CheesePoofs]

I would thing the XP 2500 would be plenty, but if you want more you could just get a low end P4 with HT for help with multitasking. I agree that a PD is overkill.

 

[NervousNovice2]

I currently have a Asus A7V600 mobo, XP 2500+, one stick 512MB ddr400 and two 80G HDD in raid1. I gonna give this rig to my sister so I'll get a completely new one. I was thinking about a P-D, 6200 graphic, 1G ram, another HDD raid1 for the new system.

To do those stuff, is AMD or Intel better?

I read the Anandtech review on those SATA300 HDD and it seems they perform even better than the Raptor in a lot of cases. Is that true?

And will onboard graphic slow down the CPU by a lot? Around what % will it be?

By the way, thanks for all those advices.

 

[freethrowtommy]

for what you are doing, onboard graphics won't hurt you at all most likely. But just to be safe, I would get a mobo with PCI-E or AGP so you can at least upgrade if you change your mind. Even a cheapest of cheap graphics card from ATi or nVidia will smoke an Intel integrated or Sis.

Sounds like you are set on getting a Pentium D. I would rethink that and get a higher clocked Pentium 4 with HT for the same price. The Pentium D isn't that well designed even for what you get and it is only 2.8 Ghz to boot. I do give Intel credit for getting the Dual cores out at a LOW LOW price. But if that is what you want, it will do everything you ask of it just fine and it will even be good for the future, if you plan on keeping this computer for a while.

Overall, i think your specs are good for what you will be doing.

 

[NervousNovice2]

That means, when it boots up, the dual-core wont' help and it's effectively using a 2.8G to boot up? And for those stuff that aren't multitasking, the P-D will just run like a single-core (say 2.8G) with no performance gain? In that case, I rather get a 630.

 

[freethrowtommy]

exactly... also, you can overclock a 630 alot higher (making the system even faster) than you can a dual core P4. The 630 can get up there quite a bit from what i have seen. Even a very modest overclock would help you.

If you don't overclock at all, you will see a better performance out of a 630.

I am surprised that the AMD guys haven't attacked this thread yet

 

[NervousNovice2]

Ok. I think I'll go for a 630 or 640. Thanks a lot.

 

[freethrowtommy]

Don't want to confuse you anymore... but take a look at the 3500+ too. Maybe do some research with some reviews and stuff for what you are doing against the 630/640.

If anyone know of any good comparison reviews, please post em for this guy.

 

[coomar]

if you want a fast boot, just create an image of the OS with your basic apps installed and then every couple weeks re-install, you can get a sub 30 second boot from pretty much any computer that way

 

[furballi]

A cheap DELL PC or any PC in the $200 to $300 price range. Look for an AMD CPU and bump up the RAM to at least 512MB.

 

[anandtechrocks]

I don't know why you would be against getting a Pentium D 820 over a 630, I mean they are almost the same price, almost the same speed (200 Mhz?? c'mon), BUT the PD is dual core!

That definitely outweighs a $20-30 royalty and 200 Mhz. Pair it with a cheap 945 motherboard (Mwave has some nice stuff), some cheap DDR2 (a gig can be had for less than $80 if you look hard) and you'll be set. I'm just finishing a PD 820 computer for my relatives and I barely broke $600 dollars (945 mobo, 1 gig OCZ value DDR2, 160 GB HD, optical drive, Antec case).

Overall the price/ performance is in favor of the 820 in my opinion.

 

[stratman]

You need a A64 X2 4800+, 2 7800 GTX SLI'd, 2 gig ram, 74gb Rapto...

Any computer made in the last 3 years should be fine for msn and web surfing, the 630 or 640 should do beautifully

 

[Artanis]

I don't see why need an upgrade from a XP2500+, for some office work...

 

[selfbuilt]

There's no compelling reason to upgrade your XP2500+. Boot time issues usually reflect the amount of software installed. In fact, my A64 system is currently slower than my old XP2500+ because of the latest version of Norton I put on (what a mistake that was - I'm about to do an OS re-install to get rid of it all) Just do a minimal re-install with only what you need. You might also want to invest in a defragger that optimizes boot order (e.g. diskeeper), and bootvis can help optimize somewhat as well. For that matter, you can always try putting your comp into stand-by mode instead of turning it off each night, and just re-boot it once a week to prevent the inevitable memory corruption that comes from repeated, prolonged stanb-dy.

 

[mindgam3]

Your raid 1 is slowing everything down try raid 0 or invest in a raptor drive and 512 more ram will help tons .

 

[YetioDoom]

I'm on a 1700+, and it takes about 10 seconds for windows to boot. Sounds like you need to format and re-install more than get a new computer.

 

[NervousNovice2]

I have Norton on once it loads Windows. I guess I need to fix that. But I'm picky, I click a PDF on web and it takes me 7 sec to load, I view a folder as thumbnails with 1000 icons in it and it takes forever to load them all. I can't stand those. Aww.. It sounds like I need a Raptor instead right? (I have a Seagate SATA 80G now).

By the way, to load those files faster (like opening a folder in thumbnails with 1000 pics), which benchmark is it related in the Anandtech HDD review? Cuz I read the review about those 3Gb/s HDD and the Raptor doesn't really stand out in real application.

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: NervousNovice2
I know I don't really need a fast computer for office work. But what If I want one (reasonable budget), what should I go for?

I do these:
1. web surfing with firefox
2. msn msgr
3. write doc, load pdf, run xls, etc..office work
4. occasionally watch dvd movie
5. sometimes run mathematica

I don't do these:
1. play games, just any games
2. do graphics or 3D stuff
3. video encoding

Ok. So I don't play games so AMD is not a must. And I don't do encoding either so Intel is no a must either. So what should I get? How much ram? What graphic card?

Is onboard graphic suffice? I afraid it will slow down my CPU a bit. How much performance is reduced ? And how much performance gain on CPU will I have if I go for a discrete graphic card ?

Just to make things a bit more complicated for you, the Athlon 64 processors outperform the current Intel procs by a healthy margin in the Mozilla (Firefox) benchmarks featured in the CPU articles here on Anandtech. If you're considering price/performance for these tasks I think you'd be better off with a low-end A64 like a 3000+ Venice ($140-$150).

Onboard graphics will be fine for what you'll be using the computer for. I wouldn't worry about it slowing down your CPU since you won't be performing any CPU intensive tasks. A modern CPU has plenty of headroom to support on-board video and Internet surfing, office tasks, etc...

 

[NervousNovice2]

Thanks for the replies.

One more question, are Intel boards good?

 

[Varun]

Keep what you have.

Add another 512 RAM

Remove all the crap you have starting when you boot up, and get rid of the RAID array.

You could do everything you want with a Pentium 200. You are absolutely crazy to think you need a faster computer for what you need. Some more RAM and get rid of the spyware and you'll be good to go.

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: Varun
Keep what you have.

Add another 512 RAM

Remove all the crap you have starting when you boot up, and get rid of the RAID array.

You could do everything you want with a Pentium 200. You are absolutely crazy to think you need a faster computer for what you need. Some more RAM and get rid of the spyware and you'll be good to go.

Crazy? maybe...

But, it's more fun to go his way and build new!

 

[ssvegeta1010]

At least do something that will really stress your system. </shameless plug>

Anyway, back on topic, any of those systems should be fine for you. Just make sure to keep XP clean and less bloated and you will see faster start-up times.