3.2Ghz (without overclocking)... 6 cores
Now envy me... buahaha!
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.
^Nope, it's a computer processor box. I just cropped the bottom of Ruben's pic.
Sitting on this would be more comfy.
AMD is still around? Wow.
I see hills.... Bring them on!!!
Stay calm and bring a towel.
Isn't even, like, an old Intel C2D 1.8Ghz faster than that thing?
^my iMac puts out 10db
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
I was startled the first time my iMac's fan went on. I'm so used to it being basically dead silent.
Meh. Computers. Call me when you have one of these:
an Embraer Phenom.
Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX
Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011), 2011 Windsor Shetland (2011-2014)
Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: I openSUSE: III
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.
The SSD will make the machine boot faster, and might make some apps load a bit faster.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.
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.
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.