Gearhead

[MikeA]

Looks like a GREAT one Mike.

As far as the graphics - I'm not sure but I would still get a video card.. I like NVidia myself.

Well, I do NOTHING that is graphics intensive. Anything that comes on a mobo would probably be okay as long as it would let me set the graphics ratio correctly for a wide screen and for a normal screen.

What I mean is that I don't play games. No games. Don't fly Flight Simulator. Don't play computer golf. Certainly do not play those interactive online games. In short, I don't do anything that takes an Einstein Graphics Card to handle at faster than light speeds.

That's why I was asking about that i3 chip. It sounded as though it has built in graphics to handle normal application graphics needs...i.e. not GAMING needs. REAPER, my DAW, uses tons of memory and makes heavy demands on the CPU but it doesn't have a lot of heavy graphics so it woudn't do me any good at all to have a killer graphics card...or even a "get by" card if the mobo already handles it.

But there is a lot greater variety of mobos to chose from if you do NOT need graphics on-board. So I was looking for a non-graphics mobo and then add a cheap graphics card to it to get a signal out. But if the Intel i3 has graphics built into it, I could completely forget about a graphics card. Always add one latter if the need existed.

[WalshFan88]

Well, I do NOTHING that is graphics intensive. Anything that comes on a mobo would probably be okay as long as it would let me set the graphics ratio correctly for a wide screen and for a normal screen.

What I mean is that I don't play games. No games. Don't fly Flight Simulator. Don't play computer golf. Certainly do not play those interactive online games. In short, I don't do anything that takes an Einstein Graphics Card to handle at faster than light speeds.

That's why I was asking about that i3 chip. It sounded as though it has built in graphics to handle normal application graphics needs...i.e. not GAMING needs. REAPER, my DAW, uses tons of memory and makes heavy demands on the CPU but it doesn't have a lot of heavy graphics so it woudn't do me any good at all to have a killer graphics card...or even a "get by" card if the mobo already handles it.

But there is a lot greater variety of mobos to chose from if you do NOT need graphics on-board. So I was looking for a non-graphics mobo and then add a cheap graphics card to it to get a signal out. But if the Intel i3 has graphics built into it, I could completely forget about a graphics card. Always add one latter if the need existed.

I'm not a gamer either and need nothing fancy but I'm a sucker for good "picture" and having great color and good resolution on the screen.

The processor sounds like it will cover it though!

[MikeA]

I'll keep reading up on them. I still haven't convinced myself that I want to go Intel. Sure have had good luck with AMD over the past 20 years.

[WalshFan88]

I'll keep reading up on them. I still haven't convinced myself that I want to go Intel. Sure have had good luck with AMD over the past 20 years.

I'm the same way but with Intel. I've loved Intel for a long time and never been a big fan of AMD. I remember in the early days of the compatibility problems and also some spotty quality and things of that nature but I'm sure that's long gone. I've always been an Intel fan. My tower is an old one but it has a Pentium 4.

[MikeA]

I don't think you'll find anyone these days questioning the reliability or compatibility of AMD chips. By the same token, no one with a lick of objectivity will argue the fact that Intel is acknowledged faster and of higher "evolution". But AMD has hung in there producing very credible chips and they have kept the cost down on them to keep them affordable for the "medium" Speed Freak with shallow pockets.

I'll go so far as to say that in the 20 years I've owned AMD, I have never had a compatibility problem nor have I had one die on me.

So it boils down to a couple of issues

#1 Intel is faster. It's that simple.
#2 Intel costs about twice as much for each .1GHz. But when you reach the ceiling for AMD, Intel keeps on going higher in both speed and cost. So really, it is the same as #1...Intel is faster!
#3 For AMD, if ultrasonic speeds are not crucial to you, then you can get more bang for your buck with AMD.

In either case, reliability and compatibility are not issues. Just speed, costs, and Name.

Now, if I were into heavy duty gaming where having that extra speed makes the difference in getting an advantage over your opponents, the I'd be considering nothing but Intel. A good friend of mine is such a player. He spent some $900 for his mobo and Intel Processor. He has a $450 graphics card and is wanting to crossfire another just like it. His computer has the OS and Virtual Memory space all on a 250Gb Solid State drive. His computer smokes! To keep it from flaming, he has FIVE fans in the case and a liquid cooling system on his Processor Chip. It's wonderful for games. But he can't tell any difference on the applications other than games. Most of them use only one CPU core anyway though he has some sort of management tool that lets him assign which core he wants his application to run on so he can have multiple applications running (up to four of them) and all of them running at the same time fully utilizing their own core and not interferring with the other apps running.

What that means is that he can boot up Microsoft Word, have a browser running, have an on-line chat going on and maybe have his Outlook
email running. And by doing it the way he does it, it's like running only one application on a single core processor that is really fast. Cool. But in no way worth the money other than for that one advantage that he's gained for his use in gaming.

For me, without the need for speed in gaming, I'm quite sure that a dual core processor would do me nicely. Especially one that I could play around with overclocking on just so I'd know what that's all about. I've done it a little but never had a cool enough case and cooling system in my machines to really give it more than a cursory look. I'd like to get a little more serious about it.

And with AMD, their dual core processors have a high percent of success in unlocking the other two cores and using them successfully and stably. That would be a pretty neat gamble. And I'd lose nothing if the one I got didn't unlock. I'd still have a great processor for all the scenarios I can envision.

[WalshFan88]

I would go with an Intel "Core" processor but that's just me!

[WalshFan88]

Mike I just posted some guitar history in the "Every Picture Tells A Story" thread. I KNOW it's stuff you already know but maybe you could read it and add to the discussion or tell me if I made a mistake or forgot something!

[WalshFan88]

I kinda like this Tele. It has a Strat middle pickup.

[MikeA]

I'm not ignoring you Austin. We've been trying to run down more of our extreme power useage and found that it probably wasn't "all" due to my computer.

The only way we have to check it is to time the revolution of the wheel on the electric meter. Our time on the revolution was at around 8 seconds when we were at max useage. I have unplugged my Desktop and am running only the laptops (two of them) along with Verna's HP desktop. I did tear into her computer and cleaned all the cobwebs out of it. The CPU cooler was really clogged. It didn't make any difference that we could notice on the time of revolution, but her computer should run cooler now!

We shut all breakers off and of course the wheel all but quit spinning. We then powered them up one at a time noting the time of revolution on each breaker. We took a huge hit on the breaker that has a refrigerator in the garage on it. We left that breaker on but unplugged the frig out in the garage. Only keep pop and water cold in it.

With that done, our time of revolution went from around 8 or 9 seconds to around 22 seconds. The longer it takes to revolve, the less electricity we are using. So, with killing my computer and disabling that frig, we, we cut our power consumption by something close to 2/3's! I'd say that is significant!

Verna's computer alone was causing about a 2 second faster spin on the meter. That's a lot, but not totally unexpected. Our pumps in the watergardens are causing almost a 5 second increase in speed. We can't kill the watergarden pumps...to do so would allow the algae to really go wild and cause a bad mosquito problem....plus all the fish would die. I might be able to find a more efficient pump though.

But just recovering almost 2/3's of our electricity drain is going to make a huge difference in out power bill.

[MikeA]

Man, they are REALLY making it difficult to hold off on getting a new computer. This one is on their "special list". It is $100 cheaper than the one I was building on paper. Great case, good power supply, Asus mobo and a 6-core AMD PCU. I would want to stick in another 4gb of memory right off the bat, but wouldn't have to worry about a GPU for a while if ever. I might want to stick a more efficient heat sink and fan on it though.

$550

OOPS....just noticed that it doesn't have a CD/DVD unit. Add another $20 for that along with a SATA cable or two. And I noticed that there are complaints about the case not cooling as well as it should and also the fit on the side door panel. Thermaltake usually puts out better cases than that! So, With the addition of a PCU cooler, A DVD/CD, More Memory...I think I'll just stick with my origianal build.

This one does have a 6-core PCU, but it is rated at 3.0GHz and since I'll use most likely no more that one or two cores, I'd be better off going with a cheaper PCU that has less cores that are rated at a higher speed.

I'll spend a lot of time thinking about this because once I get a new puter, I'll be using it for 5 or 6 years at least!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...t=Combo.634260