This is going to be a dumb question...

Which to get; both being Dell E1405s.

2 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor, 1 Gig ram, and 120 gig 5400 rpm hdd
or
2 Ghz Core Duo, 2 Gigs ram, and 100 gig 7200 rpm, but this one is refurbished.

I'm not sure which to pick, as I'd probably be getting the better deal with the second choice, but I'm not sure about what the future holds for 64 bit instead of 32 bits. They come out to roughly the same price, and those are the main differences.

 

1st one. You might be risking going through a hard time with dell if you go refurbished. The 1st one is great. Good specs

 

refurbished if fine as long as they still give full warrenty with it...

* no question, is a dumb question, if you don't know the answer*

 

Its just that I'm still on the fence about core2duo. Like, I'm sure I'd still have a solid machine for quite some time, but would it be a better idea to just move to the newer tech?

 

the core 2 duo is for the most part the same as the core duo proccessor exept it has 64 bit rather than 32 bit... if you would like to upgrade to vista 64 bit will be main stream eventually but vista 32 bit will still be around.

hope that helps and if my facts are not correct someone correct me

 

Yeah, thats what I meant. The problem is, if 32 will hold out, then I can just up the ram.

Er, I'd probabliy be better off with the first config and spending a little more on 1.5 gigs of ram...Oh well, seems pretty solid either way.

 

the only real gain from core 2 in your situation, would be running 64 bit applications, if your not going to, and most of us wont for quite awhile, core duo will suit your needs just fine, also a note, to really get the befeits of 64 bit apps, you'll need 4 gigs of ram, and as far as I know the inspiron line supports only 2

 

Eek. 4 gigs?!

Man, I thought 1 gig sticks were expensive enough. In that case, thanks

 

Uh, this is a no brainer, imo. First of all, the second choice is REFURBISHED, while the first is new. You also said they came out to be the same price. The core 2 duo is better than the core duo is ALL aspects except for maybe battery life (and it is better in battery life as well depending on which reviews you look at). It runs slightly faster and is a whole lot more futureproof. Even if YOU don't currently run 64-bit apps, the timeframe for general computing to switch to 64-bit is not within your own grasp. If say by next year most developers start to write apps in 64-bit for whatever reason, you don't want to be left in the cold.

Finally, yes, the first choice does have less ram and a slower harddrive. But getting some new ram and a new harddrive from someplace like newegg is MUCH cheaper. Dell charges something like 250$+ to upgrade to 2Gb of ram, which is why that refurbished system costs so much. The same 2 Gb of ram from newegg would cost you something like $180, and you can sell your original 2x512 mb sticks on ebay afterwards. Just my 2 cents.

 

Actually...thanks for that last post. I recalculated everything, and the new one with C2D comes out to $10 less with only 1 gig of ram...oh well, its all good.

I was going to go with the refurb up until going through the stuff again...thanks for helpin me change my mind quiong

 

id buy brand new, but i would not bother with a 64 bit processor, can you actually say your going to use it to its fullest potential? I know 99% of us won't until a couple years.

 

oh and here is some nice info on that 64 bit processor thanks to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
and what intel says about it
http://www.intel.com/business/technologies/64-bit.htm?ppc_cid=ggl|64bit_ia_solutions|k16FA|s

 

Well that's certainly one way to look at it, outkast. Although, few people use a core duo or even a Pentium M processor to its fullest potential. This C2D vs CD debate has been raised so many times by now. Most of the time, your computer's cpu usage is around 1-5%. Is the "unused" bit wasted money then? Certainly not, because its nice to know that you can do more if you needed to. Hell, my AMD k6-2 400mhz processor from 7 years ago runs Windows XP, albeit a bit slowly. Why bother with new technology at all, by your reasoning. Surfing the web and using word on that computer requires about 25% CPU usage. So I'm not even using that processor to its fullest potential most of the time. When you say 99% of us won't be using 64bit for a couple of years, where are you getting this data from? You can only speak for yourself. Like I said before, YOU cannot control how fast the industry will adopt 64bit computing, but it will inevitably replace 32bit, just as 32bit replaced 16 bit.

Secondly, C2D vs CD is not simply 32bit + 64bit capable versus only 32bit capable. You are also getting higher performance. Look at the anandtech article http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=1
They found the core 2 duo to be better than the core duo in every aspect, including battery life. Add on the fact that it makes you future-proof.. I agree with their conclusion -- if you already have a core duo, the performance increase is probably not reason enough to upgrade.. but if you are getting a new notebook, there really is no reason not to get C2D.

Finally, if money is an issue, my opinion has always been to get the better processor and get the cheapest ram and harddrive configuration instead. Down the line, if you want to upgrade the ram and HD, it's very easy. On the other hand, if you pay for Dell's overpriced ram and HD upgrades, but skimp on the processor.. you won't be able to upgrade without voiding your warantee, and it is alot more difficult, especially for people who aren't comfortable with taking their computer apart. In the end, when you as a consumer vote with your wallet, you always want to give yourself the most options possible, such as the option of going 64bit should you choose to, and having higher performance should you need it, as long as your budget is accomodating. (and he already said that the C2D configuration is actually cheaper by $10).

 

Actually, Dell's HD upgrade for the 5400 rpm ones aren't that expensive; 120 gigs for $75 more - and I'm using the 20% off coupon with this one.

Anyways, thanks again....now to order now, or wait for the next few weeks to see if I can find a better deal on this - Probably order in the next few days, but faster system if I wait....

Gotta hate this, yanno?

 

That is true quiong. By all means I can understand wanting the latest in technology. I am just a bit of a practical thinker. Heck I still run 2000 pro on my home pc for the fact that to this day its more stable, takes less resources to run smoothly and has never crashed. Xp on the other hand has always been more problematic. Also lastley I suggest waiting mainly for not taking the early run of the 64 bit porcessor. Might be worth the wait to let it come out and any kinks or issues with the first couple lines of chips to be worked out. Then again screw it heh, just get the silly thing and make it good bragging rights with all ur buddies

 

in all honesty, I think your money would be better spent on an either an extra or higher capacity battery than the core2 chip, unless you know for certain your going to use 64 bit apps in the near future, its going to stay a 32bit world for quite some time, 64bit capeability for home computers has been, and still is, simply a marketing tool, 64 bit sounds sexier than 32, and when amd launched the a64, their ads led you to believe that you would net performance from 64 bits right out of the box, and while an a64 chip would spank an intel chip over 1ghz faster in some cases, it never had anything to do with 64,but it did kinda make up for the lack of clockspeed in uneducated consumers minds,as far as future proofing, when 64 bit computing hits the mainstream, it will be pretty safe to say out current 64 bit setups will be totally obsolete, as it stands now, most of our systems today wont hold enough ram to get any gains from it, and it actually hinders performance

 

Well, I think whether or not 64bit computing is actually hindered by less than 4gb of RAM is still debatable, if I'm reading correctly that wikipedia article that outkast posted above calls it a "common misconception." In any case, even in 32bit apps, core 2 duo is up to 20% faster at the same or better battery life.

Well, I actually have a core duo hp dv8000t, and not a core 2 duo. But my point still stands - battery, ram, HD are all very user upgradable down the line, and you can get them at prices cheaper than what Dell charges. CPU, not so much. Only a few users would be willing to crack open their case and upgrade the CPU. I bought my dv8000t a few months ago, and I'm satisfied with it. But if i were to buy a NEW computer today, I would buy C2D.

 

I agree with you, exactly right. Look at whats needed for a 64bit system anyways. Sure when windows vista comes out and you have 4 gb of ram that 64 bit processor will come in handy, but why the need for so much right now? Even in 2 years time I doubt I will upgrade without making sure im not doing it to soon.

 

for same clock, same cache chips, the difference between core2 duo and core duo is more in the 5 to 10% range, in real world side by side comparisons, I highly doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between the two outside of benchmarking, wich is not a real world task, if I were to get a new computer right now, the only way I would go core2 would be for the chips with 4meg cache, and they are way overpriced for what gains they bring to the table, I'm not saying everyone should stay away from core 2, but honestly, your not going to really get anything out of it at this stage of the game aside from bragging rights, wich to me is worthless, I would rather spend the extra scratch on something that would benefit me in the here now,instead of something that may or may not become useful during the products lifespan