-=PCTechTalk=- Re: processors, AMD vs. Intel?

  • From: Disastar <disastar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:53:31 -0500

I found the specs at Best Buy:

Gateway DX4200-09 Desktop
http://tinyurl.com/92nzk8

I have no love for Gateway, but my gripes are from 10 years ago.  I have no
idea if they are any better now or not.

OK, It says the onboard graphics uses up to 256MB shared video memory which
means it uses up to 256MB of the 4GB main memory.  Luckily it has a PCI
Express expansion slot so you should be able to add a good card.  If you
weren't doing video editing you probably could get away with the built-in
video.  Well, you can try video editing with the built-in video since it
could be better than what your old PC has.

This one from Best Buy says it has Vista 64-bit which you will need if you
plan on using more than 4GB of memory.  You should verify that the one you
are looking at is 64-bit since that seems to be optional from Best Buy.

Hmm, you would probably be better off with a faster CPU though.  Look at
where the AMD 9100e shows up on some of the benchmarks at
http://tinyurl.com/4c7mcc.  I don't know what video editing software you
use, but "Premiere Pro CS3 HDTV" has the 9100e test at 258 seconds where for
$120 at Newegg.com they have an AMD Phenom 9600 which shows up on the
benchmark for 203 seconds.  

Besides the CPU and graphics, this system looks pretty good.  I'm sure it
would be much better than your old PC.  If money is tight, you could always
get this system and wait 6 months to a year to upgrade the CPU and graphics.
I'm sure those parts will be very cheap by then.


-----Original Message-----
From: pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of cristy
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:04 AM
To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: processors, AMD vs. Intel?

Hi Gman,

First off, what does this mean briefly?  lol..(AM+ socket)

Also, I had a computer custom built once at the local Best Buy store years 
ago and was very happy with it for the most part. But not sure now where I 
would go or who online to ask for a custom built one.  I will not spend what

I did back then though, more tight budget now.   Vid cards are confusing, I 
know I need at least 512 mb of memory for that and I dont know what exactly 
"shared memory" .  I'm getting somewhat frustrated as I don't want to spend 
but so much more time researching this but since money is a crunch, 
obviously want as much as I can get for my bucks.

I put off buying a new one since last summer since other priorities came up.

I do realize I can only get but so much for a certain price though.  Maybe 
its time to try an AMD processor who knows, there was a computer this wkend 
at circuit city advertised for 509 with AMD processor , was orig 750.00 or 
so.  The guy said the vid card could be upgrade and memory.

Here are the specs that I have
AMD Phenom X4 Quad-Core processor 9100E Computer Model DX 4200-09

windows vista home premium 64-bit
4gb ddr2 memory
640GB hard drive
Reads and writes
Dual-Layer DVDs and CDs
w/Labelflash
include keyboard and mouse

salesman said it  had an integrated vid card but a good one
and memory he said could be upgraded as well as vid card



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gman" <gman.pctt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:01 PM
Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: processors, AMD vs. Intel?


> Well, Cristy, I can't touch this reply for 'breath of scope', so I'm not
> going to even try.       lol
>
> What I will say is that AMD scores better than Intel for most multimedia
> tasks (both audible and visual).  Intel ranks MUCH better than AMD for 
> most
> productivity tasks (Office, etc.).  Today's better AMD chips run hotter
> because they are grown using a larger sized transistor (65nm.) than 
> Intel's
> better chips (45nm.).  Chances are VERY good that you're currently running

> a
> processor (from either maker) that's made with larger transistors than
> what's being used today.  The smaller they can make the transistors, the
> cooler the chip can be made to run.  Intel has the upper hand in 
> transistor
> size because they have a LOT more money to toss at R&D for studying
> fabrication techniques (AMD spent their budget on buying up ATI, the
> graphics card maker).  But even with all of that money, they still look to
> AMD for ideas on what direction they should be heading.  To me, that means
> AMD is the more innovative company.
>
> Combining all of this with what Disastar has already mentioned should 
> point
> you towards getting at least a dual-core AMD processor (AM+ socket) with
> matching motherboard & RAM.  Since these three items are the core 
> components
> of any computer system, I wouldn't skimp on any of them (~$400 USD for all
> three should be a good starting point).  It can be convincingly argued 
> that
> the graphics card has become a fourth 'core' component of any modern 
> system,
> so I will give the same advice on that.  Your target for a video card 
> should
> be at least $200 - 250 USD alone for the things you want to do with your 
> new
> system (and that should take care of most 'gaming' you choose to add 
> later,
> too).
>
> As Disastar also said, it takes several days of intense research to "throw
> together" a decent system these days.  Many, many things have to be taken
> into consideration and having one part that doesn't quite fit in can 
> really
> hurt an otherwise good build.  You need to decide whether or not you'll 
> need
> a case (or reuse an older one).  How many parts can you bring over from 
> the
> old system if that's to be retired?  How much can this new build be 
> upgraded
> as time passes?  What else will you need?
>
> Give some thought to all you've heard so far and let us know whatever
> questions come up.  Several of us have been putting together custom 
> systems
> for a long time and you can be assured we'll do what we can to steer you 
> in
> the right direction.
>
> Happy Holidays,
> Gman
>
> "The only dumb questions are the ones we fail to ask"
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Disastar" <disastar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:38 PM
> Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: processors, AMD vs. Intel?
>
>
>> Yes, it is often hard to tell the difference and it depends a lot on how
>> you
>> use your computer.
>>
>> This is a very tricky question to answer.  They both have their pros and
>> cons and its hard to compare the two because you just can't go by the MHz
>> speed and one might be better while running one program, but the other
>> might
>> be better running another program.  You also have the same problem
>> comparing
>> different processors from the same manufacturer.
>>
>> Example:  Which is better, a faster single core CPU or a slower dual 
>> core?
>>
>> Answer:  It depends a lot on what programs you run and how you use your
>> computer among other things.  If you almost always run more than one
>> program
>> at the same time then dual core would be better and quad core even better
>> (most likely).  But, if the program you use often is very CPU intensive
>> and
>> is not designed to run on multiple cores, then the multi-cores wouldn't
>> help
>> unless there are other programs running at the same time that slow the 
>> CPU
>> down.
>>
>> Confused?  I'm sorry, but this is only the main points and it only gets
>> more
>> complicated.  Maybe Gman can explain it better... he has a way with words
>> that I can't touch.
>>
>> OK, maybe this will help:
>> - AMD is usually cheaper for the performance you get, but they usually 
>> run
>> hotter, so they often have a noisier fan cooling them.
>> - Multiple core CPU's usually give a snappier feel to Windows especially
>> if
>> you run more than one program at a time.
>> - Movie editing and graphics editing will usually benefit from having as
>> many cores as you can afford, but spending extra money on a better video
>> card might improve these tasks better.
>> - High tech action games are also more dependent on graphics card than
>> CPU,
>> but you still need a decent CPU.
>> - If you don't run any CPU hogging programs, then anything new would feel
>> a
>> world better than an old PC, but a dual core would probably feel more
>> responsive.
>> - If you are just trying to get Vista to run better, then get something
>> with
>> 3 or 4 Gigabytes of RAM, good video card (better video card if you plan 
>> on
>> running Vista's Aero), and as fast a dual core as you can afford.
>>
>> As you can see, the graphics performance often matters as much as the CPU
>> (sometimes more so), so I'm guessing your next question will be about
>> video
>> cards.  Unfortunately video cards are at least as complicated.  When I 
>> buy
>> computer parts I spend days doing google searches for reviews and
>> comparisons of everything I'm looking for.
>>
>> The more info you give us on what programs you plan on running, the 
>> better
>> advise we can give you.  ;)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Please remember to trim your replies (including this sentence and 
> everything below it) and adjust the subject line as necessary.
>
> To unsubscribe or change your email settings:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
>
> To access our Archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
> //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
>
> To contact only the PCTT Mod Squad, write to:
> pctechtalk-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To join the PCTableTalk off-topic group, send a blank email to:
> pctabletalk+subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------
Please remember to trim your replies (including this sentence and everything
below it) and adjust the subject line as necessary.

To unsubscribe or change your email settings:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk

To access our Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/

To contact only the PCTT Mod Squad, write to:
pctechtalk-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To join the PCTableTalk off-topic group, send a blank email to:
pctabletalk+subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please remember to trim your replies (including this sentence and everything 
below it) and adjust the subject line as necessary.

To unsubscribe or change your email settings:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk

To access our Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/

To contact only the PCTT Mod Squad, write to:
pctechtalk-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To join the PCTableTalk off-topic group, send a blank email to:
pctabletalk+subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. pctechtalk
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2009