silversolitaire

I'm thinking about buying a new laptop. It's going to be a Dell. Given the nature of Dell, I have many options to customize my computer. Since I do want a nice machine, but not necessarily spend a fortune, I'm trying to cut back on unnecessary spending. What I basically want is a laptop that'll allow me to do graphics processing reasonably well. I don't worry about that. But I also want to be able to play a couple of games I couldn't play just yet due to requirement limitations (namely Gothic 3 and future Sims 3). I'm not a core gamer, I don't need to run FPS at maximum frame rate or anything like that. Of course I would get a kick out of playing Sims at hires, but it's not totally necessary.

So, question is, with this set-up which is pretty much set:

4096MB 800MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM
256MB ATI® Radeon™ HD 3450 graphics card

I know the graphics card could be better, but 256MB dedicated RAM is all I could get for any of those systems without paying through my nose. The other one would offer a GeForce, but the drawbacks for that system are just too great.

Now I wonder which processor would be best. Naturally, the better the processor the better in general, right? However, the better option adds 200 EUR, so I'm wondering whether this is worth it or not. I mean, if all a 2nd level cache twice the size does is give me one frame more per second or something, then screw it. But if the improvement would be noticeable, I'd kinda like it. However, neither I, nor Tom, nor bro really know for sure.

Anyway, these are the options:

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8400 (2.20GHz/1066Mhz FSB/3MB cache)
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T9400 (2.530GHz/1066Mhz FSB/6MB cache)

So, as you can see, more gigahertz, same front side bus, double 2nd lvl cache. Any input?

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated,

"If General Motors had kept up with the technology computer industry has, we would the be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:

If G.M had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.

Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.

For some reason you would simply accept this.

Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive -- but would run on only five percent of the roads.

The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

The airbag system would ask, "Are you sure?", before deploying.

Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

Every time a new car was introduced, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again, because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

Entries tagged with computer

Computer experts anyone?

nabbed from pistorius

Profile

February 2009

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags