Technology (Read Only) > Computers
What Would be a the Best Investment for Building a New Computer?
Xrain:
--- Quote from: Cake Faic on January 31, 2011, 02:19:11 PM ---Best Investment? Trust me, it pretty much is the best bang for the buck.
Nids any Phenom ii x4 and a radeon 5770.
--- End quote ---
Investment =/= bang for buck.
First of all, if you are going for bang for buck in the phenom range.
Do not go with one of AMD's cheap X4 processors, Instead go with the top of the line X2.
Why? AMD's cheapest X4 processor, is just a four core version of their lowest end dual processor.
And as most programs still suffer from poor multi-core threading, you would see a much larger benifit from a much much faster Dual core than a slower quad core. As you will only use 1-2 cores of the quad core at any given time anyway.
Second of all... The bloody 5770? really?
Wanna know how much a 5770 costs?
$149.99
Wanna know how much a 1Gb 460 costs?
$159.99
The bloody 768MB 460 which Still performs better than the 5770
is $149.99
That's some awfully good bang for buck there. >:(
Also FYI, it's not ATI Graphics anymore
It's
So that would be, AMD GRAPHICS, and AMD PROCESSOR
sheesh if your going to be a fanboy, at least get the facts about your own company straight.
And now onto my Investment =/= Bang for buck.
If you were going to make a solid investment, you would not look for the cheapiest piece of crap plot of land to buy, or go get a whole bunch of stocks that are selling for $0.01 a stock.
That's called wasting money, not investing it.
The same thing applies if you were looking to make an investment into a decent computer.
Why on earth, would you buy a new computer that can't even play the latest games fully. I completely understand is if all you have to spend is ~$400-600 on a new computer, then I would completely understand.
But if you are looking to make a smart INVESTMENT, why would you buy last generation's low-mid range technology.
If you were trying to make an investment, you would purchase somthing that has a good chance of still being up-to-date for a year or so, not somthing that is already out-dated.
Honestly you guys have done this to me several times already.
In-fact I remembered I specifically asked for advice on buying a laptop on the forums.
I said I wanted:
1920x1080 resoultion
Professional Graphics card (firepro or Quadro)
and non-gaudy looks.
Since this was going to be a work labtop which I would do CAD work on.
What was recommended to me was:
1420X800 resolution
460m or 5870m Graphics
and in Glossy ferrari red plastics.
BUT IT WAS BETTER BECAUSE IT WAS 900 DOLLARS LESS.
Even if the consumer 400 series has been known to be horrendous for CAD work.
:(
Peetah:
One thing. Dirt 2 specifically likes nvidia hardware better.
But the fact is. Nvidia truly did beat ati with the 460. It is just a good card that got great marketing.
Nvidia made alot of profit with the 460 and is able to sell for cheaper.
460>5770.
Now as for cake telling you to get a ddr2 mobo.
I say naw. Ddr2 is getting old.
Ddr 2 ram prices have sky rocketed seriously.
Ddr3 is cheaper then ddr2. Get a ddr3 board.
Cake Faice:
--- Quote from: Peetah on January 31, 2011, 05:05:54 PM ---One thing. Dirt 2 specifically likes nvidia hardware better.
But the fact is. Nvidia truly did beat ati with the 460. It is just a good card that got great marketing.
Nvidia made alot of profit with the 460 and is able to sell for cheaper.
460>5770.
Now as for cake telling you to get a ddr2 mobo.
I say naw. Ddr2 is getting old.
Ddr 2 ram prices have sky rocketed seriously.
Ddr3 is cheaper then ddr2. Get a ddr3 board.
--- End quote ---
Holy crap, Peetah is right. Actually do get a ddr3 motherboard :O
Xrain, not to sound like a dick or anything but, I was not trying to aim for being a fanboy. I sure as hell haven't had any type of performance issue because I'm using a quad-core and not a dual core. Let Sabbath get the Nvidia then if it 'beats' the 5770. Even though it still is cheaper, the radeon will do it's job just perfectly. But I had far more better experiences with ATi (Sorry, but if I bought a card when it was still called an ATi, i'm sticking to calling it an ATi).
And uhh, can you please state a few programs that use all the cores that people commonly use that they will have a shitty, glitchy and crashy time with quad core rather then a dual core?
Oh and tehehe, I liek how you directly quoted my post, not making a reference/-1'ing to any other amd/ati recommendation but claiming I'm the fanboy here.
Xrain:
--- Quote from: Peetah on January 31, 2011, 05:05:54 PM ---One thing. Dirt 2 specifically likes nvidia hardware better.
--- End quote ---
Very well Then
(These are percent improvment over the 5770 going off the Minimum FPS)
Stalker: Call of Pripyat: 1920 x 1080
1 GB 460: 16.667%
768 MB 460: 11.7647%
Dirt 2: 1920x1200
1 GB 460: 31.372%
768 MB 460: 25.53%
Crysis: 1920 x 1200
1 GB: 38.45%
768MB: 38.45%
Bad Company 2: 1920 x 1200
1GB: 41.935%
768MB: 33.33%
I'd Say Dirt 2 doesn't prefer Nvidia any more than any other game.
--- Quote from: Cake Faic on January 31, 2011, 05:23:58 PM ---Holy crap, Peetah is right. Actually do get a ddr3 motherboard :O
Xrain, not to sound like a dick or anything but, I was not trying to aim for being a fanboy. I sure as hell haven't had any type of performance issue because I'm using a quad-core and not a dual core. Let Sabbath get the Nvidia then if it 'beats' the 5770. Even though it still is cheaper, the radeon will do it's job just perfectly. But I had far more better experiences with ATi (Sorry, but if I bought a card when it was still called an ATi, i'm sticking to calling it an ATi).
And uhh, can you please state a few programs that people commonly use that they will have a shitty, glitchy and crashy time with quad core rather then a dual core?
--- End quote ---
If calling you a Fanboy was going a bit too far, I apologize.
But lets review:
1. Going in-ordinarily go out of your way to support a company, and when faced with factual proof that the item is substandard when compared to a competing item of the exact same price range. You respond with a subjective opinion that the card just "feels" better.
Example:
--- Quote ---Let Sabbath get the Nvidia then if it 'beats' the 5770. Even though it still is cheaper, the radeon will do it's job just perfectly. But I had far more better experiences with ATi
--- End quote ---
2. Using "quotes" around the word "beats" as if to imply that the card is only superficially improved when compared to the object of ones idolization.
3. Not properly reading another one's post in order to draw out a non-supported conclusion
Exsample:
--- Quote from: What Cake Said ---And uhh, can you please state a few programs that people commonly use that they will have a shitty, glitchy and crashy time with quad core rather then a dual core?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: What Was originally Said ---And as most programs still suffer from poor multi-core threading
--- End quote ---
I suppose this last one was somewhat my fault for not properly explaining what I meant.
So to rectify.
When I said "And as most programs still suffer from poor multi-core threading" what my intended meaning was that most programs still haven't fully taken advantage of the multi-core technology. So if they have taken advantage of it, most of the time the implementation suffers from significant diminishing returns, with it not receiving the same benefit as it did from going from a single to a dual core configuration, as going from a dual to a quad core.
Thus the low end X4 processors, will perform slower in MOST applications that would be used by a Rnd community member. When compared to the High end X2 processors.
I did not in any way shape or form say/imply that a multi-threaded app is inherently more unstable when compared to a single threaded app.
Only that the technology still hasn't been fully taken advantage of enough to the point that have slower many cores is faster than having significantly faster fewer cores.
You really think a 16 core Atom processor would perform as fast in the applications we use when compared to a X2 or X4?, or I3/I5/I7
If you happen to use your computer as a web server handling a in-numerous websites, then what i would be saying wouldn't apply.
I also am not saying that the 5770 is a crappy card. and if you have a 5770 it wouldn't be worth paying for a 460 as an upgrade.
But when you compare the 5770 to a card that is similarly priced, it's performance is substandard.
I have also myself owned 3 ATI card, and 4 nVidia cards. And in my opinion the experience I received with both has been about equal.
Deathie:
--- Quote from: Xrain on January 31, 2011, 05:53:17 PM ---Very well Then
--- End quote ---
I came.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version