I need a new pc,but cant make a decision yet processor-wise,especially after reading TomsHardware tests, where sometimes Intel E8500 is faster than Q6660 and other Quads. Moreover,I've just spotted very good offers in large stores offering 64bits machines and Oss ,to grow even more doubts. (But i need to buy a new machine in 10 days time) I use internet extensively,make transactions, and I need speed for it,but I dont play games. I make-copy DVDs or watch movies once in a while,not a lot. P2P,possibly,as also my own (future) site. So here is what I'm asking this distinguished audience: Is buying a 64 bit personal computer with a 64bit OS (obviously Vista on new desktops) the right thing to do just now? (i hate the idea of not being able to use many of my beloved security,at least now) (a pc life span is 2-3 years at best,what about postponing for a couple of years?I promise I' will buy a 64 bit in no more than 3 years time) If your advice is for a 32 bit machine as I hope,what kind of processor?: My choice is all Intel: E8500 , Q6660, Q9500. I chose the first two hoping to buy or set up a 'normal',average, but relatively fast and 2-3 years lasting pc. I'd choose the third one only if I buy an assembled computer and not an HP-sort of machine as they (those machines with the Q9400 upwards) tend to be MediaCenters,which I couldnt care less for. Core2 Duo like the E8500 are out of production now and here is another question: not using the pc too much for graphics or 3Ds, is there really a point in Quad cores? If there's a point, why not sticking to the first born Q6660 then,which is cheap,fast and even overclockable? thanks for any advice in advance, karad
I went with the E8400 cus i "think" quad is overkill - i rather have faster cores thats y i went with dual core. If i had to make a pick right now id go with the fastest amd dual core cus they simply give the best bang for buck, extremely fast and very cheap
Hello, All processors these days are 64bit. Not many applications are optimised for multiple cores at this time. so a dual core with a higher clock rate may be worth it. I went for a quad core because more and more applications are becoming optimized for multiple cores. I have 64bit vista and have no more issues than i did with 32bit vista. I have the same issues as with 32bit vista. slow file copying, programs can react really slowly far to often..... remember 32bit OS will only be able to see maximum 4gb of memory. but normally around 3gb or 3.5gb. sometimes with a video card with video card with alot of memory even less memory will be usable. the new computers with major companies such as dell as starting to ship with 64bit vista now. mainly so that users dont need to worry about the amount of ram they have. if you can you may as well get a Q6600 quad core based pc. buy from a small company and get them to overclock it for you to around 3ghz. this is the same clock rate as the dual core but now you have 4cores at 3ghz. the thing is applications like sandboxie modify the kernel. since patchguard isn't going away when windows 8 or whatever it will be called will be 64bit only and have patchguard. Sandboxie wont be able to work on that operating system. so what will people do then? I am hoping soon enough all applications will be able to work on a limited user account so malware wont be able to do as much damage. plus hopefully major companies such as dell willl be able to somehow tempt people to not use administrator account all the time since it will no longer be needed.
As it is, there are not many applications optimized to use multiple cores. As such, you won't really see any noticeable difference when using an application that is not multithreaded. However, with the prices of Quad-Core CPUs going down, I'd suggest that you get one instead of a Dual-Core CPU. As 64-bit operating systems become more and more prevalent, the need for multithreaded applications will only increase. Personally, I would choose the Q9000s over the Q6600. There's not much diffference between the prices, except for the Q9600 and above (including Extreme Editions). There's a noticeable difference in performance when using multithreaded applications.
I'd go with x64 now, it seems to be the future, and that's mostly what they're selling in stores as well. No reason to go x32 anymore, that will be history in a while.... I have Vista x64 running with no real issues, as well as Ubuntu x64. I don't regret it one bit.
Hmmm when it comes to OC, 2 cores @ 4 ghz or 4 cores @ 3 ghz <--- Still unsure As i said theres not much extra benefit for so much cores when you can get for a much smaller amount of money 2 much more highly clockable cores that are much better supported in general, imo 4 cores is the right choice for when the next version of windows comes out
Thanks everyone. @ GES/POR , SystemJunkie , you made the kind of reasoning (although SystemJunkie was very synthetic ) which has a lot of appeal to me, as i guess that for the kind of things i do a just out of production E8500 would be impercetibly slower than a Q9300. I also suspect that it could be more reliable and tending to last longer,although processors these days very rarely have malfunctions,lets say 'work better' with other components. GES/POR said ...exactly what I'd love now, to build a E8500 ,3GBRAM,512MB Nvidia,XPPro pc which can safely last a couple of years till the next one.This way I'd skip the hassles of Vista and new Quads, building my next one with these newer processors when a new OS is fully established. @lodore,you provide a lot to think about ,like ambient88, and thanks for the link of cyberpowersystems.co.uk, they offer a lot of configurations which I could totally or partially replicate,in case I decide to assemble a machine. I cannot unfortunately trust a package to travel that far to my destination without any damage. But I wouldnt use overclocking,as yet. @Kerodo ,as always,you tend to watch towards the future and I praise you for your optimism. Some time (gone by)after the thread about Vista I must tell you I could even decide to buy a pc with it,obviously a must for a 64 bit compound or a big store purchase. I think I can now master (streamline,speedup) this OS enough to even use it myself. I cant deny I'll be possibly soon among the 'assimilated' you spoke about due to the RAM limit of XP, unless I take heed and go for an all 64bits machine and OS like you advise right now.... I fear you might be right.......but i want to ponder a bit still.
