Looking for a desktop. Big difference?
I’ve been using AMD’s in my machines for the past two years, haven’t experienced any major problems or hiccups. Unless you’re a hardcore PC gamer or use intensive CPU applications, I don’t think you would notice any difference between the two.
Used to be AMD all day, but over the last two years the intel chips have become much much better than AMD’s. I still have one machine running an AMD chip but all my laptops are intel.
I used to be a huge pro-AMD guy. However, Intel just flat-out makes better processors.
I picked up a 550 buck desktop with the i3 in it. Thi thing is wicked fast!
QuantJock_MBA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I picked up a 550 buck desktop with the i3 in it. > Thi thing is wicked fast! I bought a Gateway 5927 notebook 2 weeks ago for my wife for 499. It was supposed to have a i3 in it but GW screwed up and put an i5 in it. It blows the hell out of my 2yo “high performance” GW Core2 Duo. The new icores rock.
focus on the amt of RAM.
Quantjock thanks for posting this, i am planning to buy a desktop too and am way too confused. Like bpdulog said it depends on what you do i guess. I don’t play games but use matlab and planning to learn R. And I have lots of excel files and pdfs and internet open at the same time. I guess I will need a very fast processor like intel and I am getting very good feedback on intel. What brand are you planning to buy? There are HPs on bestbuy but the price tags are over $1,000. When I look at the comments it looks like gamers mostly buying these computers so it feels like I can find a good deal around $700.
I got a 6 gig ram i3 for 550 bucks. Does what I need it to fast. I would opt for the i7 and 8 gig if you’re prepared to spend 700 plus. I don’t know brand differnces do perhaps someone can explain what differnces exist if any.
I got a 6 gig ram i3 for 550 bucks. Does what I need it to fast. I would opt for the i7 and 8 gig if you’re prepared to spend 700 plus. I don’t know brand differnces do perhaps someone can explain what differnces exist if any.
^Build your own, its easy and it will be way better and faster than anything you can get out of the box for typically half the price.
why you people buying desktops? The only reason I can see to buy a desktop these days is gaming or video editing.
I always thought computer chips were commodities. So there is an actual difference ha? nice to know.
adehbone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why you people buying desktops? The only reason I > can see to buy a desktop these days is gaming or > video editing. More bang for your buck. If mobility is not a requirement, then a desktop will give you substantially better performance for the same cost.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to be a huge pro-AMD guy. However, Intel > just flat-out makes better processors. This is true, AMD doesn’t compete with Intel processors anymore. Even people at AMD have admitted this to me. AMDs best group is their graphics department (ATI).
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always thought computer chips were commodities. > So there is an actual difference ha? > > nice to know. I heard this argument when I worked at a hard drive manufacturer. It was the main driver behind the idea of cutting HDD warranties from 3 years to 1. Sales dropped 20% within 3 months. They reinstated the 3yr policy *and* extended the HDD’s purchased under the 1yr to 3. People who say “commodity” in IT circles forget the strong nature of how IT people follow their products. Brand loyalty is huge but brand and performance differentiation are more important. I would hazard to guess that viewership of computer hardware review media far outstrips car review media.
Mr. Pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I used to be a huge pro-AMD guy. However, > Intel > > just flat-out makes better processors. > > > This is true, AMD doesn’t compete with Intel > processors anymore. Even people at AMD have > admitted this to me. AMDs best group is their > graphics department (ATI). AMD took its eye off the ball after it launched the Athlon. They had Intel by its nuts because the P4 was such an absolute crap product. P4 had high heat, low performance per mhz, high power consumption, high cost, low yield, and it couldn’t ramp up Ghz because of all of that. AMD followed up with some good products, but Ruiz wouldn’t let the engineers run with it. Then came the ATI acq., which I said was a horrible mistake. After that Intel fought back with the Centrino, which was nothing more than the P3 with low heat and optimized architecture (out of Intel’s Israeli R&D facility). Every processor from Intel since then has been based off of the Centrino and AMD just can’t fight back. If AMD had capitalized on Intel’s mis-step and not acquired ATI, things might have different. However, Ruiz was still a crap CEO. The Core i’s are pretty damn nice chips