Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > Windows 10 SP 1. Time to upgrade from XP.
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 6:07 pm 
NacMacFeegle wrote:
Processor (CPU): Definitely look for an Intel chip, I'm not a fan of AMD. The best bang for your buck is hands down the latest intel core-i5; i3's and i7's are great, but when it comes to price to performance ratios the i5 wins every time. If you really need to save money though the i3 will work just fine, and if you need a lot of power and are willing to shell out big bucks to get it an i7 will be great.
I'm gonna chime in on this a bit. This isn't going to be a terribly big deal if you're not a power user or serious gamer, and even then it may not be nearly as big of a deal as it may seem. Intel does have the best processors out there for sure, but they're also way more expensive than AMD's offerings, which can get you about 90% of the performance for as much as one third of the price of Intel's chips (when you're buying desktop equipment at least). I'm a fairly prolific gamer (not hardcore though), and I've always bought AMD chips mainly because I've usually been somewhat budget conscious and could never quite justify to myself spending $2-300 on a processor when a $80-100 one would get me 'good enough' level of performance for my need. If you don't game, and you don't utilize programs that can take advantage of Intel's multi-threading support, then AMD's chips are more than fine and will save you a pretty significant chunk of change (the corresponding motherboards are cheaper than Inter chipset boards too).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 7:31 pm 
I've had pretty poor experience with AMD over the years; the one time I used an AMD cpu it died on me fairly quickly, and when I got an AMD GPU a few years ago it also failed in an unfortunately short amount of time. Obviously other people haven't had a problem with them, but for me the extra cost of Intel is worth it for the increased reliability and longevity that I have observed. Additionally, if you are doing a lot of photo editing you'll really appreciate the extra power. Perhaps the most important argument I could make in favor of Intel (especially in a laptop) is that they are far and away more power-efficient than AMD, so you will get much longer battery life than with an AMD chip. However, if you really need to buy within a strict budget, but still want a powerful machine, then AMD might be a good option.
mike wrote:
And I consider 1200 vertical a minimum resolution for a monitor if you do anything besides watching videos.. 1080 is just too squatty for me. And go IPS. There are some really nice 24" 1920x1200 IPS monitors out there for hardly more $$ than the short squatty TN's. And more/bigger is better.
IPS is definitely better, and indeed are not that much more than a TN. For everyone but hardcore gamers (who need the 1 or 2 millisecond response times afforded by TN panels) they are definitely the superior option. I personally prefer wider panels, and if I could afford it I would definitely look into getting something with an even wider aspect ration like 21:9. I just like the way wide aspect ratios immerse you in the screen.
RandyHiker wrote:
If you are a CostCo member -- they have a good selection of laptops from low-priced models to ridiculous gaming/desktop replacement machines. Because of their generous return policy, you can buy one, use it for 89 days and if you aren't happy with it, return it for a full refund -- Most machines now have "reset to factory" feature -- so wiping off all your stuff doesn't involve a lot of pain and suffering on your part anymore.
up.gif Costco's return policy is excellent! It's just a pity they have such a limited variety of any given item, so if they have what you want-perfect, if not-too bad.
RandyHiker wrote:
The newly announced Surface Book looks pretty sweet -- but definitely a premium price tag.
I wanted that thing as soon as I saw it-up until I saw the sticker price! eek.gif If I had that kind of money I'd probably put towards something more powerful than the Surface, like the Razer Blade or a laptop from one of the high end custom PC manufacturers like Origin or Alienware. The MS Surface pro tablets are interesting though, and seem to be (somewhat) reasonably priced.

Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 7:41 pm 
NacMacFeegle wrote:
For everyone but hardcore gamers (who need the 1 or 2 millisecond response times afforded by TN panels)
HaHa -- you mean who get suckered into thinking they do.
Quote:
Titanfall On Xbox One Is 792p, 57fps
60 frames per second ~= 16 milliseconds per frame.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 7:50 pm 
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 9:18 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
NacMacFeegle wrote:
For everyone but hardcore gamers (who need the 1 or 2 millisecond response times afforded by TN panels)
HaHa -- you mean who get suckered into thinking they do.
agree.gif It's probably just a placebo, most people say you can't tell the difference.

Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 10:14 pm 
This 5 year old workstation I'm typing this on was built for photo and video processing and is based on a 4-core AMD chip. (This one, which of course isn't made any more: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727) I've never had any indication that the CPU is too slow for anything I've tried to do with it. Admittedly I'm not doing 3D rendering or anything like that but I suspect I could if I wanted to. 3.4 ghz is 3.4ghz...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mike
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics
Location: SJIsl
mike
Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 10:20 pm 
Mine is very similar vintage and spec. It is rendering 3D CAD drawings just fine.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostTue Nov 17, 2015 10:24 pm 
IMO AMD CPU's work as well as Intel, they just run a bit hotter. BTW I worked for AMD and own stock in INTL, go figure.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Nov 18, 2015 5:25 am 
Bedivere wrote:
3.4 ghz is 3.4ghz...
Well not exactly. A lot of other factors play in to how long it takes to perform a task: How much on chip cache, how optimized the instruction pipeline is and how many clock cycles are required for each instruction. IME Intel chips get more done at given frequency than AMD, though certainly my usage pattern is not typical. The clock frequency is a roughly comparable number for most purposes.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jcocci
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 483 | TRs | Pics
Location: Longmont, CO
jcocci
Member
PostWed Nov 18, 2015 11:41 am 
A response to the laptop discussion. I am a Mac guy but have a Surface Pro 3 for some me work stuff and I love it. Definitely recommend one if its fits your budget.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostWed Nov 18, 2015 6:38 pm 
The CPU discussion is always interesting. Of course there are some other key factors that can have a big impact on performance, depending on what you're actually trying to do - e.g. what sort of GPU you have, how fast the hard drive(s) is(are), followed by some others.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostWed Nov 18, 2015 7:05 pm 
I was about to upgrade my Win 7 to Win 10 until I read this article: New Windows 10 version still can't beat Windows 7

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > Windows 10 SP 1. Time to upgrade from XP.
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum