[alpha1]

GPU (graphics processing unit - video card) is a total waste if you don't run really graphics intensive applications that require decent FPS.
(Games - that too stuff like first person shooter, or you wish to do animation movie)

For most other purposes - the onboard video unit is sufficient. (Needless to add - for most ppl also)

For video encoding / decoding you need to have high CPU (Pentium etc) not GPU.
Infact for most purpose - if you feel that your onboard video is not sufficient - you can always allocate a part of your RAM into shared memory which the graphics can also use (using the BIOS).

[navin]

Originally Posted by alpha1

For video encoding / decoding you need to have high CPU (Pentium etc) not GPU.

Originally Posted by anku94

You see, a good computer is balanced on all fronts....Every time there is a graphics intensive process (I'm not sure video encoding falls in the category), your graphics card will prove to be a bottleneck, and your processor won't be utilised to its maximum capacity.

So in your collective opinion the PC I got (i7-870 with 8GB and an old 512MB 6600GT graphics card) will work na?. I am intending to convert AVCHD to DVD with this machine.

I dont want to find out after I remove Ulead from my PC (Q9550/ATI4800/16GB) and install it on my wife's. Most software leaves all sorts of traces (see regedit) in your PC once it is installed and un installed so I like to install only stuff that I need and think before every install.

BTW the CD drive I have (on my PC) is an external Yamaha CRW F1E (about the size of a Mac-mini). LOL. It is over 15 years old (GTO had it before me) but it still rips CDs to MP3/Wavpack faster than any internal drive I have tested. It wont read DVD or anything else but with audio CDs it is a screamer (thanks GTO).

[kenpachigamer]

Originally Posted by alpha1

GPU (graphics processing unit - video card) is a total waste if you don't run really graphics intensive applications that require decent FPS.
(Games - that too stuff like first person shooter, or you wish to do animation movie)

For most other purposes - the onboard video unit is sufficient. (Needless to add - for most ppl also)

For video encoding / decoding you need to have high CPU (Pentium etc) not GPU.
Infact for most purpose - if you feel that your onboard video is not sufficient - you can always allocate a part of your RAM into shared memory which the graphics can also use (using the BIOS).

alpha These days almost all the games which are coming out are graphic intensive(not onl first person shooter, even the strategy games also like dragon age origins,two worlds etc..) hence a good GPU is a must.
Also i think now gpu acceleration is starting to get used in video decoding. I just came across an article where in vlc used gpu acceleration . Here's the article

of course as you said for most people/other purposes an onboard graphics card is sufficient

[srishiva]

I think video decoding uses GPU but not encoding. I know of one ATI tech which does encoding also. That could be the future.

[RedOne]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

For any enthusiast, its assembled as he has freedom to choose mobo, processor, graphic card apart from other things. This is a great boon to them.

Thanks for all the replies guys. I am in IT but do not enjoy fiddling with hardware. My last assembled PC stoped working few years back and have never bothered looking into it. Not into upgrades either; as long as it works, it is all good!

So I guess I will go for branded. DELL does allow you to customize (to a limied extent) at the time of buying.

Gears,
Red-One.

[navin]

Originally Posted by kenpachigamer

of course as you said for most people/other purposes an onboard graphics card is sufficient

So that 6600GT will work na? IronH4WK seems to think it is adequate for my wife's needs.

Next Stupid Question (boy I am full of them):

I notice that most serious computer guys (they kind who build their own hardware - you know who you are) use AMD CPUs instead of Intel. Is Intel so far behind? Is AMD a gamer's first choice? Hey guys dont get me wrong in the bygone era (when we made 16 bit CPU from 4 x 4 bit slices strapped together) I even worked for AMD in California so I am not AMD-basher just a confused person. Kya karun when I was in college we hardware guys had PDP-8 (nicknamed Big Bertha) and the programming geeks had a PDP-11/70.

[kenpachigamer]

Originally Posted by navin

So that 6600GT will work na? IronH4WK seems to think it is adequate for my wife's needs.

Next Stupid Question (boy I am full of them):

I notice that most serious computer guys (they kind who build their own hardware - you know who you are) use AMD CPUs instead of Intel. Is Intel so far behind? Is AMD a gamer's first choice? Hey guys dont get me wrong in the bygone era (when we made 16 bit CPU from 4 x 4 bit slices strapped together) I even worked for AMD in California so I am not AMD-basher just a confused person. Kya karun when I was in college we hardware guys had PDP-8 (nicknamed Big Bertha) and the programming geeks had a PDP-11/70.

Navin , as far as my case is concerned , Intel was shooting way above my budget. What mattered to me was better bang for the buck and given my budget definitely AMD offered me top of the line product at that time (phenom II x6 wasn't out that time when I purchased my PC)

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by navin

I notice that most serious computer guys (they kind who build their own hardware - you know who you are) use AMD CPUs instead of Intel. Is Intel so far behind? Is AMD a gamer's first choice? Hey guys dont get me wrong in the bygone era (when we made 16 bit CPU from 4 x 4 bit slices strapped together) I even worked for AMD in California so I am not AMD-basher just a confused person. Kya karun when I was in college we hardware guys had PDP-8 (nicknamed Big Bertha) and the programming geeks had a PDP-11/70.

I am no gamer. Just a word processing, net browsing, entertainment kind of guy.

I prefer AMD because it because it gives better performance for same price. The $$$ saved goes into RAM, which gives better performance.

Remember that all other things being equal, a system with 4GB ram is faster than one with 2 GB - for NORMAL work. This would be particularly true in data crunching - like encoding and ripping audio and video.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by navin

1) So that 6600GT will work na? IronH4WK seems to think it is adequate for my wife's needs.

2) Next Stupid Question (boy I am full of them):

I notice that most serious computer guys (they kind who build their own hardware - you know who you are) use AMD CPUs instead of Intel. Is Intel so far behind? Is AMD a gamer's first choice? Hey guys dont get me wrong in the bygone era (when we made 16 bit CPU from 4 x 4 bit slices strapped together) I even worked for AMD in California so I am not AMD-basher just a confused person. Kya karun when I was in college we hardware guys had PDP-8 (nicknamed Big Bertha) and the programming geeks had a PDP-11/70.

1) It that not too old ?

2) The reason is price to performance ratio. For a price of dual core Core i5 with that pathetic gpu chipped in on the same die, one can get an unlcoked multiplier processor from AMD. Advantage is that he can overclock with stability, gets more cores. Moreover, the mobo for AMD platform are relatively cheaper and more feature rich as compared to Intel.

I have two machines ( total of 5 that we at home which I have to look into and maintain ), one is dual core AMD Athlon II X2 240 with an old socket AM2 mobo and the other is Inter Core2Quad Q8400 with Inter Original mobo ( DG41TY, avoid this mobo and the processor-mobo combination ). I am typing this from the AMD machine not Intel.

When it comes to real processing or raw processing power like rendering animation files, very high data processing, etc. the higher models of Intel win the game with its Core i7 range of processors. But there too the Thuban Six core processors, AMD has reduced the gap. At the highest end of processor range AMD still manages to keep Intel in sight.

[Hashim]

My 3 year old computer configuration:

Processor: AMD Athlon X2 4800+
Motherboard: ASUS M2A-VM-HDMI
Graphic card: ASUS ENGT220 1GB (recently added to pump up graphics)
RAM: Kingston 2GB DDR2
HDD: 250 GB
Power Supply: 500W with dual 12v rail.
Optical Drive: LG DVD Re-Writer
Monitor: PHILIPS 17" LCD

System runs Crysis Warhead in full details without any fuss and decent frame rate

[anku94]

Originally Posted by navin

Cant I add a graphics card later? If I do will I need to reinstall windows or something? I figured let me start with the card she already has (6600GT) and see if she needs more. If the Video processes fine then why buy a card when we are not going to use it.

We are not gamers. How bad is a 6600GT card?

I'm not sure about that. A major hardware update like that does work best with fresh OS installs, but I've never had a graphics card, so can't comment on the same.

Of course, the card update is entirely optional. What you have is a pretty lopsided product, which goes very well with what you do, a graphics card update will just make it more versatile, that's all. But if all you do is what you've mentioned, you don't need to worry. You have one of the best workhorses on the market.

But please update your PSU to something good, as I mentioned before. That's important than a graphics card.

Originally Posted by navin

Arey Ankuji please cut me some slack. I have absolutely no idea what I am doing.

I'm sixteen, sir.

Originally Posted by navin

So in your collective opinion the PC I got (i7-870 with 8GB and an old 512MB 6600GT graphics card) will work na?. I am intending to convert AVCHD to DVD with this machine.

To say it'll work well is an understatement. i7s are, well, something I'd treat like a divine product.

Originally Posted by navin

Most software leaves all sorts of traces (see regedit) in your PC once it is installed and un installed so I like to install only stuff that I need and think before every install.

And you say you've absolutely no idea what you're doing.

Originally Posted by navin

BTW the CD drive I have (on my PC) is an external Yamaha CRW F1E (about the size of a Mac-mini). LOL. It is over 15 years old (GTO had it before me) but it still rips CDs to MP3/Wavpack faster than any internal drive I have tested. It wont read DVD or anything else but with audio CDs it is a screamer (thanks GTO).

Dunno, but there is something in older products. My 2004 LG CD-RW handles scratched disks far better than any of my newer optical drives. And yours is, well, exotic. I didn't even know Yamaha ever sold optical drives.

Originally Posted by navin

I notice that most serious computer guys (they kind who build their own hardware - you know who you are) use AMD CPUs instead of Intel. Is Intel so far behind? Is AMD a gamer's first choice? Hey guys dont get me wrong in the bygone era (when we made 16 bit CPU from 4 x 4 bit slices strapped together) I even worked for AMD in California so I am not AMD-basher just a confused person. Kya karun when I was in college we hardware guys had PDP-8 (nicknamed Big Bertha) and the programming geeks had a PDP-11/70.

See, a gamer has to balance his hardware on all fronts. AMD offers good bang for buck. The CPU requirements of games are such that you don't need the best CPUs in the market. For mid-end CPUs, an AMD is generally cheaper than an Intel. So, a gamer on a budget opts for an AMD.

But Intel normally always has the fastest consumer-level CPU in the market. I don't think AMD has ever held that position.

Originally Posted by navin

I even worked for AMD in California.

Wow, you did ? May I ask what exactly you did there ?

Originally Posted by navin

when I was in college we hardware guys had PDP-8 (nicknamed Big Bertha) and the programming geeks had a PDP-11/70.

I wouldn't have the slightest idea on using one of those.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I would, if it ran Unix!*

But not otherwise. I might be old enough to be your grandfather, but my computing career started quite late in my life.

I think AMD and Intel did indeed leapfrog each other, at one point, hence the big Intel paying manufacturers not to use other chips scandal



* which, come to think of it, means that, if you have any experience of Linux command line, so would you!

[anku94]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I think AMD and Intel did indeed leapfrog each other, at one point, hence the big Intel paying manufacturers not to use other chips scandal

Hmm, a friend of mine did say that AMD was first with the multi-core architecture. Never bothered to verify though.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

* which, come to think of it, means that, if you have any experience of Linux command line, so would you!

Does being able to connect to the internet on Ubuntu count ? lol, my programming life hasn't started yet, but it's just a matter of 9 months, till I get into college.

[navin]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

At the highest end of processor range AMD still manages to keep Intel in sight.

So the only real issue is price.

Originally Posted by anku94

You have one of the best workhorses on the market.

But please update your PSU to something good

I'm sixteen, sir.

And you say you've absolutely no idea what you're doing.

I didn't even know Yamaha ever sold optical drives.

Wow, you did ? May I ask what exactly you did there ?

a. Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment

b. I did I got 600W now. Should work fine with 2 Hard disks. The old PS was 250W and it managed 2 Hard disks and the 6600GT on a P4 board fine.

c. 16! I wish I was 16. I have friends that have grand kids your age. Ouch I am old! Everytime I move my creaking bones insist on reminding me this.

d. That is basic stuff you pick up from people around you when it comes to the real stuff like balancing a PC as you can see I have no idea what I am doing however I can still read data sheets (if you got to Intel's website you can download the CPU dta sheets) and understand clocking etc.. that stuff has not changed since the 70s.

e. Yamaha made optical drives in the 80s. They ever even a sub-contractor for IBM when IBM made drives like the venerable 3363 (they said it could store all the files one would ever need - 200MB! Boy were they sooo wrong).

f. I was part of a team that designed CPUs and GPUs (actually all I really worked on in detail was the ALU part). Later I moved to IBM to work on the Multi-Layer Ceramic (MLC) chips (we competed with Kyocera and Hitachi). But that was 25 years ago the world has changed since then.

[IronH4WK]

Originally Posted by navin

So the only real issue is price.

not exactly. AMD runs cooler than Intel and for gamers, that's a boon! unless you've a big budget (liquid cooling), you'll be using air cooling, which means lower the processor core temperature, the better. in some cases one can even do a bit of overclocking with just air cooling. that's where AMD beats Intel IMO

Originally Posted by navin

e. Yamaha made optical drives in the 80s.

had a Yamaha drive on my 486DX2 66Mhz machine with 8MB RAM!! it had its own proprietary drivers and software - instead of using the generic drivers provided by Windows. in that one could listen to music CDs without booting the OS (it had a 3.5mm earphone jack too!)

aah.. the good ol' days!