Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.

I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
Processor.

I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am
interested in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of
other business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.

I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
amounts of data.

The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
decently with the current generation of games.

I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In
the past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that
is not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images
persisted longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the
casE? This seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?

Any caveats?

Thanks!

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I would put in a regular 3.2 processors, a single 250GB HD, and the best
video card. I wonder when will Dell offer this card for less than $300
dollars, again. I like the 2001 LCD.

"HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3kerk0Ftoho4U1@individual.net...
> The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.
>
> I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
> Processor.
>
> I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am interested
> in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of other
> business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.
>
> I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
> SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
> amounts of data.
>
> The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
> decently with the current generation of games.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In the
> past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that is
> not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images persisted
> longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the casE? This
> seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?
>
> Any caveats?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Depending on your expectations, rumors are circulating that the Gen 6
XPS is due very shortly.

From unofficial sources, Dell will break with Intel and offer an nVidia
nForce-based board in the next generation of gaming/high end system.



HarryKrause wrote:
> The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.
>
> I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
> Processor.
>
> I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am
> interested in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of
> other business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.
>
> I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
> SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
> amounts of data.
>
> The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
> decently with the current generation of games.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In
> the past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that
> is not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images
> persisted longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the
> casE? This seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?
>
> Any caveats?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Edward J. Neth wrote:
> Depending on your expectations, rumors are circulating that the Gen 6
> XPS is due very shortly.
>
> From unofficial sources, Dell will break with Intel and offer an nVidia
> nForce-based board in the next generation of gaming/high end system.
>


That's very interesting. I think ASUS has such a board out, but...I
don't recall that it supports a "D" processor. And my interest is more
towards high end biz apps, with occasional game use. Still, the big
discounts on the XPS system is nothing at which to sneeze.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near future.
I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage of the
dual cores in a significant way.

Go for the 10K drive. I recently got one, and it's noticeably faster than
the 7.2K.

I also have the GeForce 6800 256 MB. Good bang for the buck.

I am partial to CRTs over LCDs. They don't look as cool, but IMO they give
better overall picture for a cheaper price, and with various different
resolutions. Oh, and they don't "ghost" like LCDs.
--
Charles C. Shyu
http://home.earthlink.net/~shyuc/shyu.html

"HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3kerk0Ftoho4U1@individual.net...
> The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.
>
> I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
> Processor.
>
> I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am interested
> in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of other
> business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.
>
> I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
> SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
> amounts of data.
>
> The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
> decently with the current generation of games.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In the
> past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that is
> not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images persisted
> longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the casE? This
> seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?
>
> Any caveats?
>
> Thanks!

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:23:09 GMT, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "Charles C.
Shyu" <charles_shyu@nymc.edu> wrote:

>I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
>give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near future.
>I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage of the
>dual cores in a significant way.

It really depends on how you use your computer.

I picked the 3.2GHz dual-core CPU for my XPS 5, and I love the computer's
ability to do something CPU intensive in the background without bogging down
everything else I do on the computer. (Major improvement over my Dim8100
with a P4 2.6GHz CPU, which was really annoying to use if I had something
major going on in the background while I was trying to do other things.)

If I played a lot of demanding games that needed every bit of CPU speed they
could get, then I'd have gone for a single core CPU with a higher clock
speed. But for what I do, the slightly slower dual-core is better: I don't
mind giving up a small FPS increase in my gaming in order to keep my
computer useable even when I'm doing something demanding in the background.

--
Nick <mailto:tanstaafl@pobox.com>

"Natural laws have no pity." R.A.H.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Nick wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:23:09 GMT, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "Charles C.
> Shyu" <charles_shyu@nymc.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
>> give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near future.
>> I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage of the
>> dual cores in a significant way.
>
> It really depends on how you use your computer.
>
> I picked the 3.2GHz dual-core CPU for my XPS 5, and I love the computer's
> ability to do something CPU intensive in the background without bogging down
> everything else I do on the computer. (Major improvement over my Dim8100
> with a P4 2.6GHz CPU, which was really annoying to use if I had something
> major going on in the background while I was trying to do other things.)
>
> If I played a lot of demanding games that needed every bit of CPU speed they
> could get, then I'd have gone for a single core CPU with a higher clock
> speed. But for what I do, the slightly slower dual-core is better: I don't
> mind giving up a small FPS increase in my gaming in order to keep my
> computer useable even when I'm doing something demanding in the background.
>

I've been using a "single-core" P4 1.8 for gaming, so I suppose any sort
of 3.0+ dual-core Pentium system will be noticeably faster!



--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

>>I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
>>give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near future.
>>I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage of
>>the
>>dual cores in a significant way.
>
> It really depends on how you use your computer.
>
> I picked the 3.2GHz dual-core CPU for my XPS 5, and I love the computer's
> ability to do something CPU intensive in the background without bogging
> down
> everything else I do on the computer. (Major improvement over my Dim8100
> with a P4 2.6GHz CPU, which was really annoying to use if I had something
> major going on in the background while I was trying to do other things.)

You're right -- it does depend, but I was just pointing out that for most
people, the situation where a dual core system will outperform a faster
clocked single core system will not come up most of the time. The OP
mentioned occasional games and wanting to run multiple business apps (ie -
Word) -- this is NOT CPU intensive enough to make a dual core system more
responsive. What he'd have to run is a current generation CPU intensive
game WHILE burning a DVD, for example. How often does that happen?
--
Charles C. Shyu
http://home.earthlink.net/~shyuc/shyu.html

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Charles C. Shyu wrote:
>>> I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
>>> give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near future.
>>> I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage of
>>> the
>>> dual cores in a significant way.
>> It really depends on how you use your computer.
>>
>> I picked the 3.2GHz dual-core CPU for my XPS 5, and I love the computer's
>> ability to do something CPU intensive in the background without bogging
>> down
>> everything else I do on the computer. (Major improvement over my Dim8100
>> with a P4 2.6GHz CPU, which was really annoying to use if I had something
>> major going on in the background while I was trying to do other things.)
>
> You're right -- it does depend, but I was just pointing out that for most
> people, the situation where a dual core system will outperform a faster
> clocked single core system will not come up most of the time. The OP
> mentioned occasional games and wanting to run multiple business apps (ie -
> Word) -- this is NOT CPU intensive enough to make a dual core system more
> responsive. What he'd have to run is a current generation CPU intensive
> game WHILE burning a DVD, for example. How often does that happen?



Are there ways to determine which software apps will benefit with a dual
core CPU, or which pairs of apps running simultaneously.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3khn9lFubnjvU2@individual.net...
> Charles C. Shyu wrote:
>>>> I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price,
>>>> it'll
>>>> give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near
>>>> future.
>>>> I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage
>>>> of the
>>>> dual cores in a significant way.
>>> It really depends on how you use your computer.
>>>
>>> I picked the 3.2GHz dual-core CPU for my XPS 5, and I love the
>>> computer's
>>> ability to do something CPU intensive in the background without bogging
>>> down
>>> everything else I do on the computer. (Major improvement over my
>>> Dim8100
>>> with a P4 2.6GHz CPU, which was really annoying to use if I had
>>> something
>>> major going on in the background while I was trying to do other things.)
>>
>> You're right -- it does depend, but I was just pointing out that for most
>> people, the situation where a dual core system will outperform a faster
>> clocked single core system will not come up most of the time. The OP
>> mentioned occasional games and wanting to run multiple business apps
>> (ie - Word) -- this is NOT CPU intensive enough to make a dual core
>> system more responsive. What he'd have to run is a current generation
>> CPU intensive game WHILE burning a DVD, for example. How often does that
>> happen?
>
>
>
> Are there ways to determine which software apps will benefit with a dual
> core CPU, or which pairs of apps running simultaneously.
>


Not sure there is. The OS controls the threads and I'd think that there are
very few mainstream TLP applications out there to maximize dual-core right
now.

One could start with benchmarking using something like SiSoft Sandra to get
some idea of the increased performance I suppose.


Stew

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

all curent lcd's are built with a very fast response time so there is no
"ghosting". they are 100% nicer than a bulky energy hog and radiation
throwing off crt. get a dual core processor and be up on technology for
about 4 or 5 years.


-jeff
"HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3kerk0Ftoho4U1@individual.net...
> The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.
>
> I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
> Processor.
>
> I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am interested
> in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of other
> business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.
>
> I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
> SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
> amounts of data.
>
> The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
> decently with the current generation of games.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In the
> past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that is
> not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images persisted
> longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the casE? This
> seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?
>
> Any caveats?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I'd change the word "all" to "many" as there are still cheap LCD panels out
there. Good ones should be fine.

Tom
"Jeff" <jeffscomp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BnYGe.3113$aT1.3007@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> all curent lcd's are built with a very fast response time so there is no
> "ghosting". they are 100% nicer than a bulky energy hog and radiation
> throwing off crt. get a dual core processor and be up on technology for
> about 4 or 5 years.
>
>
> -jeff
> "HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3kerk0Ftoho4U1@individual.net...
>> The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.
>>
>> I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
>> Processor.
>>
>> I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am interested
>> in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of other
>> business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.
>>
>> I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
>> SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
>> amounts of data.
>>
>> The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
>> decently with the current generation of games.
>>
>> I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In the
>> past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that is
>> not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images
>> persisted longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the
>> casE? This seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?
>>
>> Any caveats?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> I'd change the word "all" to "many" as there are still cheap LCD panels out
> there. Good ones should be fine.
>
> Tom
> "Jeff" <jeffscomp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BnYGe.3113$aT1.3007@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> all curent lcd's are built with a very fast response time so there is no
>> "ghosting". they are 100% nicer than a bulky energy hog and radiation
>> throwing off crt. get a dual core processor and be up on technology for
>> about 4 or 5 years.
>>
>>
>> -jeff
>> "HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3kerk0Ftoho4U1@individual.net...
>>> The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.
>>>
>>> I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
>>> Processor.
>>>
>>> I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am interested
>>> in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of other
>>> business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
>>> SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
>>> amounts of data.
>>>
>>> The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
>>> decently with the current generation of games.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In the
>>> past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that is
>>> not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images
>>> persisted longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the
>>> casE? This seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?
>>>
>>> Any caveats?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


After as much "investigation" as I had time for, I decided to go with a
faster "single-core processor" to install on a motherboard that can
handle dual core processors. I'm still shopping for the right monitor
for the new rig. At the moment, I have a perfectly decent Mitsubishi
Diamond Pro 900i glass monitor whose only downside seems to be the
amount of desktop real estate it uses up.

I'm in the market for a good 20" or 19" LCD and have to get my butt to
MicroCenter or somesuch place where I can look at a large number of
monitors to see which is the most appealing.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"HarryKrause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3l3mkqF10r1osU1@individual.net...

> After as much "investigation" as I had time for, I decided to go with a
> faster "single-core processor" to install on a motherboard that can handle
> dual core processors. I'm still shopping for the right monitor for the new
> rig. At the moment, I have a perfectly decent Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 900i
> glass monitor whose only downside seems to be the amount of desktop real
> estate it uses up.
>
> I'm in the market for a good 20" or 19" LCD and have to get my butt to
> MicroCenter or somesuch place where I can look at a large number of
> monitors to see which is the most appealing.

Samsung 213T