Which Processor?

I'm simply out of the game.
Built my own system 6 years ago...and I got a new PC at work with Windows 7 and I'm having fun with computers again.

I've got no interest in building another or upgrading mine...

So...I'm looking at two PCs, both Windows 7 64 bit.

I do NOT game on the computer. I will be doing some ametuer video editing from the race track, kid's school activities, etc. Nothing too intense.

I'm looking at two PCs with more space than I could ever need (750GB drives) and 4GB of RAM.

I can get the Core 2 Quad 8300 @ 2.5GHz for 50 dollars more than an AMD Athlon II X2 215 @ 2.70 GHz.

Both have identical specs other than that....512MB dedicated video memory, RAM, HDD space, outputs, etc.

For what I do (Internet, Email, Office, light picture editing and light video editing...) is it worth the extra 50 clams for the Intel quad core vs. the AMD Dual core?

I have no interest or time in building my own. I'm taking the old man out and buying a preassembled with 7 loaded on it (although I'm sure I'll do a clean wipe and install...lol)

What say you??

In this case the Core 2 Quad 8300 should do the video work faster.

Although the AMD Athlon II X2 215 will a lot less electricity. Thus cheaper in the long run to operate.

Thanks Train.
When I say video, all I really mean is taking my drag racing videos (5-10 seconds) and the kids riding their bikes, riding their 4 wheelers, at Karate, etc., and taking them off the camera...then encoding them to a video file on the computer, that's it. No hocus pocus or magical editing....

I'm not worried about the little money the AMD will save, but for example...if a 10 minute video takes 10 minutes to encode with the Intel and 25 with the AMD...that's a reason to go Intel.
If one takes 10, the other takes 12...then I'll save the money....both up front and in the long run.

Like I said, light use.

This used to be my hobby and my job...now it's just a job for me...my interests have moved on, that's why I'm buying a built box instead of redoing my own.

Thanks again Train....

Where did all the old timers go?

I would go Intel. The Quad has Speedstep, so that would downclock the CPU at low loads. The Intel Quad would be viable for longer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...hmarks,60.html
The Quad 8200 beats the Athlon II X2 250. The Q8300 would easily smoke the 215.

What cpu do you have now?
And how much time does it take now?

But I do go along with Midknyte, as more programs are being written for multi cores, it will save you time.

LOL...
I have a 6.5 year old 2500 barton, A7N8X with a pair of Raptors in 0.

Just about anything I buy now will be LIGHT YEARS faster...
Just like when I bought/assembled that system, however...I want the best bang for the buck!!

:)

MK...good to see you still around and Kickin'....

You are right, that Intel will do in a couple minute what the 2500 took 20 - 30 minutes to do.

And the new SATA WD Caviar Black 2 TB hdd will be faster than your present Raid 0.

Thanks Train.
I'm using/testing a PC for work with Win7 Pro. I'm going to buy the identical box after Christmas.
I like the idea of running virtual XP for free, allows me more flexibility.

Right now it has a Quad 2 Core Q8300. 4GB RAM....seems to get it done!

That they will do.

Depending on what is available at that time, you may have to upgrade a bit.