New Desktop PC

AronSearle said:
I suspect that argument would bore the OP.
Click to expand...

Why??

The first computer I used was an Apple II in 1977. I then bought a Sinclair ZX81 in kit form in 1981 and built it, upgrading it to 16K later. Trying to write meaningful programs in BASIC to cram into 1K was too much of a challenge... although with MC it was a little easier. After a couple of Spectrums and Acorns, I then upgraded to various pre-PC Amstrad computers like the 8256 and 9512 before moving on to PC's in 1998.

I have not kept my finger on the computer pulse in more recent years, hence hence my rustiness.

But I'm definitely interested in all aspects of the argument. I may end up discounting it, but I'd like to hear the argument for it first... ;)
 
Sponsored Links
Basically look up the wattage of the various CPU's.

AMD processors are generally more power hungry, some of the intels are but some sensible wattage ones are available that still provide more than enough CPU Power.

Processing power is cheap and plentifull now, very rarely is CPU power the bottleneck, so I can't bring myself to buy a quad core awsomesauce processor with 200% more speed, when no games use that power anyway, and for most games the single core performance is *still* the most critical factor, because most games are designed to run on old hardware, or are just poorly programmed.

Most games are still made for the playmobile station and xbox 360, hardware that's 7 odd years old. And even with the new consoles and games, processing power isnt the bottleneck, graphics are.

It will be years before any reasonable low end processor you buy now will be the bottleneck, and then you will be able to buy a quad core awsomesauce processor that only needs a fraction of the wattage as the tech is upgraded to be laptop compatible (less power means less cooling and less PSU stress).

And whilst I think all the CO2 globalwarmthink is nonsense, I still object to processors that need +100w when we are running about installing LED lights.

The processor wars of the 90s/2000s saw big leaps in performance, 6 months would see significant gains in performance and redundancy, now you can still run any modern game on some 6 year old processors.

/rant.
 
Thanks everybody.

I'm just stuck choosing the GPU. There seems to be a choice of GTX760.
 
Sponsored Links
Thanks both, yeah.

Did mean brand. Wondered if there was any difference, but will look out for warranty.
 
Thanks, Monkeh.

I have just been away for a drink and I have looked up the performance of the chips.

Yeah, I noticed the out of stock one has on-board Intel graphics, so I crossed that off the list.

Then I checked those figures. the X4 scores 4318 but only 1376 on a single thread, whereas the i3 packs 5034 and 2062.

I have tried to persuade him to build his own, but he is not confident enough. My eyesight and dexterity is not what it was, so someone else would have to build the thing.

Hence, I'm trying to buy a ready made PC off the shelf. Plus, the budget has dropped to around £350 now... :oops:

Seeing as the goalposts have now moved, what would you go for?
 
If prebuilt is your only option, I would go with.. either of those. I don't know of any really decent brands, they all compromise or they cost a fortune.

The i3 is definitely worth the extra.
 
Really appreciate your help.

Off on a spending spree now. ;)

Thanks!
 
You are not a fan of Pentium chips, but that one has single thread performance rating of 2162, more than the i3 4150.
 
Oh, OK.

Just reading figures from a chart.

I didn't think a Pentium could outrun an i3...

To me, Pentium reminds me of old school PC's. You know, 586, PII, PIII, P4 etcetera...

So I shall stick with that one.

Off to look for a monitor now. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

securespark
New PC
2 3 4
Replies
49
Views
4K
Doggit
D
H
need to drive 2 Dell DVI monitors with my new PC, can you he
Replies
3
Views
862
happyhero
H
Back
Top