Quad Core Acer PC with TOP SPECS for £358

Sid_Harper

Jony wrote: »

...thing is so slow and noisy and constantly having the receptionist asking me for help!

Sounds like a pretty powerful machine if it's trying to fix you up with the receptionist... :rotfl:

...sounds like you're well overdue for an upgrade though (the receptionist, that is)

On a slightly different note I've just posted a bit of a laptop bargain (I think) for anyone looking for a basic machine - Toshiba Dual-Core laptop for £275, with option for extending the warranty 2 years £30

deanos

Quad core is overkill unless you are going to be rendering videos for example, lots of programs dont even utalise quad core either so it could be a big waste of money,in many cases a dual core is just as fast

tin

nk8 wrote: »

The intel quad cores are basically two dual cores mounted one on top of the other, hence bottlenecked results when parsing data between one bus to the other bus, thus unless a program supported full quad core completely, or had some decent support for multi threading in dual core, there is always that slow down of data (even by nano seconds).

The AMD Phenom is true quad core technology with a fantastic 1800Mhz front side bus!

woah there! Don't get me wrong I am AMD through and through but most of the stuff I read on the internet indicates the AMD quad cores just do not match the intel stuff for performance yet. Yes the intel is a bodge and the AMD is a genuinely well designed quad core processor - but AMD still can't compete on speed.

Here's one of them (the summing up page for those who don't want to read 4000 pages of discussion ) - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=16

Frugal_Moose

Thanks for that link, for those who cant be fussed to read it. It states that the fastest AMD quad core isnt as quick as the slowest Intel quad core......quite surprising.

Thanks to OP but I will wait for the Aldi deal next week.

syanide

deanos wrote: »

Quad core is overkill unless you are going to be rendering videos for example, lots of programs dont even utalise quad core either so it could be a big waste of money,in many cases a dual core is just as fast

Maybe at present when most software doesn't use the quad core configuation but in a years time when more software uses the capabilities of the 4 cores if present they would not be overkill.. But in fact be a better solution for most people at more or less the same cost of a dual core.

I write corporate software and we currently doing solutions that take advantage of quad core cpu, some of the software is server based and some client based.. :beer:

deanos

For the average joe blogs i dont think its worth the extra expense, i nearly got a Quad core system but the extra £100 wasnt worth it, my dual core im typing on now is plenty fast enough and dosent seem to lock up like my old AMD system when loads of programs are running.

Im sure they will come down in price soon as they always do, but then there will probably be 8 cores on a chip it never ends does it

Sid_Harper

The most important point I think here is that quad-core technology is not something everyone needs. IF you are going to be playing cutting edge games, running sophisticated (expensive!) software such as photoshop or doing lots of video rendering, then some current (and more future) software might take advantage of it.

But today, there's little advantage. And buying a future proof PC? *Always* a false economy - something better will be cheaper very soon.

My advice is always buy what you need today when it comes to PCs. Most peoples' needs will not change for a couple of years, and nor will they go out and buy, say, the very latest Microsoft Office when it hits the streets.

My 4 year old Pentium4 HT 3GHz machine I'm writing this on is right now letting me surf the web while Nero Vision chomps through hours of AVIs to cobble together a DVD for me. I'm also running Outlook, Excel and Word in the background. It's a completely usable machine!

EDIT: just seen Deanos's post - agree with you entirely mate!

Patr100

It's true that most users won't notice the difference in moving from the latest Processor to their last one unless they are either doing several processor intensive tasks at once, where the Quad or Dual Core helps , or are looking to shave often seconds rather than minutes from such activities as video rendering. A useful comparison chart here:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=1076&model2=871&chart=436-

rowla

Saw this 'web exclusive' from PC world today.

For £499 you get,

• Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 2.4GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache
• Vista Home Premium
  
• 2GB Memory
• 400GB Hard Drive
• 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8500 Graphics
• Dual Layer DVD Rewriter
• 20" AOC Widescreen Monitor

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/product/seo/819725

My desktop died this week & i'm shopping for a new one.
Reckon this is a good deal?

Leeds_Fan_2

Along with the processor and graphics card, its also has a remote, a wireless keyboard and mouse, built in wireless, a decent amount of connectivity (card readers, 8 usb ports, firewire) and a tv tuner.
It also looks pretty good as well and the build quality is nice as well. Very happy.