budget PC dilemma

[Angelo_86]

Hey guys, I hope this is the right place to post this. I'm about to get a new budget PC for web surfing, watching movies, and minor gaming. I have narrowed down my option with 3 computers:

AMD Phenom X4 9150e Quad-Core @ 1.8GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE

AMD Phenom X3 8550 Triple-Core @ 2.2GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE

Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200 @ 2.50GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 7100

The rest of the specs are all the same. I need your help deciding which one would be better. Would I see any difference in speed between this computers? and which one would let me be set for years to come? I only have limited knowledge when it comes to this stuff.:confused:

Thanks in Advance,
Angelo

[nordmichael29]

What do you normally use a computer for? and are you planning on runing windows or linux or both?

[LowSky]

AMD Phenom X4 9150e Quad-Core is just as expensive as the 9850 X4, sure the 9150 uses less power consumption under a full load, it isn't worth the loss of speed per dollar ratio. I say go quad core, just get a full model.


NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE is an old chipset I would go with something more modern. like this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131354

[jken146]

web surfing, watching movies, and minor gaming
If this is all you'll use it for, your specs sound like overkill to me.

[Angelo_86]

Thanks for all the reply. So a 1.8GHz quad is still faster than a 2.2GHz triple core? Sorry I'm just new to all this computer stuff.


NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE is an old chipset I would go with something more modern. like this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131354
Sorry, since it is somewhat bundled. I guess a graphics card can be added in the future if needed


What do you normally use a computer for? and are you planning on runing windows or linux or both?

I'm planning on dual booting it with 64bit vista and Ubuntu


If this is all you'll use it for, your specs sound like overkill to me

Well I also occasionally use it as a multimedia such as storing and editing my pictures and videos. I wanted the system to last me a long time without worrying about power hungry application down the road.

[blueturtl]

I would suggest the lattermost option, the Intel Dual-Core with GeForce 7100 based on the following assumptions:

1) Currently Intel's Core2 Duo is the best x86 CPU available, and Pentium-Dual Core is essentially just a Core2 Duo with a smaller cache memory. Especially at a higher clock I'd expect it to perform better than AMD's offerings though I can't really say how the Phenom compares to the Athlon X2 lineup.

2) The Phenoms listed are triple- and quad-core models with a lower clock speed. This means that they should be more efficient at parallel tasking -- but even today most applications have a hard-time making use of even just two cores. Unless you have a very specific use in mind that you know is going to benefit from having more than two cores, it makes more sense to go with a system with less cores and a higher clock speed. Also you do get two cores with the Pentium Dual-Core system.

3) Based on nothing more than the name, I expect the GeForce 7100 to be better than the GeForce 6150.

4) Considering the upgrade path, the Phenoms are probably end-of-the line whereas you can easily upgrade a system with the Pentium Dual-Core to a full Core2 Duo or even Core2 Quad/Extreme.

Now this is just a hunch I have, I'm not saying I'm 100% correct. Follow your heart and the advice of others. :)

[Angelo_86]

I see. Now that makes the list 2...:)

[gn2]

Just buy a PS3.

[grazed]

Thanks for all the reply. So a 1.8GHz quad is still faster than a 2.2GHz triple core? Sorry I'm just new to all this computer stuff.

no, it isn't. the triple will vastly out perform the quad in gaming, video playback... actually, just about any single task.

the ONLY place the quad would come near it would be in extreme multi-tasking cases. (running a virus scan, playing a movie, using bit-torrent, and decompressing a rar file, all at the same time.)

[grazed]

I would suggest the lattermost option, the Intel Dual-Core with GeForce 7100 based on the following assumptions:

1) Currently Intel's Core2 Duo is the best x86 CPU available, and Pentium-Dual Core is essentially just a Core2 Duo with a smaller cache memory. Especially at a higher clock I'd expect it to perform better than AMD's offerings though I can't really say how the Phenom compares to the Athlon X2 lineup.

2) The Phenoms listed are triple- and quad-core models with a lower clock speed. This means that they should be more efficient at parallel tasking -- but even today most applications have a hard-time making use of even just two cores. Unless you have a very specific use in mind that you know is going to benefit from having more than two cores, it makes more sense to go with a system with less cores and a higher clock speed. Also you do get two cores with the Pentium Dual-Core system.

3) Based on nothing more than the name, I expect the GeForce 7100 to be better than the GeForce 6150.

4) Considering the upgrade path, the Phenoms are probably end-of-the line whereas you can easily upgrade a system with the Pentium Dual-Core to a full Core2 Duo or even Core2 Quad/Extreme.

Now this is just a hunch I have, I'm not saying I'm 100% correct. Follow your heart and the advice of others. :)

unfortunately the 7100 is an integrated card, and wouldn't be able to run any modern games. =/

[Frak]

unfortunately the 7100 is an integrated card, and wouldn't be able to run any modern games. =/
False, I can play Team Fortress 2 at medium settings on my GeForce 6150SE and high model, medium world on my 7100, and my 8300 (the one stated above) at high with no lag.

Respective stated, AMD X2 2.4GHz, AMD X2 3.2GHz, AMD Phenom X4 2.1GHz Quad

[Icehuck]

False, I can play Team Fortress 2 at medium settings on my GeForce 6150SE and high model, medium world on my 7100, and my 8300 (the one stated above) at high with no lag.

Respective stated, AMD X2 2.4GHz, AMD X2 3.2GHz, AMD Phenom X4 2.1GHz Quad

I dunno if TF2 is a good benchmark because it has generally low system requirements(runs fine with DirectX 8 hardware). It's almost like saying that since your machine can run WoW perfectly fine it can run Crysis no problem.

[Frak]

I dunno if TF2 is a good benchmark because it has generally low system requirements(runs fine with DirectX 8 hardware). It's almost like saying that since your machine can run WoW perfectly fine it can run Crysis no problem.
Under DX9. DX8 is ONLY a compatibility mode... and it will only play on low settings, regardless of how you try to set it.

[Icehuck]

Under DX9. DX8 is ONLY a compatibility mode... and it will only play on low settings, regardless of how you try to set it.

Minimum system requirements from off the box.

1.7 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, DirectX 8 level graphics card, Windows 2000/XP/Vista, Internet connection.

I can still play it with this machine, so again its not a great example.

[grazed]

Under DX9. DX8 is ONLY a compatibility mode... and it will only play on low settings, regardless of how you try to set it.

yeah, technically speaking, you're playing a non-modern game. the requirements are super low, the game engine was released over 5 years ago... try playing battlefield 2, far cry 2, F.E.A.R., warhammer, etc... and tell me you get over 12-15 FPS. yeah.. didn't think so.

you can't compare performance with old engines. =/ especially THAT old.

anyhow, you can use dx8 just fine in tf2. you need to set it in the launch options, and you can adjust all the same settings as with 9.

[Frak]

yeah, technically speaking, you're playing a non-modern game. the requirements are super low, the game engine was released over 5 years ago... try playing battlefield 2, far cry 2, F.E.A.R., warhammer, etc... and tell me you get over 12-15 FPS. yeah.. didn't think so.

you can't compare performance with old engines. =/ especially THAT old.

anyhow, you can use dx8 just fine in tf2. you need to set it in the launch options, and you can adjust all the same settings as with 9.
engine != graphics

'nuff said... sorry

[grazed]

engine != graphics

'nuff said... sorry

i really don't understand why you're trying to defend how it's a good idea to get integrated graphics for gaming.

you use an example of a game that has super low requirements using an engine that was released in 1996. (source = modified quake engine) look at the other persons post above. what new games do you see that have them that low? what new games don't require dx9?

you can cling on to this single.. somewhat new game that your laptop can run all you want, but in the end, you may cause this person to consider integrated graphics for his gaming computer.

which, would just be stupid.

like i said, try running far cry 2 or Dead Space, and tell me how the FPS is.

[blueturtl]

unfortunately the 7100 is an integrated card, and wouldn't be able to run any modern games. =/

An integrated video card is not a problem any more these days. It can be easily disabled and replaced with a better separate video card should the need arise. Neither of the options Angelo_86 mentioned are really that great for gaming, so if gaming is what he desires in the future he'll end up getting a new video card anyway.

I still expect the GeForce 7100 to be a better choice than GeForce 6150, but I haven't found any benchmarks that would allow the two to be compared.

edit: Also, Angelo_86 has stated the system would be used for minor gaming only.

[grazed]

the 6150se has 128MB dedicated, the 7100 shares system memory instead.

so the 6150 would by all means, be a better choice for the time being, imo.

[Frak]

the 6150se has 128MB dedicated, the 7100 shares system memory instead.

so the 6150 would by all means, be a better choice for the time being, imo.
The 6150 has 128MB dedicated, the SE shares it with the main RAM and can be increased (albeit, on my side with a BIOS upgrade) to 1GB of shared RAM.