Computers: does more money get you more?

[effilctar]

I'm gonna be honest here Escapist, I don't know the first thing about computers like what to look for in a computer and what certain terms mean. With me, when it comes to computers I just think if you pay more you get a better computer.

I was wondering if anyone can give me a few pointers about computers and what to look for or if you could lead me to a site. I would most use my computer/laptop for posting here, youtube, maybe flash games and, when I get to uni, taking notes in lectures. C ould you give me a nudge in the right direction?

 

[SilentHunter7]

Here's my thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.115115] on computers. It's more about custom builds, than buying brand name computers, but I do go into terms and stuff you might find useful.

While it's true that more expensive parts usually mean better speeds, there are some real bargains to be had if you know what to look for.

Example: Intel and AMD. Intel's Core i7 processors generally beat the hell out of AMD's Phenom 2 running at the same clock speed. However, Intel processors cost a lot more. So much so, that a higher end AMD Phenom 2 will beat out a low-end Intel i7, even though they cost roughly the same.

 

[Joshimodo]

Yes, more money generally means better stuff, assuming you don't do what idiots do and buy from places like Currys, Comet or something like that. They'll sell you Hewlett Packards, Dells, Packard Bells, eMachines and all manner of awful, overpriced junk.

If you're from the UK, try Overclockers.co.uk or eBuyer.com.

MESH do...average price student-based PCs.

etc.

 

[ZSF]

If you dont mind spending a few thousand dollars for an excellent laptop, I would definately suggest M-Tech.
http://www.m-techlaptops.com/

 

[DigitalSushi]

Here's my thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.115115] on computers.

While it's true that more expensive parts usually mean better speeds, there are some real bargains to be had if you know what to look for.

Example: Intel and AMD. Intel's Core i7 processors generally beat the hell out of AMD's Phenom 2 running at the same clock speed. However, Intel processors cost a lot more. So much so, that a higher end AMD Phenom 2 will beat out a low-end Intel i7, even though they cost roughly the same.

So AMD is the way to go on a budget, but Intel if your a gazzillionairist (with a model girlfriend) and baby oil made from freshly squeezed babies. (umbilical cord ripened, much like the vine ripe tomatoes you get)

Anyway I digress, what happened to the Hertz race Intel was having with AMD, isn't Intel founded on Moore's Law? yet it doesn't cons tribe so it anymore?

Breaking news!
INTEL LOSES MOORE'S LAW
offers 10,000 dollar reward if found.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Yes, more money generally means better stuff, assuming you don't do what idiots do and buy from places like Currys, Comet or something like that. They'll sell you Hewlett Packards, Dells, Packard Bells, eMachines and all manner of awful, overpriced junk.

Oh yeah, don't get a Dell. It may look like you're getting a deal, but trust me. They skimp on all the parts noone cares to look at, like motherboards, and RAM. And then when it breaks, you have to deal with the worlds worst customer service.

I've had nothing but good experiences with Gateway computers. My dad's 12 year old Gateway, with a 200MHz Intel Celeron is still running. Just don't get their monitors.

 

[DigitalSushi]

If you dont mind spending a few thousand dollars for an excellent laptop, I would definately suggest M-Tech.
http://www.m-techlaptops.com/

I'd take these "M-tech" guys much more seriously if there website had "comic San MS" as there universal font and there laptops were red.

Other than that, pretty slick laptop

 

[Nimbus]

Oh yeah, don't get a Dell. It may look like you're getting a deal, but trust me. They skimp on all the parts noone cares to look at, like motherboards, and RAM. And then when it breaks, you have to deal with the worlds worst customer service.

I've had nothing but good experiences with Gateway computers. My dad's 12 year old Gateway, with a 200MHz Intel Celeron is still running. Just don't get their monitors.

Ironically, Dell is the opposite: They have some of the best value monitors you can buy.

 

[SilentHunter7]

So AMD is the way to go on a budget, but Intel if your a gazzillionairist (with a model girlfriend) and baby oil made from freshly squeezed babies.

Pretty much.

Anyway I digress, what happened to the Hertz race Intel was having with AMD, isn't Intel founded on Moore's Law? yet it doesn't cons tribe so it anymore?

Well someone found out that it's really really hard to make a processor that can break 4GHz without needing a liquid nitrogen cooling system [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUc6znC848o].

So now, it's all about how many cores you can pack onto one processor die. I heard AMD is planning to release an octo-core processor sometime next year.

 

[Emphraim]

Here's my thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.115115] on computers. It's more about custom builds, than buying brand name computers, but I do go into terms and stuff you might find useful.

While it's true that more expensive parts usually mean better speeds, there are some real bargains to be had if you know what to look for.

Example: Intel and AMD. Intel's Core i7 processors generally beat the hell out of AMD's Phenom 2 running at the same clock speed. However, Intel processors cost a lot more. So much so, that a higher end AMD Phenom 2 will beat out a low-end Intel i7, even though they cost roughly the same.

This guide has all the basic parts you need for a computer, OP. Just go on newegg.com and buy the parts right from there. You can buy an amazing monster that can run Crysis for only $800 if you pick your parts right.

 

[newguy77]

So now, it's all about how many cores you can pack onto one processor die. I heard AMD is planning to release an octo-core processor sometime next year.

It's like Octomom, except useful.
Sorry, I'm bored.

OT: Newegg seems to have good deals, at least $10 US less than other people on all the stuff I've checked (not that I check much).

 

[DigitalSushi]

So AMD is the way to go on a budget, but Intel if your a gazzillionairist (with a model girlfriend) and baby oil made from freshly squeezed babies.

Pretty much.

Anyway I digress, what happened to the Hertz race Intel was having with AMD, isn't Intel founded on Moore's Law? yet it doesn't cons tribe so it anymore?

Well someone found out that it's really really hard to make a processor that can break 4GHz without needing a liquid nitrogen cooling system [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUc6znC848o].

So now, it's all about how many cores you can pack onto one processor die. I heard AMD is planning to release an octo-core processor sometime next year.

Sounds typical with history, AMD normally fall back and then blitz the opposition, remember when Intel got blindsided by AMD breaking the 1Ghz mark. (although it may have something to do with a court order stating intel should give their rivals access to their CPU's for 25 years, and AMD breaking the 1Ghz mark coincided with the court order coming to an end)

I thought AMD were pursuing the direction of coupling the CPU and GPU ? is this Octocore thinga me bob that you speak of like the Cell in that it can take multiple duties when required?.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I thought AMD were pursuing the direction of coupling the CPU and GPU ? is this Octocore thinga me bob that you speak of like the Cell in that it can take multiple duties when required?.

AMD is planning on directly connecting the CPU, and GPU, but that technology wont happen until at least fall 2011.

I don't know a whole lot about the Cell, honestly. But I know that the octo-core will probably act like any other multi core processor. It can split the load between all of its cores when you use multi-threaded applications. Or it can put different single-threaded applications on different cores.

 

[effilctar]

It's me again. I've just been surfing around because I was considering a netbook or something small like that when I found a Macbook that, with this year's EMA money, I can afford to buy. would you advise this for someone like me, wanting to use it mainly for notes, the odd bit of web-surfing?

 

[Joshimodo]

If you're planning to get a cheap, decent quality laptop, get an Acer. Sony Vaio is a decent make too, though they overprice like crazy.

Macbooks...Can't say anything good about them, since I hate OS X and most Mac stuff. If you're planning to just take notes and surf the web (with NO gaming, either), Macbook would be fine, though overpriced if that's all you want to do. Macs are generally associated with design/editing of images and video.

 

[ZSF]

If you dont mind spending a few thousand dollars for an excellent laptop, I would definately suggest M-Tech.
http://www.m-techlaptops.com/

I'd take these "M-tech" guys much more seriously if there website had "comic San MS" as there universal font and there laptops were red.

Other than that, pretty slick laptop

They talk about that in their "about our UGLY website" article. Although they would like a better look, they admit that they simply are not good at making things look nice.

"We here at M-Tech have made an astonishing revelation: apparently, when someone is consumed with a love for mobile technology, it also somehow steers them genetically away from any hope of being artistic or having anything that remotely resembles web design talent. This of course was shocking news to us but somehow was also a comfort. We could rest easier knowing that every employee here just couldn't design a website to save their lives and it wasn't their fault. It's just some genetic malady. Kind of like having a beer belly."

 

[Xojins]

Well generally the more you spend on a computer the better it will be... but that doesn't mean you should sink $2,000 into a computer if you're not too computer savvy. That being said, I would probably get something like a Dell if I was you; to me it seems like you use your computer for more casual things (emails, this forum, etc.), and Dell is overall pretty good; I bought one in '05 and it still runs perfectly, and can play most new games like L4D, Prototype, and TF2.

 

[Eternal_24]

Generally the higher the price range the better the hardware (or at least the better quality of it), HOWEVER, that does not mean that something priced at £120 is worse than something priced at £200. Intel sell their hardware at a higher price than AMD do but AMD's hardware is generally better (remember when Intel was copying the X86-64 technology from AMD?).

When talking about computers, the higher the number, the better (most of the time). For example:
2GB is better than 1GB
3.2GHz is better than 2.8GHz
Quad core is better than dual core

If you don't know anything much about hardware that's a very useful and easy way to determine what's better than what.

If you're from the UK, a good site to check out is: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/index.php
They have great prices. I bought my PC from there for £330 and it had:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 7850+ Black Edition 2.80GHz (Processor)
ATI Radeon HD 4850 (1GB) (Graphics Card)
Kingston HyperX 800MHz 4GB RAM
500GB Seagate hard drive.

 

[Pacman_69_42]

self built is always cheaper

 

[Griffolion]

In terms of gaming I dont know its implications but we are due directX 11 cards in september but I sense they might be pointless ? Anyone know anything about that ?

The transition of DX9 to DX10 was basically... not much difference at all. The trouble with DX10/10.1 was that there was no set standard to which game devs could work to, so they basically put which DX10 features they wanted while another game dev could potentially put a whole other set of features DX10 offered. This led to a massive inconsistency in the quality and standard of DX10 level games.

The boffins at DX know this, and have stated that they are working to create a solid standard that all game devs must work to as a minimum for DX11, AND THEN they may add extra features at their own discretion.

I tend not to let past experiences affect future predictions, so im staying fairly impartial to the potential of DX11 until i see it for myself.

What i will tell you is, graphics cards supporting the new DX11 at the very start will be overpriced and wont be very good at running DX11 until the tech becomes more refined. Stick with DX10 cards for the while, until it becomes worth it.

Although saying this, Nvidias new GT-300 chip looks total kickass (basically a GPU/co-CPU put into one), ATI may have cheap 40nm GPUs but Nvidia has literally EVERYTHING else going for it.