Processors & monitors

[Katydew]

We're getting several new computers in our office, and I've been asked to work with a consultant to determine what to buy. She says that she can get Pentium IVs from Dell for $400 less per machine than Pentium IIIs, which at first sounded great to me. Now I seem to remember reading that the Pentium IV is built using a totally new architecture, and somehow because of the parallel instruction feature can be slower than a Pentium III, even though it's capable of much greater clock speeds. She's suggesting we get Pentium IV 1.5 GHz machines. We use general office applications, tax software (Lacerte), an industry specific accounting package (AMSI). More, but these are the primary. Anyone with experience or suggestions in this area?

She's also suggesting 17" flat panel monitors. The last few computers that I've ordered have had 19" CRTs, and my initial impulse was to stay with those. Are there advantages to the LCD besides saving space? Does the 17" LCD have the same viewable area as the 19" CRT? How do they compare as to graininess, general viewability - for primarily text applications?

[tjaymadison]

Other than possibly a few of the very newest games, no current mainstream
software takes full advantage of even the P-III instruction set, much less
of the P-IV. But for the price, why not get the P-IV's?

Most 19" diagonal CRT's have a 17.9" or 18" diagonal viewable image size;
LCD's have no such loss. Graininess, etc. is very subjective and sometimes
quite dependent on lighting conditions. Much cooler operating temps might
be an advantage in an office environment.

Your consultant ought to be able to get a sample LCD for you to use for a few days.



------------------
"I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage, mathematician, computer pioneer, analytical engine designer (1791-1871)
-- (Question: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?')

"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand."
-- Homer Simpson

[skhips]

You seem to be getting the latest and best equipment as opposed to what is required, this is excellent if their is no problems with your budget, but flat screen monitors cost 100's extra, is saving desk space that important?

The slowest computer that I could buy new from a retailer at the moment would be about a 600mhz which is still more than twice as fast as what we need to use NT4 and Office 97 at work.

As opposed to what you can buy, ask what is required to run what you have at its optimum (and maybe a bit mre for future planning), it may be quite shocking the difference), the only time we get the best money can buy is for machines that will be doing Graphic work.

http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/cool.gif


http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Paleo Pete]

I agree, something around P-III 600 or 700 MHz should be sufficient, plus the consideration that P-4 hasn't been very well "field tested" and proven yet. The P-III in the 600-700 range should be less expensive than new P-4 machines, and have already proven to work well. For most business applications you should find CPU speeds in that range to be more than sufficient. Make sure you get 128MB memory with them, and they should be fine for your uses. Avoid getting Windows ME if possible, too many horror stories out there, regardless what your consultant says. Also remember the consultant is out to make a paycheck too and might not always have your best interest in mind...

Research before you make any commitments, find out what has a good reputation, maybe check around with other businesses with interests and activities similar to yours, and find out what they are using and how it performs. That may tell you a lot.



------------------
So many idiots, and only six bullets...
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[mjc]

Flat panels can be nice but like someone else said, try them out...

And are you going to be playing Unreal:Tournament at lunch over the network?

If I were selling you the systems I'd be recommending things like stability, proven technology and probably be looking for machines that wouldn't top the gaming benchmarks but could crunch numbers for weeks on end without batting an eyelash...

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/highrise/11/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[tjaymadison]

Accepting Katydew's statement at face value, surely you guys
don't mean to say you'd pay $400 extra to 'step down' to a P-3 ??

And I'd really like to see some links to a review that says P-4's are "unproven".

------------------
"I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage, mathematician, computer pioneer, analytical engine designer (1791-1871)
-- (Question: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?')

"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand."
-- Homer Simpson

[This message has been edited by tjaymadison (edited 06-15-2001).]

[AwARe]

I think tonight if I get a little time Im going to go back and revisit the P4. Just wanted to chime in here because I see all this talk about "P4 or not to P4".

Everything I read previously about the P4 suggested to me that the basic design of the P4 was a "Great Idea", but it very much looked like it didnt quite work out the way it was intended.

For the most part it reminded me of a "HotRod", in other words it looks great, sounds great, but when you get in and drive all it does is spin its wheels in the driveway http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif . The next generation, or what I mean to say is, when they get it all worked out, its probably going to blow all the current processors away, and I completely expect, and Im kinda waiting for intel to "take back" what they have lost recently, but for right now seems like there are better ways to spend your money.

As far as katydew getting systems for $400 less, I personally probably wouldnt pass it up. Its not so much that a PIII is a better way to go, as much as it is the fact that the P4 doesnt really offer all that much "more". So if you can save $400, why wouldnt you?

If they were the same $$$, Id have to say stick with the PIII, but depending on how many machines are purchased, we could be talking about quite alot of $$$ and probably not all that much difference in the final result performance wise...........

EDIT: As far as the monitors go katy, personally I prefer a CRT monitor over an LCD I believe the text is a bit clearer on the CRT's. Ive never really had to use an LCD monitor for any legnth of time, so it is entirely posible that after a bit I would get used to one, but Ive never purchased one because I have found many CRT monitors that to me personally look "much" better...

[This message has been edited by AwARe (edited 06-15-2001).]

[Katydew]

Thanks for all the input! I did some research online last night in addition to posting here, and most complaints about the P-4s seem to come from programmers. In addition to implementing a new architecture, Intel apparently eliminated utilization of some speed optimization techniques that are widely used with prior generation processors. (I was lost here in barrel shifter, multiple instruction decoder, etc.) So while the P-4 has the potential to way outperform the P-III, it can actually be slower using existing applications. It doesn't sound like the software developers are catering to Intel by rewriting applications to take advantage of the P-4. I read one article that accused the P-4 of lacking "platform stability" but it didn't seem particularly well documented with evidence.

My thoughts now are that using the applications that we do, we won't notice an appreciable difference in speed between the two processors, and why not save the $400? As far our requirements vs. the latest and greatest, the company's policy has always been to buy for what we expect our needs to be for the next couple of years, so that we don't have to replace as often. I agree that for some of the people in the office, the computers that they're buying are overkill. But for others, myself included, I think it increases productivity. The tax software that we use requires alot of processing, and I usually have other applications open while I'm using the tax software. It did occur to me that the consultant is probably making her commission based on the dollars we spend, and may not be totally objective. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif But I'm more concerned with getting computers that are reliable, stable, and that generally perform well than I am with her commission. That's why I asked for advice in an objective forum!

Any more advice or comments on what I've written, please post! :-)

Melanie

[AwARe]

katydew,

Wanted to add this earlier but I had to run out..

1 other thing to think about is the MotherBoards.....

Those PIII systems may have better MotherBoards then the P4 systems do for $400 less, or could be other things involved like slower HDD's etc....

Reguardless of what processor you choose, if the rest of the system isnt any good, then its not much gonna matter PIII or P4......

[yawningdog]

First of all, I don't know jack abou setting up a network,

That said, I can't understand how nobody suggested AMD stuff,

First of all, the athlon has 384 on-die cache memory. The PIII has much less at around 250, and almost unbelievably, the PIV has even less on-die cache than the PIII. Yeah, OK, it has a 400mhz fsb. You're still stuck with PC 800 memory. That seems pretty fast until you realize that the data bus to RAMBUS memory is only 16 bits wide. After the on-board FPU gets done doing the extra math, its throughput is less than DDR133.

After all is said and done, the 1.7 ghz PIV is about even in benchmark testing with the 1.33 ghz athlon, and a whole lot more expensive.

I would reccommend the LCD monitor for four reasons
1. They consume far less power than a CRT. And when you're running several of them all day long, they just might eventually pay for themselves.
2. They're much easier on the eyes.
3. They take up less space.
4. In the event you have customers coming through your workspace, It will make the business look more cutting-edge, and customers like that.

I would not, however, pay what this consultant is asking for an LCD monitor without shopping around. Those folks tend to overcharge.

------------------
Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.

[Paleo Pete]

No, I'm not suggesting paying $400 more for the P-III systems. I'd be willing to bet though, if you shop around a bit you'd be able to find good P-III systems that are less expensive than the P-4's. Since they're no longer "top-of-the-line" chances are you'll find some acceptible machines at reduced prices, with a bit of looking...

------------------
So many idiots, and only six bullets...
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[AwARe]

Pete brings up a point I was wondering earlier and didnt get around to asking.......

Exactly how much are these comps?

Posibly neither one of them is really all that much of a deal........