Alright chatterbox settled...turns out i set it to like 16posts so i cut it to ten. It still looks freakin long sia! Ohwell, let's leave it at that for now.
Oh anyway celine, i think 250gb is very normal if you build your own computer; in fact hard-disks are really cheap now. PC companies would have you thinking that 160gb is A LOT already, but currently standard SATA internal hard-disks can go as low as 75cents per gigabyte. But what makes me so proud of it is the SATA II format (oh but SATA II has problems with RAID a.k.a. linking two internal harddisks and using them together. Good thing i'm not planning to do that..) and ESPECIALLY the 16mb cache...almost all other hard-disks now come with 8mb caches (i think my old one is 2mb..) so overall my data-transfer is super-duper fast...And i LOVE my graphic card hahaha 256mb 7800GT that has been officially overclocked for super performance (hence the "extreme" label). Oh but i'm not really a computer geek...I think nicholas & tze yang will beat me at it any day. I just read up a lot.
Hmm anyway to clarify some more(or rather a LOT) stuff with celine and whoever's interested, (since i realise tagboards aren't for too much wordy stuff...for me at least since i can write from here too. And add in tonnes of detail) the reason why AMDs are so much better than intel processors is basically because AMD processors do more work/commands etc per clock cycle (aka the hertz) than intel's. Intel used to advocate a "the more hertz the better" concept 'cos it sold really well with the consumers and was very easy to understand. In order to boost the hertz rating of their processors they lengthened the processor pipelines blah blah blah. But now they realise that they can't boost it any further (it's hit a wall at around 5ghz) and the longer pipelines that they use make the processor very inefficient. (due to time taken to flush out pipelines during incorrectly predicted commands, which happens pretty often)
You would realise that intel's marketing strategy nowadays doesn't emphasise clock speeds so much anymore. (and their naming system for the procs have changed, ie from 2.4ghz proc to just 2.4c or 2.4b) Moral of the story: It isn't the processor speed that really matters. A lot of other things count too.(eg front-side-bus a.k.a. FSB, cache, work/cycle) So if you're offered an AMD64 1.8ghz and an intel celeron 2.4ghz, for crying out loud DON'T pick the celeron. Celerons in particular have a
well-deserved reputation for being very horrible. Even the older AMD XPs can beat it.
At the end of the day, a lot of intel's processors are rubbish. Many benchmark tests (of different kinds) show intel processors to be VERY inefficient compared to AMDs. Intel Prescott processors (which generated a lot of buzz before they came out) might be very powerful, but the clock speeds are so high that it uses a lot of electricity and releases a lot of heat. If you don't get a good cooler and your fans aren't spinning so hard that your computer sounds like a bee-hive it might just melt and short circuit your whole PC. And it can still barely match up to some AMD64 processors...much less the newer AMD FX series.
I think the only intel processors that can stand up to AMD at the moment are intel's own dual core processors (although i think it still can't beat AMD's own dual core offerings) and intel's Pentium M, (the ones that go into your laptops nowadays) which consumes still much less electricity and spews less heat than even AMD processors. Problem with the Ms are that its clock speeds (ironically) and overall raw power still can't match AMD64 processors, and it is much much more expensive. I'd prefer AMDs any day...well except for those Sempron ones lah.
However, why is it companies like Dell, HP and Acer still put intels into their PCs? One reason is that intel is still a much bigger company than AMD. Their R&D department doesn't seem to have churned out much, but they've got the factories, etc to keep up with the demand. AMD is quite the darling of home PC builders, but intel's still the bigger brand name when you talk about the average-joes. (a.k.a. where all the money comes from...-.-) Like, intel's got their "intel inside" logo and all, but what does AMD have? AMD has done so little marketting that when HP offered an AMD based system it had to say that the PC came with "The award winning AMD64". I think for most people there's only intel. Haha quite a lame reason but it really is true. I don't think people will actually realise this though. Because if they did, they wouldn't buy PCs from Dell, etc anymore as well. Dell sells really affordable ultra low-end PCs, (i know this because i can barely match them when i try budget-ing for a low-end PC...probably because of re-used parts and the fact that they can skimp on LCD screens/cases that they make themselves) but around 2000bucks you can definitely get something MUCH better. If only people had the time to learn about pc components..
Haha, well i hope that was very informative for you readers. I've tried to be as accurate as possible, but i do hope it was relatively easy to understand as well.
Anyway i better go to sleep soon! 4.30am already. Still need to bathe etc, tomorrow going out with classmates at like 12.30..so i'll need to wake up at around 11am at least. If you're wondering why i'm not writing much about what happened today, well it's because nothing really happened! Just sat at the computer whole day. I'm getting better at DOTA but i'm also getting sick of it. Sigh...what i really want now is to go out with friends and find some people to go bowling/basketball with me (04s15 people who read this blog, if you're thinking of a name you can SO keep your mouths shut right about...now. Gosh.) Oh but it's been an interesting experience, being home all by yourself for so long...like you can walk around your home in your boxers without a care for anything and you can use the toilet/bathe without closing the door LOL. Ok really is getting late and i'm getting a bit incoherent. Byez people.
