Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
PC I would buy right now
We're going to get these new servers at work. In the meantime, we've got one beta server to play with. I can't tell if it has 2 or 4 processors, but they are dual-core Opterons. This machine is one of the fastest computers I've ever used. My desktop computer is a 1.8 Ghz AMD Athlon XP. My work laptop is even less. The other computers in our house are even less powerful than that.
My current desktop has less than a year of life left in it. One of the two video card fans is dead. The SATA controller is a little flaky. I had to replace the north-bridge fan with a blue heatsink because it died. So, being bored at work, I designed a new computer on Newegg. Lots of rebates!
Check it out!
My current desktop has less than a year of life left in it. One of the two video card fans is dead. The SATA controller is a little flaky. I had to replace the north-bridge fan with a blue heatsink because it died. So, being bored at work, I designed a new computer on Newegg. Lots of rebates!
Check it out!
Comments
it's not much more expensive then the one you picked.. (I think this is the processor I bought I didn't have time to go look at my history..
and I got 2 gigs of ram because I run Windows XP.... ^_^
As for Intel being better at AMD when it comes to any particular application, that is questionable. It is true that some CPUs have different features which can be utilized to perform certain types of instructions faster. For example, the Apple G4s and G5s have a feature--which I forget the acronym for--that allows them to process the same instructions repeatedly with increasing performance gains.
However, in order to get the advantage from features like this the software you are running must be optimized to do so. If I write a program and compile it to run on any x86 chip then it wont take advantage of MMX, SSE or any other advanced featuresets. On the same token if I compile a program to run best on a Pentium4 then a chip with fewer features than a Pentium4 might have trouble running the program. At worst it wont run at all. If a particular program you plan to run is optimized for the latest Intel processors, then of course it wont run as well on an equivalently powered AMD. But to say that Intel does X better than AMD does X is such a general statement it is hard for it not to be false.
Lastly, AMD processors are curently, and have almost always had, a better price:performance ratio than Intel processors. So while a $600 Intel might run a particular application faster than the equivalently powered AMD chip, the AMD will probably only cost $300. You're better off at that point just getting a $500 AMD chip which will be faster than the $600 Intel. Make sure you compare price:performance before you spend money.
I want to add one more thing. As of late Intel's processors have show to be much more power efficient than AMD chips. If you are buying a laptop I highly recommend one with Intel inside to maximize battery life and efficiency.
Nowadays overclocking is just a waste of time. Sure, if you're really cheap you can maybe buy a $100 processor and make it as fast as a $150 or $200 chip. Of course, it might do you no good since you'll have to buy a $50 cooling kit. Not to mention the fact that all it gets you is a few measly fps. Look at video card charts these days. The difference between the top of the line $100 video card and the very reasonable $200 card is less than 25fps. Come on!
Don't waste your time overclocking. It's not economically sound. It's a waste of time, and it risks damaging expensive and useful hardware. If you really need your computer to be faster just buy a faster one and be done with it. Of course, 99% of people don't really need a faster computer. Even gamers don't really need it to be that much more powerful. Faster chips, bigger video cards, more RAM and SLI are mostly penis extenders these days. People can't afford hot rods anymore, so they just buy fast computers and rice out their Civics. Give me a break.
Some of the AMD chips don't seem to be as XP friendly as the intel chips. Don't get me wrong, two of my best computers right now are AMD chips, but I've always thought that, generally speaking, intel chips are better for stability and non-gaming applications.
As for the rest, just wait until we teach you how computers work. Just let me say there's a lot of misinformation spread around by various companies. They are all just trying to sell more chips and add value to their brands. We'll tell you the real deal on a technological level.
But seriously, there is hype in every industry. Look at the G5s when they came out. They were supposed to be fast, but they had low clock speeds. My iMac G5 runs at 1.8 GHz. It is s l o w. When Apple switched to Intel, the machines made a huge jump in overall performance, in most cases the machines have higher clock speeds.
Now I'll grant you, clock speed is not everything, I understand that the architecture of a CPU matters as much or more as clock speed. But all things being equal and assuming no software maximization for a particular chip, clock speed is going to make a difference. In other words, if the chips are of the same class and one has a higher clock speed, it's going to be faster.
That way you can install Linux too, when the virtualisation technology comes out in OSX Leopard.
Also, notice how this PC I designed is like $900. A PowerMac is multiple thousands of dollars. If the $900 is powerful enough, why spend that much more? I'm going to run Linux either way.
And I hate the Mac keyboard. I need my happy hacking keyboard!
Athlon X2 3800+
GeForce 7900 GT
WD Raptor 150 GB 10k SATA (even though I swore off WD...I'm a whore)
They say the X2 is a tad slower at single-threaded 32-bit applications, but if you multitask a lot, it will be helpful. Also, if you're using Gentoo, or linux in general, I imagine the dual core will be quite instrumental in improving compile times.
I'm totally gonna buy a mac now. Screw the mouse and the keyboard, they're a better design than anything out right now. Let's admit it, macs are the best looking computers ever made. Ask yourself. Would you rather have an ugly dell laptop with windows, or a apple powerbook with windows?
Here's some helpful information for everyone. If you hear a news item, there's a 99% chance we've heard of it. There's an 85% chance we've heard of it many days ago. It will be a very rare event when someone tells us some bit of tech news that we do not know.
I visit Digg, Slashdot and many other sites multiple times a day. I also monitor quite a few sites via RSS. Rym reads Fark, Slashdot and some other sites as well. Unlike some kids who only read websites once a day when they get home from school, we employed folk are able to monitor the web constantly. It's like we have an intra-veinous news feed. So unless you are coming up to us with something super-obscure, then the answer is "Yes, we've known all about it for days".
As for Boot Camp itself, it's alright. But dual-booting is not a real solution. Virtual machines, or wine-like applications, are the best solution. It's just too much effort to reboot. I think bootcamp serves two purposes. It makes it OK for current non-Mac users to switch. The knowledge that they can still run Windows if they need to is all that some people need to be pushed over the edge. That alone will sell quite a few Apples. It will definitely pay off the development costs Apple has had to incur to make bootcamp. Secondly, all the Apple people will be running Photoshop in Windows on their MacBooks. A lot of them are waiting for Adobe to release a universal binary, boot camp will get a few of them to stop waiting and buy the Intel Mac now instead of later.
As for buying a laptop because it looks nice. I don't know if that's the best idea. Would you really pay a premium price for what is essentially the same product just because it looks nice and has a crappier keyboard? Also, there are more choices out there than just Dell and Apple. Have you looked at a Fujitsu P7120D? How about the awesome Panasonic, Samsung, Sony and Fujitsu Japanese import laptops available from http://www.dynamism.com? If you're going to buy an Apple you should do it because you want to use OSX and you want iLife. That's what the high price of a Mac is for. If you aren't going to use that stuff, don't buy one. If you are going to use that stuff, then I encourage you to buy many Macs.
;)