Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › I am giving up on computers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I am giving up on computers. - Page 6

Poll Results: Do you have computer issues like this all the time?

 
  • 16% (5)
    Yes it is quite annoying
  • 83% (26)
    no I tend to get good luck.
31 Total Votes  
post #76 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Intel didn't even have the 'i' series when I was in so it seems like they ramped up the procs a bit.  i5 is still slower than what I'd want if I bought a new Laptop today.  Nothing like the desktop i5 at all.  I would need an i7 for portable use at least especially w/o dedicated graphics.  But yeah, we aren't talking Netbook Atom speed for sure.



If portables aren't meant for gaming why does it matter? i7 is for the most part overkill. All you need is an i3.

post #77 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

If portables aren't meant for gaming why does it matter? i7 is for the most part overkill. All you need is an i3.


Oh, you don't know you can play WoW w/ an i7 using Intel integrated graphics and get 40+ fps.  That'll equal your i3 w/ whatever dedicated GPU they attached to it most likely because its a budget chip.  

 

Many GPUs are starved at the CPU now.  Though there is the question of resolution but if you are running a 10" netbook you're probably stuck at 1024x768 anyway.

 

Think of your GPU as an Ortho.  The CPU is the amp.  If you want to run an HE6 w/o an amp, enjoy.

 

i7 and whatever GPU you can afford.  Besides a fast CPU isn't overkill even if you don't game.  That's not the only thing they were designed for btw.

 

post #78 of 135

During old days sales, programmers and tech folks need to run several instances of OS, including server platform with mobile capability, so the memory, CPU and disk requirement for notebook was really high - Booting up the machine and fire up virtual machines would take 30 minutes before we can do or work / presentation.

 

Back then machine reliability is not really important - since we are using virtual machines the dependency wasn't so heavy, and we can always make it work in a new machine in like 2-3 hours.

 

Now the speed and such is much improved, but business world no longer require them - with remote computing needed is a WAN connection, and we get all the computing powers over the line :P

 

Now powerful desktop / machine is more for personal usage. How ironic.

 

The only exception would be lock down corporate machines which has like 20 thousand pre-installed apps, 20 million policies to run, and those machines still stuck in like, Windows 2000, and hmm... P3/P4? I worked in such a environment.  Everyday I fired up my machine, go for my breakfast, toilet break, and the screen ain't ready for log on yet. There are people who left their machine on 24X7 for this sole reason, and I didn't want to do it because it would really cut down your machine's life span.

 

Vista brought back those horrible memory.

post #79 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




Oh, you don't know you can play WoW w/ an i7 using Intel integrated graphics and get 40+ fps.  That'll equal your i3 w/ whatever dedicated GPU they attached to it most likely because its a budget chip.  

 

Many GPUs are starved at the CPU now.  Though there is the question of resolution but if you are running a 10" netbook you're probably stuck at 1024x768 anyway.

 

Think of your GPU as an Ortho.  The CPU is the amp.  If you want to run an HE6 w/o an amp, enjoy.

 

i7 and whatever GPU you can afford.  Besides a fast CPU isn't overkill even if you don't game.  That's not the only thing they were designed for btw.

 


If you don't use Photoshop or you don't do anything to media oriented such as gaming or media production all you need is a cheap $500 machine with simple specs. I have a Toshiba Satellite L655 with an amd athlon 2 p320 at 2.1 ghz and it is fast enough to do any task. The GPU is an integrated ati radeon 4250. I don't understand the purpose of spending more unless you game. Even that slow machine can play any game I throw at it on low settings at least.

I feel my new Acer with dedicated graphics and an Intel core i3 370m is actually overkill for what i use it for. But at least I can play fallout on ultra high settings. Keep in mind I am using an ati radeon hd 5470 for my graphics. Extreme high end computers are overrated.

post #80 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

I don't understand the purpose of spending more unless you game.

 

Think you answered that partially in your first sentence.  If you don't get it or it doesn't apply that's fine.  Don't think everyone has the same needs you do, they don't.

 

Even that slow machine can play any game I throw at it on low settings at least.

 

What's the point of that?  Everything looks like original Doom like that.  I'd probably enjoy Angrybirds on a smartphone more.  I'll have to play that someday...

 

I feel my new Acer with dedicated graphics and an Intel core i3 370m is actually overkill for what i use it for.  

 

Yup.

 

Extreme high end computers are overrated.

 

Depends on what you mean by high end and overrated.  My desktop Monitor is 2560x1600.  Tell me what GPU you think I should be using and why and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.


 

 

post #81 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post



Extreme high end computers are overrated.

 

Depends on what you mean by high end and overrated.  My desktop Monitor is 2560x1600.  Tell me what GPU you think I should be using and why and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.


 

 



try this

post #82 of 135
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:

Even that slow machine can play any game I throw at it on low settings at least.

 

What's the point of that?  Everything looks like original Doom like that.  I'd probably enjoy Angrybirds on a smartphone more.  I'll have to play that someday...

There is more to games then just graphics. If the only thing making a game playable is it's graphics it's not worth playing. Plus I honestly just want a computer for music and HD movies as well as word processing and internet browsing. As long as it can play games on low settings I am fine. I am not picky on graphics. Plus low settings isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

 

Considering the 4 things I mentioned I needed are what most people need a computer for, even a cheap budget machine would be fine. Why pay more if you don't have to. It's more for bragging rights anyways.

post #83 of 135

The i7 2600k is a waste of $100 for the average and gaming users. The main difference is that it supports hyperthreading, which almost nothing uses. The 2500k can be overclocked to essentially the same speeds and offer the exact same performance in pretty much everything.

 

The whole "extreme high end computers are overrated" is quite frankly a ridiculous statement. You're posting on a headphone enthusiast board... It's the same as saying everyone's $100+ systems are a waste of money because ibuds sound "good enough". Have to keep in things in context, step back and think. 

 

Personally, I have a phenom II 940@ 3.6ghz, xfire 5870s, and an intel X-25m ssd. I mostly play League of Legends, Counter Strike Source, Age of Empires 3, and the occasional game of DOW2. So clearly I don't need xfire 5870s... But I have them anyways. I like having a fast computer, the same as I like having my HD600s, DBA-02s, NFB-12, Bottlehead crack, and fubarII.

 

EDIT: Ninja'd, anyways, Low settings are horrible, you don't know obviously since you can't play on anything higher...

post #84 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

try this


Sorry, wrong.  I've got a 6990 atm and honestly could use another.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirkpitt45 View Post

The i7 2600k is a waste of $100 for the average and gaming users. The main difference is that it supports hyperthreading, which almost nothing uses. The 2500k can be overclocked to essentially the same speeds and offer the exact same performance in pretty much everything.


I stopped overclocking years ago and go for out of the box reliability now.  Plus you realize we are talking about mobile processors here.  They aren't the same as desktop processors.  Last thing you want to do is thermally stress anything in a Laptop beyond it's design intent.

 

Imagine this on low settings.  I couldn't take it.

 


Edited by Anaxilus - 9/17/11 at 9:49pm
post #85 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

 

There is more to games then just graphics. If the only thing making a game playable is it's graphics it's not worth playing. Plus I honestly just want a computer for music and HD movies as well as word processing and internet browsing. As long as it can play games on low settings I am fine. I am not picky on graphics. Plus low settings isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

 

Considering the 4 things I mentioned I needed are what most people need a computer for, even a cheap budget machine would be fine. Why pay more if you don't have to. It's more for bragging rights anyways.

 

For HD movies and stuff like that, ALL YOUR NEED IS A i5, trying to elaborate on this with ignoant people I work with

You really dont need a i7

You can get some models of i5 for less than $200

Its perfectly fine. Basically you need a quad-core
 

Quad Core are pretty cheap compared to 6 months ago

 

AMD supply 6 core processors for $125

It rivals those of Intel

 

Quad-Core processor AMD/Intel both fine $200 MAX

Compatible motherboard $50-125

PSU 500-650 Watts $50-140

RAM (Memory) 4 GB-8GB Its varies, most start at $40-$100 MAX GSkillz or Cosair

Graphic card, GT220 or it you want boost GT460 or ATI 5850

CD/DVD Reader/Writer $15-20

Case..... Mid/Full ATX Both fine $50-$200

post #86 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

I stopped overclocking years ago and go for out of the box reliability now.  Plus you realize we are talking about mobile processors here.  They aren't the same as desktop processors.  Last thing you want to do is thermally stress anything in a Laptop beyond it's design intent.

 



Aha yeah sorry realized that after, I shouldn't be posting half drunk >.< Completely disagree on the overclocking thing though, long as you keep a reasonable vcore and don't push the nbridge too much you really don't have much to worry about. Intel made a killing with nehalem and the i7/950/975, 920s with bumped multis woo! Though in all seriousness, there is really no advantage to the 2600k at this point. Maybe by this next time year if developers start taking advantage of hyperthreading more. But they didn't way back when when AMD attempted to bring it up so meh.

post #87 of 135

I'm just going by the bench numbers and frame rates of a mobile i7 versus a mobile i5 using IntelHD graphics.  But yeah, I use paranoia as an extra safety margin wrt electronics.  Personal choice and experience.

post #88 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirkpitt45 View Post

The i7 2600k is a waste of $100 for the average and gaming users. The main difference is that it supports hyperthreading, which almost nothing uses. The 2500k can be overclocked to essentially the same speeds and offer the exact same performance in pretty much everything.

 

The whole "extreme high end computers are overrated" is quite frankly a ridiculous statement. You're posting on a headphone enthusiast board... It's the same as saying everyone's $100+ systems are a waste of money because ibuds sound "good enough". Have to keep in things in context, step back and think. 

 

Personally, I have a phenom II 940@ 3.6ghz, xfire 5870s, and an intel X-25m ssd. I mostly play League of Legends, Counter Strike Source, Age of Empires 3, and the occasional game of DOW2. So clearly I don't need xfire 5870s... But I have them anyways. I like having a fast computer, the same as I like having my HD600s, DBA-02s, NFB-12, Bottlehead crack, and fubarII.

 

EDIT: Ninja'd, anyways, Low settings are horrible, you don't know obviously since you can't play on anything higher...

Um I play on high with my Acer just fine. It has an Intel core i3 370m, 4gb ram, ati radeon hd 5470, and a 640gb hard drive. I just don't see the need for more power.

 

I personally find 90% of games nowadays boring and repetitive though. Even on consoles they are boring. Give me n64 games any day.

 

Games I play once in a while include.

 

Cod WAW (played on max)

Cod BO (boring except zombies, played on high)

Fallout 3 and New Vegas (played on max)

Oblivion (max settings)

Spore (played on max)

Simcity 4 and Citylife (Simcity on max, Citylife on high)

 

Looking forward to (want to buy)

Skyrim (probably run on medium)

Red orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad (also probably runs on medium)

 

So before spending more on a laptop if this is how you want games to run this is fine.

 

Total price.

 

$600 (laptop)

 

 


Edited by bcasey25raptor - 9/17/11 at 10:14pm
post #89 of 135

Come on guys, sure we don't need 4 GTX 580 in SLI. Its overkill. BUT, so is a STAX SR009, or a Ferrari. None of that is needed but having them is just, well simply awesome. 

 

Overkill FTW

post #90 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parall3l View Post

Come on guys, sure we don't need 4 GTX 580 in SLI. Its overkill. BUT, so is a STAX SR009, or a Ferrari. None of that is needed but having them is just, well simply awesome. 

 

Overkill FTW



The point of having overkill is for bragging to friends. I see no point in that and i think more realistically. Pay for what you need not what is for bragging rights. Seriously people who buy beats for example love bragging. They know very well they don't need it. I always brag about my good sounding headphones. It is fun to brag about having something most people will never buy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › I am giving up on computers.