Debriefing > Off-Topic Lounge
Less-Than-Shite Performance
jjmusicnotes:
Rodney, have you ever thought about going the AMD route? It'll offer similar performance, more flexibility, and free up some more of your hard-earned $$. I mention this because of your strict budget.
Regarding the case, you can always have it on the floor next to your desk - provided you put down a book or a small board to keep the computer off the ground for ventilation. In my dorm room, I have my compy sitting on a chair next to my desk. :P
Rodney 1.666:
I have an AMD now and I'm permanently paranoid because of how shitty my luck has been for three years.
Now I know lumping is an idiotic way of thinking but 1095 days of wasting my time, effort and money has taken its toll and I don't want to take any chances whatsoever. (Which was why I went way overkill with the 460 GTX...)
In the end that is the major difference: AMD is cheaper and more flexible but for a reason, and Intel is the powerhouse but requires $$$ and *KM apparently issues with them...
So I don't know. I know I could Google AMD and Intel but everyone says different things etc etc, so I may as well get advice from those I already trust and have personal experience. :)
[/rambling]
If I didn't make any sense let me know.
* That alone seems like a good reason...
killermonkey:
--- Quote from: Rodney 1.666 on October 29, 2010, 02:18:31 am ---In the end that is the major difference: AMD is cheaper and more flexible but for a reason, and Intel is the powerhouse but requires $$$ and *KM apparently issues with them...
--- End quote ---
KM has issues with what? I haven't bought a processor in over two years, which was a Core 2 Duo. I must say its been the best processor I've ever had. I am totally out of touch with the current level of technology though, I have no need to upgrade my rig, it still runs all the programs and games I use. I guess that speaks to the power of the Intel line :-/
However, I do run an AMD in my HP Tablet, the Z-80 to be exact. It has the integrated HD 3200 video processor on it. I am also impressed with that, but it pales in comparison to the Core 2 Duo, not that I expect it to be equals.
For a real life comparison, it takes 5 min to do a complete rebuild of the GES mod on my desktop and over 25 minutes on my laptop. Both use two cores to do the building on VS2010. My linux box (backup, server, etc.) takes roughly 20 minutes to do complete build with G++ (notoriously SLOW) and is only single core Pentium 4.
Kratos:
--- Quote from: killermonkey on October 29, 2010, 03:15:35 am ---(notoriously SLOW) and is only single core Pentium 4.
--- End quote ---
Back then, Pentium 4 CPU's were fucking top of the line processors LOL! Now they are at the way bottom of the cpu shit list hahhaaa
Rodney 1.666:
--- Quote from: killermonkey on October 29, 2010, 03:15:35 am ---KM has issues with what? I haven't bought a processor in over two years, which was a Core 2 Duo.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I heard somewhere that you were big on AMDs and have a dislike for Intels due to limited upgrading options. (or something) *coughSaintsaidcough*
Which brings me to the next CPU query: Dual or quad? When I went into this thing in '07 my thought process was "Prepare for future use; sure, nothing uses it now but it'll come, and you'll be prepared."
At the moment, I can say that I don't really play anything new... That might be because of the performance I'm getting but also because not much holds my interest anymore. I imagine I would give newer stuff a try if I could handle it, so which would be the better way to go? (And by "handle it" I mean 60fps with the settings on high sans anti-aliasing. (but if I can get anything in AA I'm all for it.))
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version