Tried all sorts before but nothing seems to be able to compete with the misses so I aint even trying Its for my home office and there is a plasma TV in here with freeview & an amp, I never really need a large sound from the comp.
Yeah it is definatly worth looking into the coore 2 duo chips apparantly they beat the x2 chips on pretty much everything. I have a 4400x2 though and it can handle anything i throw at it
Well, I've gone ahead and ordered the beast. The business end has AMD Dual Core 4400+ processor and 2048Mb DDR RAM. The rest is the usual stuff - video card (512Mb nVidia GeForce), 250Gb HD, blah, blah. Should be here in a week.
niceeee! all my hardware just arrived, but I have to wait a week to put it together since I'll be on vacation next week. you'll enjoy it all, I'm sure I only went for the 256mb vid card since I won't be doing much gaming and I'll only be running linux on my new system.
I can't wait. Now that I've ordered it The video card was default as part of the basic system - I don't do any gaming - lol! It isn't worth it when you have a son who can kick your ass at every game under the sun and nags constantly to play games when you're trying to get other stuff done.
could you show us them working ? I don`t understand how do they work. Is the image split on them both ?
AMD ATHLON all the way....Intels are good, but i loved them before but realized the love was based on time...ive been using Intel since 10 years...and realized AMD is not bad just because its newer than intel
Well, currently all Intel dual cores are 32bit, while all AMD Athlon X2's are 64bit. I'd only get an Intel if you don't mind having to upgrade sooner than with the AMD. The only positive with Intel is that they're actually cheaper.
Even though I am on an Intel Rig I would also have to say AMD. I only went with the setup I did cos I managed to get a good deal on the Processor and MOBO. My new Intel Rig After comparing benchys with other guys with the same G card the Optrons are coming on top then the X2's then Intel D processors.
Doesn't matter a boll***s - cos as long as you're running windoze you'll spend half your time waiting to get anything done while it updates the virus checker, spybot, adaware and installs seemingly constant system updates - least that's how it feels to me whenever I boot my XP box. </rant> Seriously though, in my recent experience, like for like the processor makes no tangible difference from a user perspective - the amount of ram, your choice of graphics card and hard disk cache/speed will make more difference to the overall feel of performance.
Well that depends on just what you do with your computer if you do lots of CPU intensive stuff then yes it does matter very much so, but of course there is no point in have the top of the range CPU if the rest of your gear sucks as it will always be held back by your other gear.
Oh yeah I never noticed just what was said in that post, yeah the Intel Pentium D processors are 64 bit, I have one.
I've never found benchmarks to be of much use unless you're comparing ready-built systems from established companies. At the risk of coming across anti M$, the best productivity gain I've ever made was switching from XP to OSX.
Why do you say benchmarks have no use? How eles would you find what works and what does not? How eles can you compare system setups? Granted Windows XP is not the best OS but then the problem comes in that most programs are made to work on Windows XP so it is easyer to use Windows XP. Trying to get drivers, games and other programs working on other OS's are just a nightmare so you end up wasting even more time doing that.