Im just now learning more about processors and whatnot, but as of now I have a dual-core, with just 1GB of RAM, 250GB HDD. and i have been thinking of going to a quad-core but then my friend told me about this deal online.
here is the link: http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1336880&sku=B69..._6838_B69-0453
Is this a good deal or does it just look really good? Because to just buy a full computer with a quad-core will be $500+ and for this price to get a 6-core i think is worth getting. I don't need a really good computer but look at this deal i think i will be able to have for a very long time. I have had my dual core for 6 years and have had no problems so this 6-core should last a really long time.
Any suggestions? I appreciate it.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27
that is definitely a good deal, you would be hard pressed to buy the components individually and beat $350, in fact off the top of my head the ram would cost you about $80, $40 if you got really lucky and found a great sale, the motherboard, assuming you got lucky would set you back in the $70-$80 (most likely more), the hard drive would probably be at least $80 and the processor would be at least $120; i really can't see anyone beating that deal or even coming close.
i say jump on it before it's gone (hell, if i wasn't so tight right now i would pick one up also).
edit: it's actually $400 before a combined $50 in manufactures' rebates, which you need to mail in and the various companies will send you rebate checks. despite this, it's still a strong deal, i would still say go for it.
the things always go cheep after buy. I see lot of price reduction with in 6 months.
Don't know what laptop I will getting next year with my planned budget.
I started my computer life with a 3GIG hard disk and NT
I am sure I will be still be struggling with many 32 bit applications on 64 bit OS
Yep, they have the same setup at tigerdirect,
It has been on there for quite a few weeks because i showed it to a friend who wants to build an economy gaming machine because we could throw in a $100.00 vid card and play any game out.
It's not the highest end AMD hex core CPU or ram but for gaming and video encoding it sure would work great!!
They usually have the same exact stuff on tigerdirect, compusa, circuit city websites as i am sure it all come's from the same place it just depends on who you want to give the profit to.
I have ordered from tiger direct for years and i live in michigan and always get anything i order within 2 days.
But also did you guys check out the specifications? I read some of the reviews and there were alot more good ones than bad ones, i dont know much about how good a fan is or anything of that stuff which i saw some complaints on, but i will probably still get this bundle. It should last me many years correct, because i dont plan or see why i would anything better than this?
This fact immediately puts the vast majority of laptops out of any serious consideration for video editing. Some higher-end laptops can still be in the league if they have eSATA; connecting an appropriate external eSATA hard drive to this port fulfills the two physical drive connected to a native bus requirement .
So if you are seriously contemplating editing video on whatever laptop you are considering, it's mandatory that laptop has an eSATA port, and of course, the external eSATA hard drive to plug into it.
Last edited by turk690; 3rd Oct 2011 at 21:30.For the nth time, with the possible exception of certain Intel processors, I don't have/ever owned anything whose name starts with "i".
Just with a quick look, it looks like a very good deal. All decent name brand components. If you wanted a bit of performance boost, that CPU could probably be overclocked to 3Ghz with little effort, though I'm not familiar with that particular CPU. The CPU cooler seems adequate. I would add at least one more hard drive, but that should be easy enough.
With 8GB of RAM, you could run a 64bit OS, if that's what you want. A 64bit OS will run most 32bit programs.
I think it will be a major improvement over a dual core, especially for encoding.
and yes, it should last you for a long time, that's some good horsepower right there, and the good thing is the motherboard is a am3+ board so if come into some money at some point down the road and decide you want to pick up a "Bulldozer" based cpu, after they have come down in price, you'll be able to do that no problem.
honestly, i could see you sticking with a system like this until something died and you had to replace/upgrade again.
Ok so i got some feedback from some other people too and they told me that the power supply is crap and that i should get a different one because it will fry. and also that "Most programs aren't compatible with quad cores let alone a six cores. Four of those cores are going to be doing a whole lot of nothing."
Anyone have any thoughts about that?
Most programs aren't compatible with quad cores let alone a six cores. Four of
those cores are going to be doing a whole lot of nothing.
Quad core, dual cores, three cores, or as many cores as you have are 'compatible'. A multicore really shines when you have a encoding codec that can use them all.
'the power supply is crap'
Last edited by redwudz; 4th Oct 2011 at 00:38.
Actually, it is true that most programs aren't multithreaded, or at least aren't well multithreaded, and that most of those cores will be doing nothing when running those programs. But that's not the issue. Most programs where you spend a lot of time waiting for the computer (as opposed to programs where the computer is waiting for you) are multithreaded now. Since this is a video forum I would assume you do some video encoding. Most modern video encoders are multithreaded and will be able to take advantage of six cores.
I didn't see anything that said exactly what PSU is included. 450 watts is fine for the listed parts -- as long as it's a quality PSU. Many cheap power supplies can't even output half their rating though. If you plan on adding a power hungry graphics card you may need more.
Last edited by jagabo; 4th Oct 2011 at 06:35.
It doesn't include an OS, a keyboard or mouse. Zt Afinnity computers at Costco with 6 cores are pretty reasonable.
1) did they happen to mention how much crack they smoke or which comp sci program they dropped out of?
thermaltake is crap?!? in what universe? this is one of the better brands on the market (i have 2 at the moment in 2 different computers) and 450w is more than enough to power that computer, i guarantee you that under full load that setup won't go over 200w power consumption.
with regards to "Most programs aren't compatible with quad cores let alone a six cores. Four of those cores are going to be doing a whole lot of nothing", this is one of the dumbest things i have heard in a long time and i have watched many Michele Bachmann speeches.
video encoders and editors, good video encoders and editors, have been able to launch multiple threads for years; windows media coder would launch 4 video threads and 2 audio threads, apple's h264 encoder could use 4 threads, procoder (since the first one) could use 16 threads, sony's video software can use up to 24 threads, main concept's software has been able to use 16 threads for years, avidemux can be configured to use almost as many threads as you desire, x264 has a hard coded limit of 128 threads (though the developers advise not going over 48 or so due to rapid quality lose above that), microsoft's expression encoder can use at least 16 threads, the list goes on.
but, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the app you will be using can only use 2 cores max (i.e. it only launches 2 threads, even though in reality it will launch at least 4, including one for the ui and one for audio, in lower priority), why would you build a system using a dual core processor that will be maxed out by a single app? with 6 cores you still have 4 free to browse, play a game, or even better, if the app you're using is re-entrant (i.e. you can launch more than one instance of it) you can launch another 1 or 2 instances and do 3 encodes at the same time.
what you do want to do is configure windows to properly use all the cores; by default windows assumes that the app that has focus (i.e. is the one in the foreground with the "active" gui) is the one you're most interested in and thus allocates more ram time and more cpu time to it's execution even when the priority for all apps is "normal".
what this means is that if you launch your encoding app, set up your job, start the encode and then minimize the gui to the tray windows thinks that you really don't care as much about that encode as you do for the web browser you have open and gives resource priority to the browser, thus slowing your encode down a bit.
this is behavior left over form the win 9x and single core days and was designed to ensure a smooth computing experience for the end user.
what you want to do is change that so windows allocate resource equally to both the main foreground task and the background tasks, here's how you do it:
go to "system properties", "advanced", performance "settings", "advanced", "adjust for best performance of" and choose "background services"; this is for win 7 and vista, if i remember correctly xp has the same option and it also has an option for how ram should be allocated with similar choices, choose "background services".
i know the labels they use are a bit misleading but if you look through the microsoft knowledge base and through the microsoft developer's guides, you will note that these settings do what i described above and not what their labels would have you believe.
Well actually its out of stock now.. i got this response from a guy that instead of getting a 6-core 2.6 GHz like this one, to get a Quad-core 3.4 GHz that has a higher frequency because it isn't always about having more cores.
For some reason that chart isn't showing the label for the second column. It's a Phenom II X4 965, a 3.4 GHz quad.
Last edited by jagabo; 4th Oct 2011 at 19:25.
the quad core 3.4ghz is the x4 965, a Black Edition (i.e. unlocked multiplier) processor; the x6 1035t has a stock clock of 2.6ghz, 3.1ghz turbo and i'm not sure if that one is also a B.E. version (i know all the other 6-core phenoms have unlocked multipliers).
if you kept the 6 core at the stock 2.6ghz, disabled turbo and took the 965 and overclocked it to 3.6ghz, then yes a valid point could be made that there would be circumstances where the quad core would prove to be faster than the 6-core.
the turbo on the 6 core greatly mitigates the clock speed advantage of the quad core and if you factor in overclocking i think you would find the 6-core to be faster all around.
the other thing to keep in mind is that the x61035t is a 95w processor while the x4965 is a 125w processor, if you do plan on overclocking, especially the 965, i would definitely go with a better cpu cooler, something with a lower rpm but bigger diameter fan, so that it doesn't sound like a hair dryer when the cpu fan spins up (the smaller the diameter of the fan the faster it has to spin to pump the same cfm, i.e. volume of air).
of course, your initial question was about the bundle you linked to, once you start going with a different cpu and different cooler you are no longer looking at that bundle but rather acquiring parts separately.
The RAM Prices given are ridiculous.
Last edited by jagabo; 5th Oct 2011 at 19:28.
Ok they are back on stock and I have this last question if u guys can help me. These are the same prices and almost everything the same except
this one has 2.6 GHz : http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1336880&SRC...gybfwBCjCECjCE
this one has 3.2 GHz : http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1147397&SRC...gybfwBCjCECjCE
I dont see why one has a better processor speed but is the same price? Is there anything tricky of why its the same price? I tried comparing the specifications.. i think one has a fan and the other doesnt include the fan but is there something else?
Different motherboard, different chipset, different graphics, 2 vs 4 memory slots, aftermarket cooler.
Ok so for the bundle with the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T the better processor, the motherboard is good enough it only allows up to 8GB RAM but i dont need more than that. the graphics card I already have one and am prolly going to buy a new one anyway. So the only difference now is that the bundle with the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T has a CPU cooler. But -
Say i got the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T bundle and wanted to overclock it because it is only 2.6 GHz, wouldnt i prolly need a better cooler and with a good graphics card wouldnt i have to get a better power supply? So seeing that i might have to buy those things either way, i might as well go with the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T bundle because the things that are missing in this bundle i would probably have to buy even with the other bundle because they arent very good anyway. Do i have this correct?
The 450 watt PSU might be sufficient with moderate overclocking and a moderate GPU. There's no need for a high end GPU unless you're gaming.
u dont need a good GPU for watching HD video and stuff or encoding? I currenly have a GeForce 8400GS 256mb DDR2 memory and was thinking of getting a card with at least 1 GB memory cuz i heard videos play faster or something i dont know much about graphics card, something else i need to learn more about.
The 1035T is an OEM only CPU so it doesn't come with a stock cooler. That's why the Zalman is bundled.
Oh so the 1090T doesnt need a cooler because it has the fan? So then these bundles have the same things just different models basically. I'm goin with the 1090T bundle then I dont have anythin to lose other than i think it doesnt have a HDMI port but i guess i can have that with a graphics card.
Last edited by NaHLiJ; 7th Oct 2011 at 22:45.
Whether NVIDIA, AMD or Intel solutions, rapidity has been accentuated to the detriment of quality. It's rather surprising to see that with software such as MediaConverter from Arcsoft or MediaEspresso from Cyberlink, CPU encoders systematically give a better result in terms of quality than the integrated GPU encoders!...
It's also extremely annoying to note that in the case of GeForce and Radeon encoding, there’s no difference in speed between graphics cards costing 100, 170 or 330 euros...