View Single Post
Old 11th November 2008
ephemera's Avatar
ephemera ephemera is offline
Knuth's homeboy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 537
Default

> The Q8200 is a little cheaper than the Q9400, but I've also noticed the Q8200 doesn't have 'Intel VT'. I have no clue is that is important to me: could anybody advise me please?

Most desktop users will not benefit from a quad core. They cost more and have higher tdp.
Very, very few applications will benefit from 4 cores and most people don't run those sort of applications. Also, the "I am a heavy multitasker" argument is BS.

I would recommend a Core2 E8400 or higher.
Or, if you can afford it then buy all means go for 3GHZ or higher core2 quad or even core i7.

> Do I understand correctly that this means the quad cores are actually useless since it will operate as 1 core?

No, Vermaden is talking about dual-socket m/c (2 physical processors) where you need a xeon.
quad core is a CMP which in practical/layman terms is just like having 4 physical processors.

> Actually the 750GB would be fine, but I've noticed the 1,5TB has a slightly lower price per GB. Whichever it will be, I would install two I think.

I would go for 2x750 instead of 1x1500

> Thanks for the advise on 80plus. I've selected the Corsair (I thought I've read it has good comments, and it isn't very expensive), and I've added the Seasonic based on the advises posted here. Again: and so, now I am stuck: which one to choose?

Both are good. If you can't make up your mind then go for Seasonic. (BTW, the particular corsair 450W model I have heard is very good.)

> video

I would 'not' recommend the Asus "Silent" models (passive cooling).

Last edited by ephemera; 11th November 2008 at 01:19 PM.
Reply With Quote