Foo - The Phenom has arrived...

...
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn53/RubenX_Longwood/PC%20Stuff/HDT90ZFBGRBOX_2_1600x1600.jpg
3.2Ghz (without overclocking)... 6 cores

Now envy me... buahaha! :D :D :D

Gonna start assembly later... got asus mobo, 500gb seagate @ 7400rpm, and 4gb ddr3 ram ... will cannibalize the rest from current PC.

Wow, that zooming arrow has a major 90's look to it.
Zoom in on the box a bit and get an ad that seems more inline with Foo.
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=186463&d=1295283659

Is that ^^^ a condom package?

^Nope, it's a computer processor box. I just cropped the bottom of Ruben's pic.

Sitting on this would be more comfy.
http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Specialized/6730?$Display$

AMD is still around? Wow.

Isn't even, like, an old Intel C2D 1.8Ghz faster than that thing?

:p

^my iMac puts out 10db ;)

i thought amd got banned?

^my iMac puts out 10db ;)

my tower puts out approximately 22db.

but I blame the seagate hard drives in it.

I was startled the first time my iMac's fan went on. I'm so used to it being basically dead silent.

...
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn53/RubenX_Longwood/PC%20Stuff/HDT90ZFBGRBOX_2_1600x1600.jpg
3.2Ghz (without overclocking)... 6 cores

Now envy me... buahaha! :D :D :D
Is that a new cell phone or something?

Meh. Computers. Call me when you have one of these:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/embraer-phenom/images/1-embraer-phenom-300.jpg

an Embraer Phenom. :)

Meh. Computers. Call me when you have one of these:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/embraer-phenom/images/1-embraer-phenom-300.jpg

an Embraer Phenom. :)

Hey my nephew has one of those airhogs as well!

I have an old core 2 quad at 3.4GHz. When I built it I tested it up to 3.8GHz but I didn't find the limit. I thought 3.4 was good enough for my daily use at this time.

I'm not sure the number but a core 2 quad is faster than an AMD at equivalent clock speed.

I've also built 3 machines recently with the then new i5 quad core processors. These managed to get 3.9GHz reliably, and at equivalent clock speeds the i5-750 is about 15% faster than a previous core 2 quad.

The big advantage of the 6-core AMD is if you do video processing. Those apps seem to be the best at making use of as many cores as you have. There may or may not be an advantage to more than 4 cores for contemporary games. Most of the apps that I run only use one core. At work I use a machine with an Intel dual core processor at 3.8GHz. In comparing it with my other computer I've concluded that even if your apps only use one thread there is still an advantage to overall computer operation with more than 2 cores.

I have an old core 2 quad at 3.4GHz. When I built it I tested it up to 3.8GHz but I didn't find the limit. I thought 3.4 was good enough for my daily use at this time.

I'm not sure the number but a core 2 quad is faster than an AMD at equivalent clock speed.

I've also built 3 machines recently with the then new i5 quad core processors. These managed to get 3.9GHz reliably, and at equivalent clock speeds the i5-750 is about 15% faster than a previous core 2 quad.

The big advantage of the 6-core AMD is if you do video processing. Those apps seem to be the best at making use of as many cores as you have. There may or may not be an advantage to more than 4 cores for contemporary games. Most of the apps that I run only use one core. At work I use a machine with an Intel dual core processor at 3.8GHz. In comparing it with my other computer I've concluded that even if your apps only use one thread there is still an advantage to overall computer operation with more than 2 cores.


Don't know about the I5s or I7s. I do have a core2duo and it can handle a few more apps than an a single core but eventually (backup running, antivirus scanning) it hits the point where you have to close some apps to run others. The Phenom, I've tried hard to slow it down and I just can't.

If you gonna run multiple apps, the more cores the better.

Yesterday I added a 23" wide screen to the mix... 1920 x 1080. I was shopping for more resolution but at $149 this acer could not be beat. To get the 1920 x 1200 you have to spend a lot more (or go with the refurbished unknown brand).

Not sure where to go next... I wanted the graphics card but the on-board ATI HD 3300 on the mobo is working quite well. Probably will get more speed by fine tuning the HD... either RAID-0'd it or go SSD.

Rube' still happy.

PS: Yes Siu, I assembled this PC on the kitchen table. :D

Not sure where to go next... I wanted the graphics card but the on-board ATI HD 3300 on the mobo is working quite well. Probably will get more speed by fine tuning the HD... either RAID-0'd it or go SSD.

The SSD will make the machine boot faster, and might make some apps load a bit faster.

A fancy graphics card would speed up serious gaming, but wouldn't speed up much of anything else. It would also put out more sound and heat, and might require a bigger power supply.

Otherwise you've got a good processor so you might be good for awhile.

The SSD will make the machine boot faster, and might make some apps load a bit faster.

A fancy graphics card would speed up serious gaming, but wouldn't speed up much of anything else. It would also put out more sound and heat, and might require a bigger power supply.

Otherwise you've got a good processor so you might be good for awhile.
Based on my assumptions about Ruben's life at home, yes. For those of us nerds that run CAD software at home, a high power graphics card is practically a requirement.

Based on my assumptions about Ruben's life at home, yes. For those of us nerds that run CAD software at home, a high power graphics card is practically a requirement.

It depends on what cad software. I've run autocad ever since it was invented, and on all kinds of hardware. (well almost since it was invented- I started with autocad release 9 running on an IBM PC with 4.77 Mhz 8088 processor.) My cad workstation at work now has a fancy graphics card, and I've built workstations with various hardware. I've never been able to tell any difference in autocad performance related to graphics cards. I work on autocad at home a lot, through the internet while connected to my workstation at work. If it performs well when sending data through the internet then any basic graphics card is plenty fast enough for it.

OTOH we run Revit at work and it does benefit from a good graphics card, although it doesn't require it.

The biggest problem we've had is when running autocad or revit with a 64 bit OS, then we have to buy a graphics card intended for CAD in order to get drivers that will work with autocad/revit.

I should have specified, 3D CAD software.