Windows 10: power supply and cpu speed

My main computer, a desktop built by a local shop originally came with windows 7, I did free upgrade to 10.
I have been thinking of getting an all in one since they appear to be more reliable now than years ago.
My questions right now are 2. I will probably have more later.
1. My power supply in this 5 year old computer is 460 yet it is difficult to find an all in one over 120 without going for the very expensive aio.
2. My cpu is i5 3.3 yet most aio computers are at i5 2.5

I can't figure out why my 5 year old desktop is more powerful than these aio computers.

:)

 

Fake high CPU usage - High fan usage - Windows 10

So, here is another finding: the Power Plan was set to "Balanced". The CPU utilization was at 100% and Speed was 3.06 GHz (which I assume is overclocking).

So, I changed the Power Plan to "Power Saver". The CPU utilization went down to 5% and speed went down to 1.20 GHz.

The problem is partially solved with Power Saver set as the power plan.

However, the CPU overclocking in Balanced mode is something new.

 

BAD N96'S CPU

Besides, the CPU RAW power is many times lost in the OS that is running at the application level, and like some said the architecture of the video, audio and other things will be different so in some cases the performance of one CPU may be better even
if the CPU is less powerful.

Many times the bottle neck is not the CPU speed but the data bus speeds or other pipelines. The interesting thing will be to compare two devices running the same software on the different CPU configurations and comparing them side by side.

 

I assume by 460 and 120 you are talking about power supply wattage.

Many all-in-ones use low-power processors in order to reduce power consumption, which in turn reduces the amount of cooling required, which in turn reduces the size of the computer. Think of it like sticking the internals of a laptop onto the back of a monitor versus sticking the internals of your desktop machine onto the back of a monitor.

There are higher-end AIOs with full-powered processors. But they tend to be considerably more expensive than getting a comparable desktop and monitor separately.

 

All in one computers are convenient. And that is about all they have going for them.

For what you get they tend to be rather expensive. Upgrade options are comparable to that of a laptop, or in other words very limited. The CPU is usually soldered to the motherboard making upgrades almost impossible. Likely all available RAM slots will be filled so upgrades mean replacing existing modules. Video is usually built into the motherboard and not upgradeable. Servicing an all in one is more difficult, and expensive if you need someone to do it for you.

Power supplies are weak because there is almost nothing that can be upgraded and thus there is no no need for more. A more powerful PSU would consume more power and make cooling more difficult in the confined space.

CPU clock speeds can be directly compared only with otherwise identical processors. As those in question are about 5 years apart that is not the case. There are other factors that influence performance that are often more important.

Performance of an all in one will not compare favorably with a desktop of similar specifications. Low power consumption is generally of more importance than performance. Sometimes laptop type CPUs are used.

If convenience and small size is critical then an all in one might be worth considering. Otherwise a desktop will get you better performance at a lower price. And upgradeability and serviceability will be much better.

 

I thought maybe they had advanced far enough to be considered for what I do which is nothing intense, no heavy duty programs like photoshop or the heavy games.

At present I can't justify the difference between hp all in one and an imac but was wondering if there is something better about the imac.

 

Miller is right. The all-in-ones are crap.

 

All in ones are nothing more than a laptop crammed inside a monitor.

 

I've owned a Dell AIO XPS 2720 that I bought for my son 4 years ago. I don't think they're necessarily crap, but I do agree that they combine the worst characteristics of a laptop and a desktop in one hard-to-access and expensive-to-repair package. In the last year, I've had to replace the screen, the PSU, and the power switch on this unit. The GeForce GT750M card has also failed, and I decided against replacing it (too expensive at around $200). Now, I'm using only the built-in Intel HD 4600 GPU. It works fine as a test machine for Insider Preview stuff but the next time it breaks, I'm going to gut the good parts, and give it to Goodwill. Sigh.
--Ed--

 

Well, I guess I will have to go with desktop with less than a full size tower, trying to get all on the computer desk without making it look like a storage shed that only has things put in it and nothing comes out.

 

All in one computers do have their place and I expect we will see a lot more of them in the future. They take up less space, are simpler to set up, look attractive, and are more portable than a desktop or tower. To the typical computer buyer these are not small things. As mentioned previously they have some serious and very real disadvantages but they are not the kind of thing most buyers would initially think of, you won't see them mentioned in computer ads, and sales people likely won't either.

But if you want performance, upgradeability or serviceability a desktop or tower will server you much better. As a long term computer enthusiast myself these things are of supreme importance and the inconveniences are scarcely worth mentioning.