-
Hail to the Victors
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.
-
Hail to the Victors
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?
-
Stark Raving MOD
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.
-
Hail to the Victors
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.
-
Hail to the Victors
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.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|