A very serious dilemma... Please help me decide!

[n0iu]

I will be getting a new PC and here is my problem...

I have narrowed my choices to two computers. One PC has an Intel Core i3-4130 Haswell Dual-Core 3.4GHz processor and the other has an AMD A8-5500 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz processor. Other than that, the PCs are both pretty much functionally identical with the same size hard drive (1tb) and 8gb of memory. There is only a $20 difference between them so money is not an issue.

So what should I do... Get the slower quad core or the faster dual core.... or will I even be able to tell the difference?

[koØm]

Intel.

.

[KC2UGV]

Slower quad. Each core is a processor in it's own right.

[KG4CGC]

Minimum i5 on the Intel. Minimum A10 on the AMD. Do not get an i5 from Walmart as they are barely i5s.
I'd just do an i7 with minimum of 8gigs of ram. I mean hell, you'd spend 3 times as much on a radio and not use it as much.

[NM5TF]

quad-core.....

you will NEVER notice the difference of 200 MHz unless you do a lot of benchmarking.....and even then....

and AMD is every bit as good as/better than Intel for processors....

and 16 MB of RAM would take full advantage of the quad-core......

[WØTKX]

I'm running an AMD Phenom II quad core with 8G of RAM. I did upgrade the supply and video. Runs my Flex software and surfs with two monitors. Until Flash crashes in the browser(s), but that's not the fault of the PC. :wtf:

[NQ6U]

I'm running an AMD Phenom II quad core with 8G of RAM. I did upgrade the supply and video. Runs my Flex software and surfs with two monitors. Until Flash crashes in the browser(s), but that's not the fault of the PC. :wtf:

Boycott Flash. It is evil and no longer necessary now that there are open format solutions that do the same thing, and often better.

[n0iu]

Well I am leaning towards the quad core (AMD) despite the fact that it comes with Windows 8.1. The dual core (Intel) is a factory refurb and comes with Windows 7 (which I prefer) and is actually the more expensive of the two... by a whopping $20!

[n2ize]

Go for the quad. Unless the Windows 8 is a major issue. Here it doesn't matter because I don't use Windows anyway. It comes off the system the day I get it. If you can live with Windows 8 get the quad.

[kb2vxa]

The bottom line here is you'll never notice the difference when it comes to processor speed alone, ACTUAL speed is all in the chipset aka side rails. Being Top Gun with a need for speed is vastly overrated anyhow.

Here's a bit of education for the masses leaked by this industry insider. All solid state components like CPUs in this example go from the manufacturer to a "testing house" untested and unbranded. They go down a line of testing stations operated by meat puppets with nothing more than pass-fail at each one. If the CPU is working 100% (pass) it goes into a bin eventually to be branded Intel, if less (fail) it goes to the next station. If pass it goes into another bin to be branded AMD and if fail it goes to the next station, so on and so on down the line until it gets to the last station where it either gets branded Radio Shack (;->) or sent to recycling where they're ground to powder and by mysterious processes valuable metals recovered.

That BTW was an interesting but pain in the arse job where my position as aid to the Chief Engineer setting up testing stations was created allowing him to devote 100% of his time to engineering.

[WØTKX]

^^^

http://i.qkme.me/3scnt6.jpg

[NQ6U]

^^^

http://i.qkme.me/3scnt6.jpg

Yeah, what Warren said is total bushtit. There are significant differences in the architecture between Intel and AMD chips, particularly when it comes to the design of the L2 memory cache.

[n2ize]

Yeah, what Warren said is total bushtit. There are significant differences in the architecture between Intel and AMD chips, particularly when it comes to the design of the L2 memory cache.

Not to mention that I have noticed and even benchmarked significant difference in performance between various processors of different brands, architechtures and speed. And whether a given processor is single core, dual core, or quad core does make a difference as I have demonstrated running mathematically intensive processes that really task the hell out of the processor. The difference is clearly noticeable when running the program on a single core processor and at the same time trying to multitask running other programs and noticing a significant performance degradation versus running the same processes on a dual or quad core and finding virtually no noticeable degradation in performance. Indeed, processors do make a difference, sometimes slight sometimes very significant.

[kb2vxa]

Of course there are differences in architecture with different kinds of processors, manufacturers don't mix them all up or the sorting process wouldn't work. Of course there are differences in speed between brands, that's what branding is all about. Sorry if I confused you guys, it looks like another case of "you had to be there" to understand seeing it for yourself.

[N2NH]

Well I am leaning towards the quad core (AMD) despite the fact that it comes with Windows 8.1. The dual core (Intel) is a factory refurb and comes with Windows 7 (which I prefer) and is actually the more expensive of the two... by a whopping $20!

Unless you are buying a laptop, I'd go with the AMD Quad-Core. I had a desk-top computer with one and it screamed compared to a duo-core. They do run a bit hot so good cooling is important (VERY IMPORTANT) but in my opinion they're worth it. Intels aren't true quad-core cpus in any event and are a lot higher despite that. I had an A6 and it ran great but Charles is right. The A10 would be better now that a few years have passed and software is more demanding, but an A8 will probably be more than adequate.

I've used Win 7/8/8.1. I liked 7 a lot. 8 wasn't bad and 8.1 is a little better but neither of them are dogs like Vista was. Personally I'd skip on a touch screen. Right now as far as I'm concerned, it's little more than a gimmick when it comes to Laptops or Desktops.

[WØTKX]

I've had a preference for AMD for a while... because I don't play games, but screw around with video/audio editing, image rendering/animations, and CAD. The AMD Radeon video chipsets talk real nice to the AMD processors, especially for rendering and CAD type use.

But Intel stuff is good. They are very close to the same value at the mid performance price point.

[NQ6U]

Running a 4.4 MHz 8088 here, with CGA graphics and 640K RAM. Why would anyone need more than that?

[W3WN]

Running a 4.4 MHz 8088 here, with CGA graphics and 640K RAM. Why would anyone need more than that?Oh? When did you give up on the Z80?

[N2NH]

My spare is an IMSAI.:roll:

[n0iu]

Well OK then, it looks like there will be a new quad-core in the shack very soon. It is a desktop, btw. Now I have to buy another dual port serial card since the one I have is PCI and the new machine only takes PCI-Express! Its still cheaper than buy two USB-to-serial adapters for RTTY and CW.

[KG4NEL]

There are some very cool fanless quad-core AMD boxes out there. I'm ogling one with a 24" LED for the new shack 'puter...will hold off on the second monitor until I get a panadapter ;)