8400 Dell processor choices

[Guest]

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

I see the differences in Pentium 4 GHz with pretty sharp differences in
cost. I'm not unwilling to spend more for better performance, but I use only
basic multimedia to hear voices, and I use my TV set and radio for anything
more complicated. No computer movies or record playing though I do collect
some photos. No complex graphics ... some minor photo editing. About the
only thing I do with CD-ROM (I don't have DVD) is use it for data storage,
and I'm not a gamer for anything more complicated than old Tetris.

Under these circumstances can someone tell me if or how much better, say, a
3.8 GHz processor is than a 3.2?

Thanks!

Ma

 

[Guest]

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

I agree with Ben, but there is always a "sweet spot" with processors it
seems.

In the case of the 8400 that spot is at the 3.4GHz. For an additional $80 I
think it's worth it - for an additional $216 for the 3.6 it isn't.

"Ma No" <oneday@at.ime> wrote in message
news:8L6Od.3256$mG6.2964@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I see the differences in Pentium 4 GHz with pretty sharp differences in
>cost. I'm not unwilling to spend more for better performance, but I use
>only basic multimedia to hear voices, and I use my TV set and radio for
>anything more complicated. No computer movies or record playing though I do
>collect some photos. No complex graphics ... some minor photo editing.
>About the only thing I do with CD-ROM (I don't have DVD) is use it for data
>storage, and I'm not a gamer for anything more complicated than old Tetris.
>
> Under these circumstances can someone tell me if or how much better, say,
> a 3.8 GHz processor is than a 3.2?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ma
>

 

[Guest]

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

Save your money... Ben Myers

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:35:00 GMT, "Ma No" <oneday@at.ime> wrote:

>I see the differences in Pentium 4 GHz with pretty sharp differences in
>cost. I'm not unwilling to spend more for better performance, but I use only
>basic multimedia to hear voices, and I use my TV set and radio for anything
>more complicated. No computer movies or record playing though I do collect
>some photos. No complex graphics ... some minor photo editing. About the
>only thing I do with CD-ROM (I don't have DVD) is use it for data storage,
>and I'm not a gamer for anything more complicated than old Tetris.
>
>Under these circumstances can someone tell me if or how much better, say, a
>3.8 GHz processor is than a 3.2?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ma
>
>

 

[Chuck]

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

I posted earlier about the differences between the 4700 and the 8400, and
opted for the 4700. My uses are very similar to yours. Why wouldn't you
also opt to save a few hundred dollars, and get a "souped up" 4700 instead
of the 8400?

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:35:00 GMT, Ma No <oneday@at.ime> wrote:

> I see the differences in Pentium 4 GHz with pretty sharp differences in
> cost. I'm not unwilling to spend more for better performance, but I use
> only
> basic multimedia to hear voices, and I use my TV set and radio for
> anything
> more complicated. No computer movies or record playing though I do
> collect
> some photos. No complex graphics ... some minor photo editing. About the
> only thing I do with CD-ROM (I don't have DVD) is use it for data
> storage,
> and I'm not a gamer for anything more complicated than old Tetris.
>
> Under these circumstances can someone tell me if or how much better,
> say, a
> 3.8 GHz processor is than a 3.2?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ma
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I did the very thing you are talking about and looked at prices to compare
and the souped-up 4700 actually cost more than the 8400 did for the exact
same features, like 3.2 GHz CPU, 80 GB Hard Drive, 1 Gb DDR2 memory. Now I
have a friend who has the souped up 4700 from QVC and that rocks since the
price was well below what the 8400 and the 4700 would have cost equipped.

Scotty

"Chuck" <urg44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newspslv6cfba9hywpr@hmpm2.neo.rr.com...
> I posted earlier about the differences between the 4700 and the 8400, and
> opted for the 4700. My uses are very similar to yours. Why wouldn't you
> also opt to save a few hundred dollars, and get a "souped up" 4700 instead
> of the 8400?

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks a lot to all, and Chuck I'm going to learn more about that 4700

Ma

 

[Chuck]

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

I think what computer is the best deal (4700 vs 8400) must depend a lot on
what kind of incentives Dell is offering when one gets serious about
ordering a new computer. For example, I was doing a lot of comparisons of
different configurations on both the 4700 and the 8400, and all of a
sudden one of the "customize it" lists showed a free 17" flat screen
monitor, free 3 year warranty, free McAfee virus package, free floppy
drive or 64 MB USB memory key and free sound card upgrade and speakers
-well, not exactly free, but a package price that was cheaper what I would
get by manually selecting all the same options. In fact, I luckily save
the package in my "shopping cart", because I never was able to find the
exact same deal again. I ordered it, and so far they haven't come back to
tell me there was a pricing error. It was almost like their system sensed
that I was a serious shopper, and offered me a deal they thought I might
not be able to refuse, kind of like a car salesmen or live phone
salesperson might do. Anyway, I think I will be happy with the 4700
package, but agree that the 8400 could just as good or a better deal,
depending on the details of exactly what you want. By way, I got just the
system you mentioned - 3.2 GHz CPU, 80 GB HD and 1 Gb DDR2 memory. The
4700 system was about $200 less than the 8400.

Chuck

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:48:51 -0500, Chopperdad <scotty@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I did the very thing you are talking about and looked at prices to
> compare
> and the souped-up 4700 actually cost more than the 8400 did for the exact
> same features, like 3.2 GHz CPU, 80 GB Hard Drive, 1 Gb DDR2 memory.
> Now I
> have a friend who has the souped up 4700 from QVC and that rocks since
> the
> price was well below what the 8400 and the 4700 would have cost equipped.
>
> Scotty
>
> "Chuck" <urg44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> newspslv6cfba9hywpr@hmpm2.neo.rr.com...
>> I posted earlier about the differences between the 4700 and the 8400,
>> and
>> opted for the 4700. My uses are very similar to yours. Why wouldn't
>> you
>> also opt to save a few hundred dollars, and get a "souped up" 4700
>> instead
>> of the 8400?
>
>