Office computers - dual core these days?

[Adcadet]

When you guys are building basic office systems, do you specifically use dual-core chips? My parents need a basic business PC, and it looks like Athlons are going to be the cheaper route and I need to decide between something like an Athlon 64 3500 vs 4000 X2.

 

[ddrueding]

I do dual-core for everything these days. Specifically C2D chips; they just seem faster than the A64 X2s.

65W Dual-Core 2.2Ghz for $125

 

[Adcadet]

Since I'm now 80 miles away from most friends and family, and generally about as responsive to computer help requests as most of my sedated and intubated ICU patients, I'm sending friends and family to a local mom & pop shop. A little more expensive than Newegg and the like, but they can build a computer in a few hours and know what they're talking about. In reading Tony's old rant on why he doesn't carry HP printers anymore I've realized how nice a good local shop can be for many people. And it was awesome when I called them up, told then what I wanted for my mom, the next day my mom walked in with her old computer, then installed the old HD in the new computer as a second hard drive, and off she went with a new computer that was totally functional and had all her old stuff on it. No need for any significant de-crapifing even! Who new that a refugee from Vietnam with no more than grade-school education, a ton of hard work, a good deal of common sense, a little courtesy, and a bit of luck could build a better PC than Michael Dell?

Anyway, an all-included C2D MB will run about $10 more than the Athlon X2 equivalently, and a C2D chip will be $60 more (Athlon X2 4000 at $73 vs a C2D E4500 at $135. I'm sure they C2D will be faster and feel faster, and I just recommended such a system to my father-in-law for his main business PC that he uses all the time. But for my parent's business, I don't think they need the power. It's intended use as a business machine that is primarily used to submit claims online, maybe order supplies online, and type up the occasional letter.

In fact, my parents fear it will be too convenient for some of the employees to use all the time and neglect other things, and hence are requesting that the new computer have some sort of monitoring software (sites and time spent). Anybody recommend any easy to use monitoring software?

 

[Tannin]

I don't understand why you would say that a C2D $70 dearer than an A64 4000 would run faster, so spend the $70. Doesn't make sense. An A64 6000 would cost about $70 more than an A64 4000 (something like that - not sure of US$ prices) and it is also faster.

Hey, if I compare a Ford V8 to a 4 cylinder GM engine, the Ford is faster. If I compare an A64 6000 to a Celeron, the A64 is faster, does that mean that AMD make faster chips? Why don't you compare like with like?

 

[ddrueding]

I built some super-cheap servers using E4500s and a Gigabyte board with on-board video. The thing seemed much "snappier" than my previous A64 X2 6000+. Was it actually faster in high-load applications? Unlikely, but it felt faster just moving around the UI. So much so that I finally bit the bullet and went C2Q for myself. Is there some reason for this? Is it purely in my head?

 

[Tannin]

I haven't played much with C2Ds, David, so I can't say I've experienced the same, but anyone who thinks that benchmarking DVD rips is the way to figure out which CPU to buy has rocks in his head. Clean the crap out of the startup, make sire the drivers are correct, then zip around the UI for a while. If it feels fast, it is fast. All to do with ability to task-switch and access memory, I have always believed.

This is why I always laughed at people who claimed that the P4 was a "good fast chip". Any Athlon XP, even a lowly Sempron/Duron, would blow its socks of on the desktop - which is where it actually matters.

Any task that takes more than a second or at most 5 seconds doesn't matter: you are not going to sit there waiting for it, you'll look away, glance at the newspaper, start another task, post on Storage Forum, something, anything rather than stare at a computer, waiting, waiting, waiting.

And it's not the 5-second tasks that kill you (such as the intermoinable wait for Photoshop to do anything, it's the 1 second and 1 1/2 second waits that get you, as there are so many of them.

Executive summary: if it feels fast, it is fast. Go with the one you like the look of.

 

[ddrueding]

Well said Tannin, and in that vein I must recommend a C2D over an A64. Even if you take a hit elsewhere. What used to be 0.5-1 second waits are now gone. Even when I was running Vista it was just better.

 

[Tea]

Wot? Use an Intel motherboard? Are you nuts?

 

[Tannin]

Tea, there are probably some perfectly good Intel chipset motherboards around. Just because most of the ones we see are pretty awful, it doesn't mean there are no decent ones to be had. Besides, I bet that if you ask them nicely, some of the good people here at Storage Forum will recommend a nice non-Intel chipset suitable for a C2D. I take it you wpouldn't object to an Intel CPU if it came on a nice Gigabyte motherboard with a Nvidia chipset, would you?

 

[Tea]

Oh lordy no. I don't mind the CPUs, it's just the Intel chipsets I don't want to dirty up my nice clean workshop with.

Errk - next thing you will be wanting me to hold my nose and close my eyes and use something with a SiS badge!

 

[ddrueding]

You mean like this little gem with VGA, DVI, and HDMI outputs on it for $80?

 

[Fushigi]

Our current corporate minimum specs:

• Processor – Intel Duo 1.66 GHz
• RAM - 512MB
• Hard Drive – 40GB
• Operating System - Windows XP
• Office - 2003

[FONT=&quot]That applies to both desktops & notebooks. Desktops get a 17" flat panel.
[/FONT]

 

[mangyDOG]

My favorite CPU for all basic PCs (business or home) these days is the AMD BE-2350 which is the low voltage (45watt TDP) version of the 4000x2. Using these processors, 2Gb of Ram, 160Gb HDD, DVD-RW on an Asus M2AVM mobo in an Antec NSK4480 case (with their 380watt "Earthwatts" PSU) the computer will run at under 50watts total power draw and no more than 80 watts at maximum load. A bit more expensive to buy but saves quite a bit of power over the long term.

cheers,
mangyDOG

 

[mubs]

Our current corporate minimum specs:

• Processor – Intel Duo 1.66 GHz
• RAM - 512MB
• Hard Drive – 40GB
• Operating System - Windows XP
• Office - 2003

[FONT=&quot]That applies to both desktops & notebooks. Desktops get a 17" flat panel.
[/FONT]

Every item listed seems very appropriate except for the RAM; why only 512 MB? If the user usually has all the office apps open (like I do) 1GB would be better.

 

[Bozo]

Our current corporate minimum specs:

• Processor – Intel Duo 1.66 GHz
• RAM - 512MB
• Hard Drive – 40GB
• Operating System - Windows XP
• Office - 2003

[FONT=&quot]That applies to both desktops & notebooks. Desktops get a 17" flat panel.
[/FONT]

That is about the same as our corp junkers. They are dog slow. Having Word or Excel and IE open, there are times when you have to wait for things to happen. During this time the hard drive is thrashing like mad. If you really want to slow it down, have 2 or 3 IE pages open and try to open Word or Excel.
Definately needs more RAM.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Fushigi]

Why only 512MB? Because I didn't set the spec. More RAM can be purchased easily enough but people do have to put in a statement justifying it.