Commercial Desktops vs. Whiteboxes
-
@Mike-Ralston said:
I used an APU for around a year, and it was the A10 - 5700. .... It's much more powerful than the solution that @Minion-Queen uses, and she uses a ton of tasks all at once.
Which one is she using? The A10 is a quad core, so that makes sense that a new quad core would outperform the older triple cores (not older because they are triple, they are actually much older.) But the A6 is only dual core, that's really low.
What is the GPU equivalent to in NVidia, roughly?
-
It didn't score too hot on performance.
-
Was thinking something closer to....
-
But the A10 does save a ton of money, I see lots of value there. If it is really blowing away the normal desktop performance. What does it compare well to?
-
Looking at this one...
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/QKGsjX
If we remove the optical drive (no need for that) and replace the HD with an SSD maybe it makes sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Was thinking something closer to....
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-1035T-vs-AMD-A10-5800K
The 5800K is a faster CPU than that in every way. And for comparing it to an Nvidia GPU... Hard to say, as the APU depends on Southbridge and RAM speed and amount quite heavily... A tad slower than a GTX 550, I would say.
-
When you are using the A10, does your OS see all four cores? Someone had one in SW and they only saw half of their cores.
-
@Mike-Ralston said:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-1035T-vs-AMD-A10-5800K
The 5800K is a faster CPU than that in every way.
Well no, that link specifically put the X6 as faster in performance. The A series was only faster in single threaded operations, as would be expected. That link uses overclocking as a determination for overall winner. So that link actually says to me, quite clearly, that the X6 is faster for business use based on whatever measuring tool that they used. However, it still might not be a great value if the price isn't good. But faster, it clearly is, when moving beyond single threaded workloads. And for business use, effectively everything is heavily threaded.
-
-
@scottalanmiller That site is based around gaming performance, business use is so much lighter than that. Unless you're planning on having employees doing serious gaming, or multiple VM's at once, anything more than this is complete over-kill... I guess the best thing for me to ask is this: WHAT do you want these machines to do, and at what price point?
-
I am running an AMD-FX 4100 Quadcore. It runs great for me. For instance right now I have 10 Explorer pages open, 5 Chrome and 4 Firefox (which keeps crashing). Outlook, Lync and Skype. And am using ITunes to listen to music. With no issues at all.
-
@Minion-Queen And what CPU usage are you at?
-
20% right now
-
@Minion-Queen Only having 8GB of RAM (the standard recommended amount) is more of a bottleneck than the CPU. You're close to 60% RAM usage, right?
-
75% RAM usage.
-
How much more to spec at 16GB?
-
@scottalanmiller 8GB is enough. The point I was making is that those CPU's are more than enough. But, I can get 16GB for between $150-$200.
-
@scottalanmiller What do you want these machines to do, and at what price point?
-
@Mike-Ralston said:
@scottalanmiller What do you want these machines to do, and at what price point?
Standard desktops for everyone to use. Not for running VMs (we have the lab for that), but for documents, lots of web browsers, LogMeIn sessions, PuTTY, etc.
-
Somehow missed this conversation when I posted my recent thread. This is a niche situation though, compared to 99.9% of businesses in the world. That being said, I think it'd work.
