Okay. I have a 2004 Dell Optiplex 170L that's maxed out at 2GB RAM. The harddrive is 37 GB and the processor is pentium intel 4 at 2.8GHz. It's 32 bit. (Which made me lose Google Chrome.) I'm running Xubuntu 15.10 and plan on using the same in the "new" one.

Now, the new one is 2008. Does the "64x2 Dual core" mean it has 64 bit capability? (This would be important to me.) Any other feedback in terms of speed (I want to do some video editing--nothing huge.) or anything else? Thanks.

https://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/syd/5497361376.html

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 was introduced in 2005 and is one of the first generation 64-bit processors.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi Gregg...

Personally, I'd go for the ASUS machine in your other thread, if it's still available. I think you'll get better results with it.

Regards...

1 members found this post helpful.

I agree. If it were me, I'd spend the $35 on a Raspberry Pi 3 instead...

1 members found this post helpful.

I agree with post #3 and #4 .. so what are you doing still reading this?

1 members found this post helpful.

I have used a Dell Optiplex 740 in the past. (I'm not currently using it.) It works but it's nothing special. The integrated graphics is a bit slow. I wouldn't recommend it for you.

1 members found this post helpful.

Gregg,

Definitely the Asus one.

Its quad core CPU is THREE times faster than the AMD one in the Dell and far more suitable for your requirements.

It is also TEN times faster than your P4 @ 2.8 MHz.

As stated earlier, Xubuntu will fly on 3GB ram.

Stop faffing about and get the Asus one!

1 members found this post helpful.

I wouldn't be spending this much time deciding on sub $50 computers. If I were inclined or felt that one might be a total bust, I might buy both of them. But if it was important to not have any computer be a bust, I'd not buy used or old equipment.

1 members found this post helpful.

That one is significantly worse than the first. I wouldn't even take it if it were free, because I would just have to turn around and pay to have it recycled like it should have been years ago.

Why are you so caught up with these incredibly old, obsolete, and cheap machines? They are not a bargain. You will end up spending significantly more money on electricity trying to keep these things fed than you save compared to buying a MUCH newer and slightly more expensive alternative.

A $35 Raspberry Pi 3 would be better than this machine, and a $75 ODROID-XU4 would be better than the Asus you were looking at. I highly suggest you look for something in the $2-300 range that's just a couple of years old. It will last five times longer than these systems, and will use so much less power that it'll pay for itself within a few years compared to them. No to mention being so much faster that it'll save YOU hours and hours of waiting for them. How much is your time worth to you?

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks everybody. I'm afraid I'm getting a little into "paralysis by analysis." I don't even know what a Raspberry Pi 3 is. I'd like to get the Asus actually but in the other thread people said I needed to buy a separate GPU because it doesn't have integrated graphics. And they said I needed a power supply. So that has me holding off on the Asus. I'll keep trying to figure it out. Really appreciate all the help.

it didn't have the box inside of it? what????
it has to have some kind of video card and power supply in it already

can you not get a hold of him then ask him a few questions like,
1. what kind of video card does it have in it.
2. does it need a power supply too, because it comes with a cord.

No, the ASUS machine does have onboard VGA graphics. Take a look at the last picture in the advertisement and the product page I linked to. The port is blue in color...

Regards...

Recommend you keep it all in one thread too. I saw that other thread at some earlier point but didn't have anything to say about that other system. This one either actually, just the fact that you're sort of looking with all this effort at these cheapo systems.

The other one does have integrated graphics, it's just not going to be very good.

Computers are kind of like cars IMO. They start depreciating the moment you buy them, and after some time they're not useful for much more than scrap metal. In my experience, computers age around 2-3x faster than cars.

This means when you're looking at a 7 year old computer, that's like looking at a 14-21 year old car. You can probably find quite a few that still work, and might even be in decent shape, but chances are if something major hasn't already failed, it's coming up soon. If you already own it, fine, maybe you're saving up for a replacement, but you really shouldn't be going out and shopping for one of this era unless you have a really good reason (eg: for a teenage driver who's probably going to smash it into a tree in the first year anyway, etc).

Looking at an 11 year old computer is like looking at a 22-33 year old car. It's rare to find one that still works correctly (that hasn't been completely rebuilt by the previous owner), and anything still using the original parts is a ticking time bomb. Unless you absolutely must have that exact model for some crazy reason, it's probably just going to be a waste of money.

In addition to this comparison is the matter of efficiency. Cars haven't really changed that much, on the whole they're maybe 50% more efficient than they were 30 years ago. Computers, on the other hand, are orders of magnitude more efficient now than they were 10+ years ago. Old machines, while cheaper initially, burn through power and rack up the energy costs compared to newer models. Remember, if two processors have the same TDP (thermal design power), but one benchmarks twice as fast as the other, it means when you start to push the system it's going to use HALF the power, because it'll finish the job in half the time. When you have machine A that runs at 90W but can finish the job in 5 minutes and immediately drops back to ~2W idle power vs machine B that burns through 90W for a couple of hours before finally finishing, that really adds up.

I've heard tell that AMD and Linux does not mix well either, I do not know first hand,I've always made sure to get Intel CPU's.