We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

I challenge anyone to find a better laptop deal...

2»

Comments

  • aliEnRIK
    aliEnRIK Posts: 17,741 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    pete96 wrote: »
    Would that stil be the case if its a 64 bit 2GHz dual core running 64 bit edition of vista? Plus an extra 3GB of RAM to add into the mix... over my original desktop

    Id say so yes

    The 1 gig of ram on your desktop will be 'bottlenecking' the one you have now a little but that 3.4Ghz core will still be fairly motoring along as XP doesnt need as much as Vista to run happily. The problem with dual cores is that the 2nd core is rarely used to its full potential.
    Id recommend something along the lines of 2.5 Ghz dual core or more (But the cost will fly up then)
    :idea:
  • Jakg
    Jakg Posts: 2,267 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    aliEnRIK wrote: »
    A 2Ghz dual core will be quite slow compared to a 3.4Ghz single core for running windows generally speaking

    !!!!!!!! - the P4 is a way worse architecture and will be a lot slower than either a Core 2 or an AMD. A Core 2 can do at least twice the calculations per GHz than a P4...

    64-bit won't make much a difference (although I would recommend it).

    I'd look at the £399 HP 6735b on eBuyer or the £479 Acer 6930G on Play
    Nothing I say represents any past, present or future employer.
  • aliEnRIK
    aliEnRIK Posts: 17,741 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php

    The 3.4 does around 480
    The 2 GHz DUAL CORE does around 1050 (Running BOTH cores at the same time)
    (Benchmarked numbers)

    BUT ~ theyre all running the same software and operating systems whilst Vista definitely runs slower than XP for general computing and that 2nd core isnt going to be running much. So halving the 1050 gives us a little over 500 and then take off the fact its running Vista
    :idea:
  • scotsbob
    scotsbob Posts: 4,632 Forumite
    I'll accept that challenge. Last week I bought a Sony Vaio VGN-FW21L from the Silverburn branch of Tesco for £283 reduced from £699.
    Identical to your specs including graphics card except mine has Bluetooth but 3Gb instead of 4GB
  • Jakg
    Jakg Posts: 2,267 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    aliEnRIK wrote: »
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php

    The 3.4 does around 480
    The 2 GHz DUAL CORE does around 1050 (Running BOTH cores at the same time)
    (Benchmarked numbers)
    I doubt the multithreading is that good - and for general use I find Vista "snappier" than XP.

    Lets take a loook at SuperPi - 20 seconds for the Core 2 using a single core, 40 seconds + for the P4...
    Nothing I say represents any past, present or future employer.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.