What model nvidia card?

[Link]

Have you looked into the AMD side of things? For desktops right now, AMD is generally a better buy than Intel.

[Link]

Many (most all?) of the photo and video editing software applications are already dual-processor and/or dual-core aware and take great advantage of the extra 'torque' they provide. 3D gaming requires more horsepower than torque.

As far as the computer's video card is concerned, any mid-range card from ATI, nVidia or Matrox will do just fine. It's 3D gaming that stresses video subsystems, not editing.

Available RAM is much more important for photo and video editing than horsepower. Go with option two but double the RAM to 2 gigabytes.

~ GaySatyr (ABB)

[Link]

@Hardware I'm not sure I say much more about the video editing. Just that I got some old family recordings on VHS I might stick on a DVD and I might get an up to date video camera which I presume is digital.

@oatmeal I didn't note down what card it was so I'm guessing it didn't say on the display.

@reciprocity I only looked at the Intel ones as it seems easier to work out how one chip compared to the next (like bigger number, better chip lol).

These answers probably make me look like a thicko, which is not the case. It's just that for all sorts of reasons I am not in a position at the moment to bottom it all out, yet changing the PC is becoming a priority. Although I have read some journals, the various bits of information are not gelling very well. For one example only, some reviews refer to expansion slots suggesting they are important and some don't. I have no idea whether I'd really need these or not, but I guess so or they wouldn't have them. Then another review for a different machine says that, of its 2 expansion slots one can't be used cos some card or other is in the way. The point I make is that it's hard to wade through it all and weigh up how two machines, which are not identical in any regard, compare.

Z.

[Link]

-- Intel or AMD doesn't matter
-- dual core processor is a big plus (both have them)
-- high resolution 2D graphics, only
-- do NOT need 3D gaming
-- want 2GB memory
-- primary use, Adobe PhotoShop (even if you don't plan to use PhotoShop)

That should get you the machine you need.

The biggest abusers of adjacent expansion slots the over-sized video cards aimed at the gaming community. You do NOT need a gaming-oriented video card to do any kind of standard, business-oriented (word processing, spreadsheets, database, accounting, powerpoint presentations, etc) or internet-oriented task. They are not an advantage for photo and video editing software, either. Any mid-range video card from ATI, nVidia or Matrox will meet your needs perfectly well.

~ GaySatyr (ABB)

[Link]

basically, the 939/754's are the same design that's been out for 3 years, intel's 920 is the best deal for a dual-core right now but it's kind of a transition-period thing.

q2 and q3 are going to see the first real changes in how fast processors are(dual-core's still the same architecture, just can do more threads) in 2-3 years. it's not going to be like scaling tripling itself from year to year like a decade ago, but it's going to mean the most expensive stuff you can buy now is going to be noticably slower than what's going to be a very affordable computer later in the summer. most of the time it doesn't make sense to wait for the future, but in this case the reward for a few months is going to be worth it. it's like knowing the redesigned model of a car you're looking at is lots better than the current model-period that's been out a few years and it's a few months away and is going to stay around for a few more years before the next change.

[Link]

the "better" is silly to get into, but the second people start to talk about reliability of cpu's a lot of knowledgable people tune out whichever company they're a fanboy of. it's a generaly non-issue in modern semiconductors, most everything else in your computer will fail before your cpu

[Link]

Think about it.. an AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4400+ clocked at 2.2 GHz is faster than its Intel counterpart clocked at over 3.0 GHz.

You do the math.

[Link]

a 920's a lot cheaper than x2. i'm not a fanboy of either, just fear you are.

[Link]

update, conroe's already running at 3.33, nada's close to a conroe at 3.33 on am2
While we're still comparing to Socket-939 and only using RD480, it does seem very unlikely that AMD would be able to make up this much of a deficit with Socket-AM2 and RD580. With Conroe's performance advantage averaging over 20% it looks like Intel's confidence has been well placed.

Also keep in mind that we are over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe, performance can go up from where it is today. We also only looked at the 2.66GHz part, the Extreme Edition version of Conroe will most likely be clocked around 3.0GHz which will extend the performance advantage even further.

AMD still does have some time to surprise us with AM2, but from what we've seen today, they are going to have to do a lot of work to close this gap. We saw performance today in the two areas that we were most concerned about with Conroe: gaming and media encoding, and in both Intel greatly exceeded our expectations. Also remember that Conroe should be lower power than the AMD offering we compared it to, although we weren't able to measure power consumption at the wall i
n our brief time with the systems

Edited by - jamesnadt on 4/15/2006 10:55:54 PM

[Link]

This was a welcome change from a computer that was a p4 1.8 ghz but with only 256 MB ram. The file swap drove me completely bonkers as I tried to multitask.

[Link]

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice CPU
- AMD approved cooler
- Asus A8N-E nForce4 Ultra PCI-Express Motherboard
- GeIL 1GB Value (2x512MB) DDR PC3200 CAS2.5 Dual Channel Kit
- 160GB Western Digital Serial ATA-2 8mb Cache Hard Drive
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS 256MB DDR3 PCI-Express Graphics Card
- NEC ND4570 16x16 DVD±RW Dual Layer ReWriter
- Onboard 6 Channel Audio
- Floppy Drive
- Antec SLK-3800B-UK Silent Midi Tower Case
- Antec 400W Silent ATX Power Supply
- Hyundai L72D+ 17" 8ms LCD Multimedia Monitor with built in speakers
- Logitech Media Keyboard (Black)
- Logitech S96 Optical Mouse (Black)
- Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Pre-Install & Supplied with CD/License

(£857.69 Including VAT at 17.5%)

- - Some one is watching over you

[Link]

More RAM is always good and a cheap performance enhancer.

[Link]

deffo get 2*1Gb's (it works faster in pairs)

[Link]

So, I can’t really hold off much longer and doubt my demands require me to have the best machine so I am going to make my purchase soon. I am persuaded to take the dual core chip. Since my local outlet have no dual core AMD’s on offer so I am obliged to stick with the Intel Pentium Dual Core chip, but will upgrade to 2GB.

There is now, however, for very similar money at the same outlet a third option – basically the same thing (or differences that I can sort out myself), 2GB, but it has of the VIIV version of the D920 chip and Windows XP Media centre version. The guy in the shop says the difference with the VIIV chip is that this makes the media stuff have a bit more zip.

So my question is :

(a) Is XP or XP Media best for me; put another way, do I lose anything by getting the Media version like finding it is harder to use for everyday stuff than XP ?

(b) Does the VIIV chip do the media stuff better at the expense of the sort of things I actually will use the machine for ?

TIA

Z.

[Link]