Re: Upgrading my current computer system parts: AMD or Intel?

Ant <> writes:
> I do NOT want to buy brand names PCs. I want to buy and build my own
> parts. I haven't bought a brand name desktop PCs since my IBM PS/2 Model
> 30 Model 286 10 Mhz PC.

AMD seems to have a reputation for better value at low-mid price, but
Intel owns the top end.

Since you really only seem to want a CPU / MB / RAM / PS, it sounds
like your $750 budget should be pretty easy...

Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)

.... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket cooler?)

-Miles

--
Conservative, n. A statesman enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a
Liberal, who wants to replace them with new ones.

Ant <> writes:
>> Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
>> ($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)
>>
>> ... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket cooler?)
>
> Wow, CPU is expensive. I usually only spend $200 for that. How fast is
> that AMD 1090T Phentom II x6 compared to my current Intel Q8200 CPU? I
> assume it will handle the latest computer games well if I were to play
> them (rarely).

I seem to have over-estimated the price -- I think $300 is maybe the
(original?) list price, but I see Newegg has it for $229:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103849

I don't know how to compare it with your Q8200, but it's probably a fair
bit faster -- it has a higher clock speed (3.2MHz vs 2.33MHz), more
cores (x6 vs x4), more cache (6MB vs 4MB). [The 1090T also has a good
reputation for overclocking if you like that kind of thing.]

[If I buy a new CPU in the near future, I'd probably buy the 1055T,
which is slower (2.8MHz) than the 1090T, but is available in a 95W part
(so cooler), which I like, and is a bit cheaper ($179?)...]

I guess whether you like the "lots o' cores" CPUs depends on what you do
with your computer -- I love them, because I do lots of stuff that
parallelizes well -- but since you've already got a 4-core system, I
guess you're OK with that direction.

-miles

--
Accord, n. Harmony.

On Nov 24, 4:22*pm, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Yes, I love multi-cores. Single core sucks. Dual is better, but still
> iffy sometimes. Quad is awesome.

Some perspective for this pro-AMD audience. Two threads out of a
possible eight assigned to virtualized Fedora box does just fine
running on a core i7-920 running the much-maligned Windows Vista as a
host.

If counting cores and nickels is your game, go AMD. If you want
performance, start thinking outside your current box.

In all fairness, your proposed budget is gigantic compared to your
stated needs. If you want to go virtual, don't be cheap. Every post
I have read from an AMD'er about virtualizing boils down to: "If only
I had more cores..." Baloney.

Robert.

Ant wrote:

> On 11/24/2010 12:57 AM PT, Miles Bader typed:
>
>> Ant<> writes:
>>> I do NOT want to buy brand names PCs. I want to buy and build my
>>> own parts. I haven't bought a brand name desktop PCs since my IBM
>>> PS/2 Model 30 Model 286 10 Mhz PC.
>>
>> AMD seems to have a reputation for better value at low-mid price,
>> but Intel owns the top end.
>
> Hmmm, is what I want considered high end or low-mid end? I see
> Q8200 is still expensive like couple years ago! :/
>
>
>> Since you really only seem to want a CPU / MB / RAM / PS, it
>> sounds like your $750 budget should be pretty easy...
>>
>> Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
>> ($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)
>>
>> ... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket
>> cooler?)
>
> Wow, CPU is expensive. I usually only spend $200 for that. How fast
> is that AMD 1090T Phentom II x6 compared to my current Intel Q8200
> CPU?
Here's one source:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
Cat22
> I assume it will handle the latest computer games well if I
> were to play them (rarely).