Discussion Forums > Technology
New computer being built for upcoming PC titles!
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 17, 2011, 08:33:32 PM ---Anyways, AMD is significantly cheaper than Intel in price to performance.
--- End quote ---
Fair point, I heard that AMD was best at the medium performance CPU market.
Who wants to spend $1000 on a CPU anyways?
Well, to be fair I did not buy a black edition or something like that, the i7 I mentioned earlier cost me 2000 NOK which is about 360 USD. And that is the price in Norway, I am sure you can get it cheaper in US.
In my case, I always buy the "almost" top of the line which is the best you can get before it becomes ridiculously expensive, so I can have it for 5 years. My current CPU: Core 2 Duo that has served me faithfully for over 5 years and only this year did I notice that it couldn't handle the newest games any more. I guess my point is, you pay 150 bucks for a decent CPU that will hold for the next 2 years as you said yourself, I paid 360 bucks for a CPU that can last for 5 years, it's not really that big a difference in price, just different life expectancy.
I liked the comparison of that AMD to Intel i7 which is a Nehalem chip. Sandy Bridge has a 17% increase in performance compared to Nehalem. However that is not the reason why I chose to pay a bit more for a Sandy Bridge CPU. It just happens that Nehalem is a 45nm chip, while Sandy Bridge is 32nm. What actually mattered to me is that Sandy bridge needed only 95 watt to run while Nehalem needed about 115. I mean.... saving electricity is a good thing, besides with less power drain comes less thermal signature, so it will be fun to over-clock it.
Saras:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on September 17, 2011, 09:44:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 17, 2011, 08:33:32 PM ---Anyways, AMD is significantly cheaper than Intel in price to performance.
--- End quote ---
Fair point, I heard that AMD was best at the medium performance CPU market.
--- End quote ---
Not quite, AMD isn't so much a medium performance market, it's a "good enough" performance market. Generally an AMD chip will do just fine for a few years.
Anyway, is it just me, or does it feel like the "exponential growth of computing power" has started to decline. Or is it just the cost of manufacturing the software having exponential increase in production costs.
AceHigh:
I thought that was the same consumer group... you know like "low performance" and "economic solution" is practically the same thing as well....
Saras:
Oh? I pretty much always took the "If it can only run new stuff on low - it's low end, if medium - medium end, if high/ultra - high end." point.
The the higher AMD ranges don't really have a problem running any current software or at least I wasn't aware of them having it.
TMRNetShark:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on September 17, 2011, 09:44:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 17, 2011, 08:33:32 PM ---Anyways, AMD is significantly cheaper than Intel in price to performance.
--- End quote ---
Fair point, I heard that AMD was best at the medium performance CPU market.
Who wants to spend $1000 on a CPU anyways?
Well, to be fair I did not buy a black edition or something like that, the i7 I mentioned earlier cost me 2000 NOK which is about 360 USD. And that is the price in Norway, I am sure you can get it cheaper in US.
In my case, I always buy the "almost" top of the line which is the best you can get before it becomes ridiculously expensive, so I can have it for 5 years. My current CPU: Core 2 Duo that has served me faithfully for over 5 years and only this year did I notice that it couldn't handle the newest games any more. I guess my point is, you pay 150 bucks for a decent CPU that will hold for the next 2 years as you said yourself, I paid 360 bucks for a CPU that can last for 5 years, it's not really that big a difference in price, just different life expectancy.
I liked the comparison of that AMD to Intel i7 which is a Nehalem chip. Sandy Bridge has a 17% increase in performance compared to Nehalem. However that is not the reason why I chose to pay a bit more for a Sandy Bridge CPU. It just happens that Nehalem is a 45nm chip, while Sandy Bridge is 32nm. What actually mattered to me is that Sandy bridge needed only 95 watt to run while Nehalem needed about 115. I mean.... saving electricity is a good thing, besides with less power drain comes less thermal signature, so it will be fun to over-clock it.
--- End quote ---
Why did you go with a Sandy Bridge core anyways? Didn't you have to get a new Mobo with it because it's an APU? Plus I'm assuming you are going to put on a PCI-E video card... so basically you aren't even using half the APU (not technically "half"... but the graphics processing portion). If you spent $350 (or 2000 NOK), it might last you 3-5 years... But after my 2 years is up with my PC, I can buy another $500 rig that will be better than the Sandybridge you just bought.
What I'm trying to say is, I would like to spend $500 now... then 2 years later spend another $500 to get better hardware... then just spending $1000 today and not upgrading for 4 years (when after 2 years I can get new hardware that is better than the $1000 I spent on day one).
As for running stuff, I think I should be safe with the hardware I bought for some time. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version