Buying a new computer (suggestions?)

[trust]

You don't need dual core unless you're using intensive multithreaded applications (ie 3D rendering, video editing, etc.)

[Killer360]

Build a computer.

PROCESSOR: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 4000+, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103774
$69.99

MOTHERBOARD: ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131013
$139.99
 
MEMORY   Not good with memory.

HARD DRIVE    SAMSUNG SpinPoint T Series HD501LJ 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152052
$119.99

SOUND CARD   Integrated with motherboard

VIDEO CARD    XFX PVT73GUGD3 GeForce 7600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150182
$124.99

OPTICAL DRIVE    PHILIPS Black 20X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R DL 20X DVD-R 8X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 24X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache IDE interface (ATAPI) DVD Burner - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827248006
$33.99

MONITOR Acer AL1916 Cb Black 19" 5ms LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1 - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009114
$179.99


That list comes to: 668.94 without taxes. And it's a hell of a lot better than brand named PC's.

If someone wants to find some ram for that mobo, feel free.

[Rule]

What I want to know is why you're wasting money getting a dual core if all that you intend to do with the computer is browse websites, check e-mail, and use chatting programs or whatever.

It will also be used for scientific computation.  "General purpose" is intended to mean most modern applications/developments over the next 10 years or so.  With this in mind, I think it would be short-sighted to get a single processor, when the dual-cores are currently minimal in price.

Also, you will be throwing out even more money if you buy a quad-core (especially the Intel quad core.. it's not even a real quad core. ).  Few programs utilize multiple cores--and you don't need multiple cores to run day-to-day programs like Firefox. Hell, I run Firefox with few hiccups on a 400MHz processor back from the 90s.

Sure, right now there wouldn't be much of a difference, but I could see most software being written for multiple processors in the near future.  But I don't know for sure, so that's part of why I made this thread.

Also, right now at Dell, the difference between the quad-core and dual-core is about $50, so I would go with the quad core if I don't get the AMD.

[zorm]

What I want to know is why you're wasting money getting a dual core if all that you intend to do with the computer is browse websites, check e-mail, and use chatting programs or whatever.

It will also be used for scientific computation.  "General purpose" is intended to mean most modern applications/developments over the next 10 years or so.  With this in mind, I think it would be short-sighted to get a single processor, when the dual-cores are currently minimal in price.

Also, you will be throwing out even more money if you buy a quad-core (especially the Intel quad core.. it's not even a real quad core. ).  Few programs utilize multiple cores--and you don't need multiple cores to run day-to-day programs like Firefox. Hell, I run Firefox with few hiccups on a 400MHz processor back from the 90s.

Sure, right now there wouldn't be much of a difference, but I could see most software being written for multiple processors in the near future.  But I don't know for sure, so that's part of why I made this thread.

Also, right now at Dell, the difference between the quad-core and dual-core is about $50, so I would go with the quad core if I don't get the AMD.

Regarding AMD vs. Intel, the stories I've heard lately suggest that AMD is behind in performance and that Intel basically left them in the dust with the Core 2 Duo series.

As far as single vs. dual core goes, without a doubt go dual core. Sure you can surf the web on a single processor 400mhz machine but when you reach that webpage that sucks your whole machine comes to a screeching halt. I also like the fact that I can still have a responsive computer when stupid things like Adobe Acrobat decide they want to hang and hog a whole cpu. This one is a no brainer, anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

Dual vs. Quad is interesting, but I think ultimately this comes up to personal choice and what they want right now. If $50 isn't going to break the bank on this build then you might as well go ahead and do it. Afterall having extra cpu cycles is better than spending $1000+ and not having enough. I think the market is also trending towards multiple cores so you'll be ahead of the curve here.

If you step back and look at what is likely to change in the next 3-4 years that will make you want a new computer, cpu really isn't one of them. It'll probably be up and coming things like bluray/hd-dvd.

[Rule]

Thanks for the advice, zorm.

[Killer360]

And everyone just completely ignored my post... how lovely. 

[iago]

And everyone just completely ignored my post... how lovely. 

He obviously doesn't want to build a computer, nor does he have (easy) access to newegg. In fact, you're in Winnipeg, how do you use it? Last time I tried, they said "sorry, we don't ship outside the US!!"

[Killer360]

And everyone just completely ignored my post... how lovely. 

He obviously doesn't want to build a computer, nor does he have (easy) access to newegg. In fact, you're in Winnipeg, how do you use it? Last time I tried, they said "sorry, we don't ship outside the US!!"

I don't use it. I guessed Rule was an American like a lot of other people are here.

Whatever.

[Skywing]

I'd also recommend multicore as well.  Definitely a major difference for me going from a single core box to a dual core box for my main workstation.

I'd go for quad core if you're seriously interested in things like isolating things in VMs as far as dedicated computing hardwaare.  A 4proc is *lots* of room to expand, and enough that even if you are giving VMs multiple virtual processors, say 2 per VM, one core getting pegged won't cause the kind of negative performance spiral you would get if you were having 2-proc VMs on a 2-way box (in such a case I would just go for single proc VMs).

For desktop stuff, quad core is likely to be much less noticible than dual core in the general case.  Again, I've noticed a significant gain in terms of keeping large numbers of VMs running smoothingly with 4-way over 2-way, but that is probably not something you would be running on, say, a gaming machine.