obtanium666: Fubar: kasmel: Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

newegg

Yeah, got that. What i'm looking for is a place that has a current list of what tech is is the "sweet spot" and works well together. It's been a looooong time since i've looked at all this stuff, so i don't know exactly where to start.

NO NO NO... pricewatch.com

/newegg sux

only use pricewatch if you're also going to use resellerratings...or...be prepared for disappointment.

Linux_Yes: and with approx. 50 of all web servers in the world running Linux, you can't use the 'well, no one uses linux so no one writes viruses for linux' excuse.

50? That's almost as many as Apple has sold.

MBA Whore: Can someone explain to me, in dumb-speak, what is the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip? Does each company use different materials? Different manufacturing techniques? Different product design? What technical features make one different from the other? Isn't a chip just a chip?

/ not tech smrt

I haven't checked lately to see if they've changed their philosophies, but...

Intel is known for producing high-speed processors with long pipelines.

AMD is known for producing lower-speed processors with short pipelines.

So the information needs to be processed through this so-called pipeline, right?

Intel pushes it through fast, but it takes a while to get through since it's long.

AMD pushes it through slower, but the pipe is shorter, so it evens out.

This is why Intel chips gigahertz speed is considerably faster, they run hotter and suck up more juice than AMD chips.

This is why AMD chips have names/numbers like "Athlon X2 5000" but the gigahertz rating is only 2.6 gigahertz. But it's comparable to an Intel 5 gigahertz processor.

Some people see the slower AMD gigahertz numbers and assume that the chips are much slower than Intel chips, but that's not the case.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages to both types of architecture. But I don't remember the details.

In my experience, AMD give you more bang for the buck. Intel usually has the best performing chips, but those prices are considerably more expensive than AMD chips. So unless you're doing CAD work or are trying to figure out how to fix the global economy, then AMD does just fine.

Anyway, that's how I remember it. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how wrong and dumb I am.

sigh, farking linux_yes is at it again. dude is almost a legendary troll here, yet i stil have to read his comments because everyone quotes his ass.

just ignore him and be done with it people.

MrSteve007: Too bad there aren't more 64 bit and/or multicore applications out there. Other than After Effects CS4, much of it is wasted. It's kind of a pain to set separate affinity to each process.

Photoshop has a 64bit version as well. There are a lot of applications that are 64 bit.....

moralpanic: Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

And? This is common practice. They also do this with things like CPU speed and ram. The 3.0ghz processor is offered because it can't reach 3.5ghz. In ram, the higher timings sticks are because the chips could not reach the better timings.

When you fabricate stuff at the molecular level that they are, this is common practice, it has nothing to do with 'farking them up'.

Equating a CPU being clocked at 3.0 because it can't reach 3.3Ghz, or RAM being clocked at 1866 because it can't reach 2000 to "They f*cked up the FABRICATION process and have to offer a four core CPU with one switched off as a three core" is moronic.

Please never offer anyone any advice about technology ever again.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Equating a CPU being clocked at 3.0 because it can't reach 3.3Ghz, or RAM being clocked at 1866 because it can't reach 2000 to "They f*cked up the FABRICATION process and have to offer a four core CPU with one switched off as a three core" is moronic.

Please never offer anyone any advice about technology ever again.

Fail. Statistical variations in the manufacturing process can cause anything from slower operation chip-wide, functional failure chip-wide, to localized slower operation and failure.

It is possible to 'f*ck up' and have bad yields (with regards to speed, functionality OR both), but to deny that both can occur statistically without any real mistakes being made is incredibly ignorant on your part. Beyond that, you purport to know the reason why they switch off one core (it could be speed or functionality, or just pure marketing).

Both ATI and Nvidia have been switching off pipeline units in their GPUs and downgrading parts for years, it's not because of mistakes. Different in every case, it's possibly yield but mainly marketing.

fark it we're doing 2000 cores.

likefunbutnot: rogue49: and still gives me relatively equavalent performance.

... and unfortunately decidedly weaker motherboard offerings.

Oh, sure, they have all kinds of features for enthusiasts, but try maintaining a fleet of AMD systems and you'll see why it's worth the slight price premium to have Intel-based machines.

I prefer AMD because of speed due to losing useless items (anyone remember the 3D junk Intel put on the Intel chips?), thereby reducing the price overall. 'Sides, it's not just the chip that powers a 3D game, it's the gfx card now.

Is this the first product released under the new outsourced fab? It will be interesting to see how well they can maintain the demanding development schedule having manufacturing being a separate thing. If these two beasts become too isolated you waste precious time debating whether the process or the mask is messed up....anyway, good luck AMD.

tweekster: GooseMeat: Now bring me an OS that makes use of more than two cores and is not meant for servers but for everyday joe the programmers.

netbsd, freebsd.
solaris.

Just about anything made in the last decade.

rel123: fark it we're doing 2000 cores.

Perhaps (new window)

pnjunction:
Fail. Statistical variations in the manufacturing process can cause anything from slower operation chip-wide, functional failure chip-wide, to localized slower operation and failure.

It is possible to 'f*ck up' and have bad yields (with regards to speed, functionality OR both), but to deny that both can occur statistically without any real mistakes being made is incredibly ignorant on your part. Beyond that, you purport to know the reason why they switch off one core (it could be speed or functionality, or just pure marketing).

Excuse me? You read all that into that statement? I simply implied equating those two in terms of severity is moronic. Which it is. Missing frequency goals by 9% (which can be due to many things outside of fab) is nowhere near as severe as needing to switch off a core due to your shiatastic manufacturing and then simply stating that it was a marketing decision once you sort it out with a revision.



Both ATI and Nvidia have been switching off pipeline units in their GPUs and downgrading parts for years, it's not because of mistakes. Different in every case, it's possibly yield but mainly marketing.

Now you're equating CPUs to GPUs, which I never even mentioned. And if you think ATI or Nvidia have never downgraded a part due to mistakes or yield, then you're an idiot.

Considering AMD spokesmen said in plain English "it's a manufacturing issue" and then suddenly changed that story to "marketing/personal decision" once they had sorted it out with a revision is quite telling.

But of course, that would require actually paying attention to the issue and their comments on the issue, now wouldn't it?

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Now you're equating CPUs to GPUs, which I never even mentioned. And if you think ATI or Nvidia have never downgraded a part due to mistakes or yield, then you're an idiot.

With multiple processing units they're becoming more similar.

Did I say that they never downgraded due to yield?

What's a fact is that they downgrade despite yield. Not every unit gets sold as the top-of-the-line, even if they all are all capable.

Same goes for CPUs. They downgrade/undersell speed whether there are yield issues or not. Why not do it with cores? On the other hand from the yield perspective, unless your yield is 100% then there are some processors that can be saved and sold if you put a 3-core model into the line-up.

If the 3-core models fit into a price/performance category, who the f*ck cares? Maybe if there was a shortage of the 4-core models, was there? I didn't hear of any.

Look a few years back at the Radeon X800, now THOSE were some major yield issues. My buddy at ATI said they had guys running them through the paces BY HAND to try and send a few good ones out the door.

When they make an OS that can actually still run smoothly on it after 6 months of my kids using it I'll care.

Red_Fox: When they make an OS that can actually still run smoothly on it after 6 months of my kids using it I'll care.

My kid's machine has been running for about 3 years now on it's original setup and a crapload of programs. I don't let them download "warez - hackers!!!", pirates stuff and porn.

Maybe you're doing it wrong.

oh, it's running XP BTW.

Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.



Ahem, I only see six cores, each with their own L1 & L2 cache, the bottom quarter is the shared L3 cache.

/Image is as hot as an Intel chip!