Pink netbook ;)
6600 I think is still regarded as the best chip for the money.
It would mean going over to the dark side though.
On the server side I guess its more of a question of load that dictates hardware needs. But the desktop...
...it's all about the size of your e-pen*s... err... needs.
Kind of like driving to the grocery store in a Bugatti.....hey, its still a car right?
Exactly. 1001 HP? Hey, groceries are heavy, especially since I would be buying all canned food since I spent all my money on the car.
For the price of a Bugatti I am thinking that canned food might be feline related. But hey, the car is mighty fine.
Cat chow, its whats for dinner!
If I were you, I woudn't go for quad. It doesn't sound like it would be worth it.
I will be building a new computer sometime this year, and I am even thinking of going dual core, since the only intensive thing I do with a computer is gaming (though I don't get too much of that in right now). I may start doing small music recording, but it wouldn't even be very intensive.
So, I think quad is really only for people doing a lot of non-gaming, intensive work or people really worried about future-proofing.
Intel Quad core all the way. If you EVER think you may do some video editing (have kids), photoshop(take pictures), or just even have an ipod (handbrake) you will be amazed at the difference.
Then overclock that sucker. I've got a Q6600 running at 3.6Ghz on air.
$215
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017
- Ripster
Intel or AMD - whatever. The point I was trying to make is go for the Quad - especially since both of these cost the same and overclock to 3.6G on air.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471
- Ripster
I don't know if I have the ninja skills to overclock though. I was never much into doing that.
It seems like a quad core would be overkill. And just to make you guys laugh a bit, its not like I really do all that much. I don't game on PC's (anymore), I have no interest in overclocking either. My world is through a web browser, and email of course. I don't do anything that really requires a powerful CPU. But the price/performance is acceptable and I always like a "faster machine".
karlito and rdjack21
I didn't think of SSD.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227372
Are you using that as your system drive? I wonder if you could put them in a raid 0.
I could see using SSD as the system drive for fast boots and still use traditional drives for data.
I am using 4G of ram and to tell the truth thats quite a bit for what I am doing. I probably was ok at 2G. All things considered I suppose I/O off of the drive is the limiting factor.
Rdjack. Just noticed you put TRACKBALLs in your sig.
With enough momentum Geekhack could turn from a keyboard into a trackball forum.
Nah.......
- Ripster
Once I have figured out which board I want to use at work...
rdjack21
I need to check that out. I have some parts on order as is. The OS is running on a single disc right now, when I upgrade I will go to a raid 0 which should improve the speed.
Later on I can implement the SSD drives.
I am running linux so there is some reading that I will need to do. As always, there is probably something that will bite me if I don't do the due diligence.
Like that'll happen. :rolleyes:
:smile:
Quad core versus Dual core
I'm using mine on Ubuntu so no issue there. One of the things you want to do is to limit the drive to be mostly read with very little write operations. The easiest way to do that is put /tmp /var /home on your hard drive and every thing else on the SSD. Also just so you know one of the SSD's we are talking about here will outperform your RAID0 read performance even if you use VelociRaptor's for your RAID drives. For writes the RAID0 will beat it depending on the drives you use but they are catching up fast. So for now the best place for SSD's is for boot/application drives. Just think about it the fastest HD out their the VelociRaptor can only sustain 119MB/s but this SSD will do 255MB/s. I wish I could find that graph on ANandTech which showed the SSD's slamming VelociRaptor RAID's but I can't.
As you can tell I'm sold on the SSD's but as you said you do need to read up on them a little so you understand how to implement them to get the best performance out of them. Those two articles I linked to previously should be a good start though especially the fist one as it explains how they work and explains the problems with SSD's. The second one is really a follow up that shows that the shipping version of the Vortex SSD is even faster than the one tested in the first article.
Thanks for the excellent advice. I am researching it now.
So what are your boot times? And are you running 9.04?
Boot times? Who reboots their system?
Not running 9.04 yet but I was planning on installing it this weekend. So will let you know how that goes.
Four cores is nice, but if you're not using an application that can utilize those, then you're really just running on a slow two core processor. I guess it depends on what you do...I know most games don't even support 4 cores, as well as most photo editing software (only some parts of Photoshop run more than 2 cores). I guess if you're running Vista, a lot of the UI can tie up some processing power. If you don't use many applications that utilize more than two cores...then you're just bottlenecking yourself to a 'moderate' 2 core machine
edit: IMO, get a beefy two core, use Tomshardware to find what the new hotness is...but a chip brand should not hold you back if it's testing well on benchmarks and lifetime
I've got a hand me down PC thing going:
1) I get the latest
2) Hand me down goes to son for gaming
3) Stick the 3rd generation in a wiring closet downstairs - right now it's a media server for video, pictures, backups, .....
4) Donate the oldest (either school or we have a local PC recycler)
The AMD X2 would be fine in a media server box. My X2 is running Windows Media Center and my wife loves being able to watch TV recorded shows ala Tivo but 1 better - I've got it set up with DVRMSToolbox to automatically strip commercials. Also for Hulu, Youtube, etc an X2 is more than enough.
Of course, a big time sink to build 2 PCs at the same time.
- Ripster
99% of applications are not multithreaded and desktop OS processor load balancing is practically nonexistent. Get a dual core unless you like wasting money on extra energy, you can overclock them more if you want to anyway and it you will be able to get more from it that way.
May be true if you're not into video but then you don't get to have one of these:Show Image(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2272&stc=1&d=1239731473)
Brings a smile to my face every time I open up my box and keeps my legs warm.
- Ripster
May be true if you're not into video but then you don't get to have one of these:Heh, don't run final cut then, it renders with 1 CPU.
Heh, don't run final cut then, it renders with 1 CPU.
Boy, Pook, you're really analyzing this one:confused::confused::confused::confused:. Especially when you've said you don't need the extra power. Just get some cableties and strap that heatsink down:eek::eek::eek::eek:
Anyway, being stubborn I'm still pushing for quad. Ya gotta look at articles written in 2009, not 2007.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=4090&page=18
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/259381-28-quad-core-dual-core
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=2242735
The last is the best. It all depends on what software you run.
- Ripster
Just ribbing you. Anyone with more than 2 keyboards can be considered obsessive.
I missed this though. What did you order?
- Ripster
Hah, I thought you'd go quad in the end.Show Image(http://mars.walagata.com/w/mysticx/avsi2.jpg)
- Ripster
I went with the phenom 920 that runs at 2.8G. The 940 looked interesting but it seemed to be aimed at overclockers.
I have an old q6600, I run it at 3200MHz 1.2V with all the powersaving tech on, full undervolted noctua cooler and fans. Silent as a whisper, cool enough (hdd in a suspended scythe box).
There's no reason to not go quad. Only benchmark overclockers care about dual core now ....
Great things like talking about developers, helping create jobs in the chair industry, and ****ing killing Google? :p
Maybe comparing the phenom to the i7 is a bit unfair. I still think that bang for the buck AMD is a better deal. I need to read the reviews again. If I can remember to do so tonight when I get in I will post what I am reading.
Really a focus on computers should be on, Monitor(anyone noticed how cheap theese things are now?, grab a 26" or two) keyboard(!!!!) Harddrive(SSD) and Grafics card(your only focus for gaming). nothing else really.
Unless you actually need the CPU power for real computing ( I do) but that is such a minisqule part of humanity its almost laughable.
Manyak
Good mornin.
I disagree, read the reviews again, As already said You putting that i7 against that phenom is wrong, use an old cheaper Core2Quad you end up with a cheaper and faster system.
Im not saying this all reviews published are saying this, read them.
.
Now for coffee.
.
got coffee "ahhhhhh"
So read the reviews, this is the point, as one says for instance the Cheaper Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 Is faster then AMD Phenom II X4 810, other reviews use other processors and this is the point.
Another said that very Chip AMD Phenom II X4 810 was AMDs try to get in on Intels Price/Performance but it Does right out fail.
I never go by views, Go by facts. and hell all facts are saying this. why are you debating this? Not read reviews?
AMD catching up yes. But it is obvious they need another year or so, and some luck.
I largely agree (although you do need a decent CPU for some gaming) and encourage people to look at the screen and keyboard/mouse quality and well as how noisy the thing is. Unfortunately, manufacturers and sellers don't provide any useful information on the quality so the only real way to decide is to limit your search to those products that have several reviews availible (assuming you don't have a large range of computers to go and play with locally). This is more of a problem with laptops since at least you can generally fix whatever's wrong with a desktop.
That's why you build it yourself! :D
When you do it yourself there are a lot of things you can add to make it quiet that OEM PCs don't do. Such as rubber grommets for the fans and hard drives, sound dampening foam for the case walls, rubber case feet, giant CPU heatsinks with low RPM fans, underclocking to reduce heat (and therefore turn the fans down), choosing low-noise hard drives....