[quote]TShaw wrote:
I work with both; actually, I manage about 15x as many Windows machines as Macs at my school (I’m the one-man IT Department).
I find that I prefer Macs. I find them at least as easy to use as Windows XP, networking is a breeze, installing software (and expecting it to run first time) is better than on the Windows machines.
Take it for what it’s worth.[/quote]
Have you made any Leopard updates yet? I’ve noticed that on some that the printers are removed and iDVD and iMovie have “issues”.
So you think having a faster more powerful PC is better than the same money invested in mac?
This system that your talking about is it PRE built ? if so which company? or is it built personally? I looked at the config at dell and its a bit expensive!
For under $1400 shipped you can get a Quad core Intel CPU, 4GB of ram, 1TB of raid HDD space, a great video card that will run today’s games, a good sound card, and a dvd burner, not to mention a nice case and an extremely reliable power supply. Throw in your choice of speakers and a monitor and that’s one heck of a system.
So you think having a faster more powerful PC is better than the same money invested in mac?
This system that your talking about is it PRE built ? if so which company? or is it built personally? I looked at the config at dell and its a bit expensive!
[/quote]
It depends on what you are going to use it for and what programs you want.
If you want all around compatibility I would just get a PC, unless you need a mac for something specific that you know it’s better for. A PC will be far cheaper than a mac and far more powerful on the hardware side.
That system is pre-built, all the parts needed to make a turn key PC. Last night I just took a browse on newegg.com (best parts computer parts company in the world, bar none) and threw everything into the cart to see how much it would cost. Looking at the same config now, the total with tax and shipping to California is $1,364.08.
I’d imagine you’d probably be more comfortable with someone else building it. If you have a local PC store they should be able to put it all together for somewhere around $50-100, unless you know someone personally who can do it.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
daltron wrote:
Basically Phenom is a bust; a late disappointing move by AMD to enter the quad core desktop market.
Yeah, but it’s value in the server market is massive.[/quote]
I’d have to disagree, if only it’s introduction was to force Intel to lower prices and release higher clocked chips.
It costs more than Intel and it performs slower. Intel’s Penryn will only make matters worse next year.
Besides, Phenom is for the desktop market, not the business servers, another area currently dominated by Intel.
The bottom line is that Phenom will initally cost more, perform less, and consume more power and produce more heat than the current Intel offerings. That’s bad news all around.
The only way I see Phenom as a smart move is if you’re upgrading, since a simple bios update should allow any AM2 motherboard to accept it, which would save $80+ for a small performance drop if you were to go Intel CPU + a new motherboard.
Barcelona’s (the AMD Quad Core Server offering) consume much less power than current Intel offerings.
It’s been calculated that if Google used Barcelona’s in their Server farms they would save massives amount of money monthly on their power bills (I can’t find the estimated figure or i’d use that).
What seems to fool a lot of people is how AMD and Intel show their TDP ratings. Intel uses a “middle of the road” TDP while AMD rates their chips at peak.
The Barcelona architecture far surpasses the C2D/C2Q architecture in power consumption because of it’s ability to shut down each core individually and not having to run them in pairs.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Barcelona’s (the AMD Quad Core Server offering) consume much less power than current Intel offerings.
It’s been calculated that if Google used Barcelona’s in their Server farms they would save massives amount of money monthly on their power bills (I can’t find the estimated figure or i’d use that).
What seems to fool a lot of people is how AMD and Intel show their TDP ratings. Intel uses a “middle of the road” TDP while AMD rates their chips at peak.
The Barcelona architecture far surpasses the C2D/C2Q architecture in power consumption because of it’s ability to shut down each core individually and not having to run them in pairs.[/quote]
Yeah you’re right, I don’t know why I was talking about the desktop phenom (totally different platform).
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
daltron wrote:
Yeah you’re right, I don’t know why I was talking about the desktop phenom (totally different platform).
They’re not much different. It’s the equivelant of Opteron’s and X2’s. They use the same architecture but are just geared differently.[/quote]
Desktop wise the difference is huge, with Intel able to compete with anywhere from a -100 to -200 MHz deficit. Power consumption is also flipped around vs. their server brethern, whereas Intel’s ram choice leads to higher power consumption since they use FB-DIMMs.
Intel’s CPU architecture uses more power because of the inability to shut cores down individually, also.
And i’m not sure Intel’s are that much better after seeing more reviews. I’ll wait until some real world testing comes out to say for sure, but right now they seem just about even with Intel having a slight advantage.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Intel’s CPU architecture uses more power because of the inability to shut cores down individually, also.
And i’m not sure Intel’s are that much better after seeing more reviews. I’ll wait until some real world testing comes out to say for sure, but right now they seem just about even with Intel having a slight advantage.[/quote]
Oh I agree that Barcelona (server platform) uses less power in general, although I thought it was the FPU unit and not the entire core, I was just adding in the ram issue also.
Over the years I’ve really liked Anandtech’s reviews, they seem to be fair and consistent, but early sample testing isn’t always the best indicator of the final product.
well which is it? nix the mac? ive realized that the IMAC has the power of a laptop. WHich I did not want.
what computers will have the phenom chip? will I have to build one.
[quote]MISCONCEPTION wrote:
well which is it? nix the mac? ive realized that the IMAC has the power of a laptop. WHich I did not want.
what computers will have the phenom chip? will I have to build one.[/quote]
I’d stick with quad intel atm. I’d get a friend or a local pc shop to build it for you.