Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

X4 vs Q8300 vs i3


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 danthecancanman

danthecancanman

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 09 May 2010 - 05:06 PM

I'm planning to buy a new desktop and, not being particularly hardware-savvy, am just going to opt for a pre-built system. I have narrowed it down to three choices which are roughly equivalent, with the CPU being the main difference:

AMD Athlon II X4 630
Intel Core 2 Quad-Core Q8300
Intel Core i3 530

The X4 option is the cheapest, with the Q8300 being +30 and the i3 adding a further 50 onto this. What would you recommend? I won't be using it for anything hugely intensive, but would like things to be fairly snappy so don't mind the extra cost if it's worth it.

I know you probably get sick of processor "vs" threads, but I'd be grateful for any advice you can give me.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Chrystie

Chrystie

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 09 May 2010 - 05:30 PM

Hello,

I would recommend the Intel Core i3. The i class processor is the newest technology and will likely not be replaced for quite a while. While it is more money it is slightly faster than either of the other options, and offers an L3 cache of 4MB as apposed to an L2 cache of only 4 x 512KB and 4MB from the other two. However if you feel you cannot afford the i3 I feel the AMD Athlon would be a better bang for the buck, over the Quad Core Intel.

-Chrystie

#3 computerxpds

computerxpds

    Bleepin' Comp


  • Moderator
  • 4,493 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:06:36 AM

Posted 09 May 2010 - 05:47 PM

Yeah i would go for the amd myself it is much cheaper and it will suit your needs well. :thumbsup:
sigcomp.png 
If I have replied to a topic and you reply and I haven't gotten back to you within 48 hours (2 days) then send me a P.M.
Some important links: BC Forum Rules | Misplaced Malware Logs | BC Tutorials | BC Downloads |
Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook! | Twitter! | Google+| Come join us on the BleepingComputer Live Chat on Discord too! |

#4 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 09 May 2010 - 07:35 PM

I would lean AMD though I think I would lean toward the phenom line if available. it would still be cheaper then the intel CPUs, but offer greater performance then the athlon.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,287 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 10 May 2010 - 11:11 AM

Either altenative suggested or anticipated...provides far more computer than you seem to need (IMO).

In my world, that means "cheaper is better."

As for the general concept of "snappy computers"...that's usually determined by RAM and what's installed to bring the system to its knees, if you are not a gamer. Choice of programs to be installed...is the key, IMO.

Louis

#6 danthecancanman

danthecancanman
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 10 May 2010 - 02:21 PM

Thanks to all for the very helpful replies!

the_patriot09 - the Phenom X4 820 is also an option, but would be the same price as the i3 system, albeit with 6gb vs 4gb RAM.

hamluis - thanks, I'm pretty minimalist when it comes to software and generally opt for lightweight options - no bloatware around here! :thumbsup: I realise that I could quite comfortably get by with a cheaper computer - the fact that I've lived from a netbook for the past month pretty much proves that. That said, I don't mind spending a little bit extra to get a good system as long as I feel it is worth it - I suppose I'm trying to get an understanding of what tangible difference if any I'd notice between the various options. I suppose since the general consensus here is that the AMD option is the best, the answer is that the extra money doesn't justify any performance difference!

#7 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,287 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 10 May 2010 - 03:07 PM

IMO...today's computers are built with components that are way beyond the needs of users like me (don't game, record music, video files, browse, etc.).

This is due to the existence of gamers and others...who demand more and more of a system...and game developers, who keep changing the game.

The result is that users like me...wind up with inexpensive systems that perform extremely well, while new systems continue to spewed out like clockwork to a public that doesn't understand or particularly care about the specs. The public attitude acceptss the newest system as "the standard" and cares little whether or not they need such to do their mundane tasks on the Internet.

As one who paid about $2000 for my very first PC in 1996...I like this :thumbsup:.

I treat it as a hobby...an educational, pleasing hobby that really costs a lot less than a good vacation or a bad hobby might.

The only maxim that I would try to get users to think about...any new system today...will worth less than half the money you spend on it...within a year...and will no longer be that "much desired system" of...yesteryear. But it will work and serve the owner well, if you maintain it properly.

Louis

#8 danthecancanman

danthecancanman
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 10 May 2010 - 04:37 PM

Thanks, it's interesting to get your perspective as you seem to use your computer in much the same way as me, and you have a similar perspective but with much greater knowledge.

#9 meuchel

meuchel

  • Members
  • 275 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 11 May 2010 - 12:39 PM

i didn't see it made clear as to what you are doing with the new computer.
processors do not fully dictate the speed rating of the computer.
and multiple cores do not make it faster unless you are multitasking or using an app that supports multiple threads.
but to add to the confusion :thumbsup: i would look into the hard drive speed as well as the size.

most people who are out to break the almighty windows experience rating will find that the cap is the hard drive.
the only way to boost the rating is using a solid state sata drive instead of a standard 7200 RPM sata drive.
i don't know who you are looking at as far as manufacturers but I don't know of any off the top that use solid state in the factory setups.

#10 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 11 May 2010 - 01:55 PM

actually meuchel, most modern software today can make use of multiple cores, and there will be a point needed where you will need a quad, making one a worthwhile investment-even if one doesnt 100% need one now. And your right there are other factors, but the hard drive is not always the limiting factor-there are ways of improving performance without buying the outrageously expensive SSD. You can purchase the 10,000 rpm drives-that will improve overall performance, as well as using any form of RAID array that uses striping, can also give one a solid Hard drive speed boost. But in any case, its not a huge deal, I have 2 7200 rpm drives in RAID 1 (mirror) and while it drops my windows experience index to 5.3, I notice little to any slow down at all.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#11 meuchel

meuchel

  • Members
  • 275 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 11 May 2010 - 02:06 PM

@ the_patriot09
i did start the post of saying i didn't know what the OP's goal was.
My post was about the windows experience rating.
so if you have different goals in mind then by all means do what it takes.

i have just seen people with a fireball of a computer and the run the experience rating and go...well why did i not get the full 5.9? or 7.9 in windows 7

again let your goals be the judge of what you intend to spend your coin on.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users