Xmas PC Upgrading

Are quad cores worth it? I've read a bunch of stuff saying that most applications won't ever see much performance over a dual core.

I'm a LONG way away from building a new computer, but when I do, it will be a ROX box.

Gatyr wrote: Are quad cores worth it? I've read a bunch of stuff saying that most applications won't ever see much performance over a dual core. I'm a LONG way away from building a new computer, but when I do, it will be a ROX box.

What is the system used for? If you're just using it for simple web browsing and MS Office kind of stuff then don't bother getting a beefy quad-core. If you often have tons of crap running simultaneously, play games, or use apps for video/photo editing or content creation (Photoshop, 3DStudio, After Effects, etc.) then having 4 cores would be helpful and you would almost certainly notice the difference. I took a few 3D modeling classes in school and that stuff is extremely CPU-intensive (and multi-threaded) so I would have loved to have a quad-core like my roommate did. My dual-core Opteron 165 did pretty well, especially since I overclocked the snot out of it, but it still got smoked by his Core2 Quad. Outside of the 3D modeling stuff and some games, both systems were stupid fast and could handle everyday tasks with ease. I'm still on the same system after nearly 3 years and it's still more than adequate. I'd like to get a Core i7 system because I love having a beastly computer but I definitely can't say that I really need it.

Darur wrote: choopie911 wrote:  You completely missed the meaning of what I said. I never said they manufactured hardware, I'm not retarded, I know they're not a hardware manufacturer. I said they have control over their hardware. They know what is being put into the computer, and every single one is the same, revisions and all. This consistency lends itself to reliablity. Yes windows can be reliable and fantastic, but I feel its much more common and simple on os x, and I believe that's a part of it, as you don't need to find drivers etc. Also while it may not work directly between ford and mercedes, the parts analogy does work, as many companies use the same components. Heck a Lotus Elise uses a Toyota engine. Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you said Apple manufactures its hardware, I mentioned that because some people still do think that, but you did imply that Apple puts together the computer, or at least thats what I got out of it.  And that is not true. But your point is correct, and exactly what I was arguing to Pariel earlier: Because Apple uses only a small selection of hardware configurations which they control, they can ultimately optimize and test OS X much easier then Microsoft can with Windows, which does lead to more stability and, to an extent, better performance.

Exactly! High five!

agentwhale007 wrote: Darur wrote: Because Apple uses only a small selection of hardware configurations which they control, they can ultimately optimize and test OS X much easier then Microsoft can with Windows, which does lead to more stability and, to an extent, better performance.   And just to bring this thing full circle: That also makes Apples more expensive in the long run, but the thing I was trying to say in the beginning, is that you get what you pay for. Apples are not just arbitrarily more expensive.

It kind of does, because there are hardware configurations that do not clash with each other for Windows and Linux machines too. Apple just makes it easy because you don't have to figure it out. I don't see that process as being worth the hundreds of dollars extra you pay for the same performance.

That price you're paying is a product of their successful marketing of their OS. They do a good job of catching the people are fed up by their mismanagement of their machines, who think Windows is at fault. They switch over, get used to the interface, and convince themselves it feels better because they feel good knowing they've left Windows behind. The trash practices of other PC manufacturers (installing crapware, for example) only help Apple with their marketing.

People keep raving about the interface of OSX but I just can't stand it. The lack of a built in right click (I know that can be changed, but you've gotta do something about it), I don't like the dock, the upper taskbar, the three buttons being on the top left instead of right of a window (what the hell is the difference between red and yellow anyway?). There are other things about it that just annoy me when I use it. The answer I get to all of that is "it just makes sense," but I have plenty of experience using Macs and I still haven't adjusted.

The only benefits I see to OSX are that it's harder to lose stability and that there are some programs specific to the OS that you can't get on anything else. For the responsible computer user, most of the factors that keep a Mac running properly are not necessary.

Unless of course it's a laptop, in which case I don't see myself getting anything else when I finally get the money to replace the piece of crap I have now. I've seen enough screwed laptops to know that non-Apple manufacturers still haven't figured a damn thing out.


Edited by Tolgak - 26 December 2009 at 2:42pm

Go to their site and download the drivers for your laptop then reload it with windows 7 64-bit.