Which one would you guys pick if you were going to buy a new computer, I'm thinking of picking one of these up tomorrow. Computer Package 1: Brand: ACER Processor Type: AMD Phenom Quad Core 9500 Processor Speed: 2200MHz System Bus: 3600MHz Cache: 512KB x 4 L2 RAM: 3GB DDR2 Hard Drive: 320GB SATA 7200RPM Graphics Card: ATI Radeon X1250 Available Expansion Bays: 4 x 3.5", 1 x 5.25" Available Expansion Slots: 1 x PCI-Ex1, 2 x PCI 2.2 Computer Package 2: Brand: ACER Processor Type: Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 Processor Speed: 2.4GHz System Bus: 1066MHz Front Side Bus Cache: 2 x 4MB L2 RAM: 2GB DDR2 SDRAM Hard Drive: 320GB (7200RPM) Graphics Card: Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 100 Available Expansion Bays 3 x Internal 3.5", 1x External 5.25" Available Expansion Slots 1 - PCI-E x16, 2 - PCI Any help is appreciated, let me know if you need any other information. Thanks!
intels are better than amd and that gfx card in the intel is newer if im not mistaken just wondering is it a gfx card or onboard gfx? I would pick the intel computer if you plan to overclock it the intel is much better at that also
Thanks for the suggestion Red Alert, I think the Intel GFX card is integrated. Although, I have a Nvidia 7600GT 256mb DDR3 PCI E card to replace and a 600w Power Supply. I would hope I wouldn't need to overclock a Quad processor as it should be fast enough, do you think that would be necessary?
one, you'de want a 9550 NOT A 9500 emphasis on NOT A 9500 TLB bug, kills performance in memory intensive applications when patched. most OEM systems patch it as they wouldn't dare NOT to even though it doesn't affect most consumers. here's a rough check. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/displ...50_7.html#sect0 and don't worry about the memory diference, 2GB RAM only costs $30 and it takes 2 seconds to install it yourself. also are you doing anything that utilizes past two cores? most games, almost every single application, general use etc. doesn't benefit much from additional cores since they go largely idle and as such performance doesn't scale well. If you're doing media encoding or a lot fo 3d rendering that's a different story but in general higher clocked dual core CPUs are faster.
Thanks again for the info xlink, I'm thinking about getting the Intel instead of the AMD. I'll be using it for HD video editing via Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere/After Effects. The format is AVCHD from my HD camcorder and it's very CPU intensive while editing because it's a compressed format. Even editing the SD footage is rough using my current setup and my computer isn't really that old. The PC comes with 32bit Vista Home so it will only handle up to 3gb of ram anyway so I've heard but the board can max up to 4gb.
also consider going the DIY route. you tend to get better stuff and it's not that hard. hit me up if you want to know what to get.
Ahh, didn't know you were referring to that. I've looked into that route as well but it gets expensive once everything gets added up, including OS, etc. The one I'm looking at seems to be a pretty good deal, including the monitor.
If you're doing HD video editing, I'd highly suggest getting a discrete ATI card. They do much better then Nvidia in HD Decoding. As for what processor, get the Intel. It is better, unless you get an AMD with a higher clock speed.
they need more clock speed than they offer to beat any of intels quad core offerings. atleast overall. 2.4Ghz c2d is on par with or a bit faster than a 2.6Ghz phenom. and whole one might argue "but you can overclock the phenom" that fails to take into account the fact that one can overclock the c2q as well, and a lot further at that.
I bought the Intel today and seems decent so far but having trouble networking my old PC (Windows XP) and the new PC (Windows Vista) Thanks for the help guys.
