Tim,
> I think (though this is not based of anything other than hear-say), that the
> A6 and the i3 are probably pretty comparable overall. Looking to laptop-type
> applications the graphics is better with the AMD, so I'd go with that;
> however, if you're not worried about the graphics, I would seriously consider
> an i5 if you can afford (Ebuyer and special offers are good), or one of the
> "big" desktop processors (Bulldozer (or even opteron) or i7), if you're not
> interested in laptop-type applications.
On price an A6 desktop and i3 are similar in price. You get more
cores with AMD and more clock-cycles with Intel. Both have better
onboard graphics than my exisiting kit and the move to DDR3 and
more RAM with drastically improve performance too.
> For top-end stuff, we (at work) find that AMD gives better price-performance if
> you can run across many cores, whereas Intel gives fewer, faster cores, at
> greater cost. Which is appropriate depends entirely on what you're trying to
> do. This seems to hold true across the rest of their product ranges as well.
>
> For most desktop tasks, you won't notice much difference, but faster cores are
> probably preferable.
I suppose it's all swings and roundabuts. In an ideal world I'd
have many cores that run very fast, consume minimal electricity
and are noce and cold... In practice I'm sure and A6 or i3 will be
loads faster than a 7 year old single core CPU and not much and
slow RAM
> >
> > Either later this year or next year I may replace my 7 year old desktop
> > systems. They are currently running first generation single-core AMD64
> > processors with 2 GiB of RAM.
> >
--
Adam Trickett
Overton, HANTS, UK
When a Microsoft product is the lesser of two evils, you know for
sure that there's something fishy going on.
-- anon
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
