Commercial Desktops vs. Whiteboxes
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Three is ideal though...
I use two, more than that and I lose productivity.
How do you lose productivity? I can see losing productivity at more than 3...I am pretty unique in managing 7 screens, but that's a talent that is developed for sure...
-
@thanksaj said:
Have you used three? Extensively?
Using "a three" and understanding what the differences between a 3 and a 5 are very different things. You might as well say "have you ever used an Intel" or "ever used a PC." If you don't understand what you are talking about, how do you know it was the processor labeling that was the issue?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I couldn't imagine an i5 instead of my i7, but that's just me...
Are you pushing your CPU? What makes an i7 make sense for you?
Because my machine is EVERYTHING to me. It's my gaming station, my workstation, my everything. (I should write a song...) I need it to be able to play Skyrim or Dragon Age, and I need it to be able to run 7 displays and have 2-3 dozen programs open between daemons and other services and open windows while I still have everything else I'm dong going.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Have you used three? Extensively?
Using "a three" and understanding what the differences between a 3 and a 5 are very different things. You might as well say "have you ever used an Intel" or "ever used a PC." If you don't understand what you are talking about, how do you know it was the processor labeling that was the issue?
I was talking about three screens, not the i3.
-
@thanksaj said:
I don't have the exact specs numbers, etc. Just from personal experience of trying to do the same stuff on an i3 vs an i5...the i3 is good for most people, but the i5 is enough extra oomph that for people, like IT people, it just seems to handle the multi-tasking better and more processes better.
This doesn't make logical sense. You can't just "use an i3 and an i5" and compare them like that. They are marketing lines and they overlap. If you don't know the specs and didn't test in a good way, then your insight is misleading and isn't valuable. You can get an i3 that is much faster and more powerful than an i5. There is no hard and fast rule as to what becomes and i3 and what becomes an i5. You can't never make a statement like "an i3 isn't enough" or "an i7 is needed." The Intel lineup doesn't work that way.
That's why I'm asking if you understand what the things you are recommending are. Because the statements you are making don't make any sense given what the terms actually mean.
-
@thanksaj said:
Because my machine is EVERYTHING to me. It's my gaming station, my workstation, my everything. (I should write a song...) I need it to be able to play Skyrim or Dragon Age, and I need it to be able to run 7 displays and have 2-3 dozen programs open between daemons and other services and open windows while I still have everything else I'm dong going.
And... given that i7 doesnt mean what you think that it means..... I keep asking. Why do you feel that only an i7 can do the job?
-
Generally, i7 is better than i5 is better than i3. But there are a LOT of factors. They are not architectures, they are brands. Intel used to only have Pentium and Celeron. Now it is more complex. And even back then, there were Celerons that were much faster than Pentiums. Processors are just a much more complicated topic than can ever be distilled to "you need X for that."
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Have you used three? Extensively?
Using "a three" and understanding what the differences between a 3 and a 5 are very different things. You might as well say "have you ever used an Intel" or "ever used a PC." If you don't understand what you are talking about, how do you know it was the processor labeling that was the issue?
I was talking about three screens, not the i3.
Oh, that's different. And yes, I find that I drop productivity a lot. Because I spend my time trying to focus, swiveling my head and losing my mouse pointer.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Have you used three? Extensively?
Using "a three" and understanding what the differences between a 3 and a 5 are very different things. You might as well say "have you ever used an Intel" or "ever used a PC." If you don't understand what you are talking about, how do you know it was the processor labeling that was the issue?
I was talking about three screens, not the i3.
Oh, that's different. And yes, I find that I drop productivity a lot. Because I spend my time trying to focus, swiveling my head and losing my mouse pointer.
Keeping track of a pointer on three isn't hard. Now 7...yeah, I lose my pointer all the time. But I turned on cursor sonar, and that helped.
-
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CsGsjX
You're on your own for Case, aesthetics are not my forte.
This build will give you max bang for bucks, adjust the vid card as you see appropriate. -
@scottalanmiller said:
Generally, i7 is better than i5 is better than i3. But there are a LOT of factors. They are not architectures, they are brands. Intel used to only have Pentium and Celeron. Now it is more complex. And even back then, there were Celerons that were much faster than Pentiums. Processors are just a much more complicated topic than can ever be distilled to "you need X for that."
I know it's not just "Oh, an i7 is better than an i5 which is better than an i3". I am aware of i3 CPUs that could destroy an i5. Both in terms of computers I've used and computers I've worked on, I've just seen better times for opening programs, switching between programs, etc on i5 CPUs, as a rule, than i3 CPUs. It's from a wide-range of experience. As I said, I'm not denying what you've said. That's just what I've seen.
-
@MattSpeller Very much parts I would have chosen
No one has given me a budget yet, though. -
@Mike-Ralston said:
@MattSpeller Very much parts I would have chosen
No one has given me a budget yet, though.That makes a HUGE difference! LOL
-
@Mike-Ralston said:
@MattSpeller Very much parts I would have chosen
No one has given me a budget yet, though.We don't work from budgets. Budgets encourage bad spending. We buy what is the best for the use case.
-
@Mike-Ralston Well make a good case for decent systems and get back to us!! The one I listed is the sweet spot for the $700-800 budget box IMHO - I can testify that it works a treat as I have almost exactly that at home.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Mike-Ralston said:
@MattSpeller Very much parts I would have chosen
No one has given me a budget yet, though.We don't work from budgets. Budgets encourage bad spending. We buy what is the best for the use case.
Well the best use for the case would be to spend $14K on a PC, and give it a 16 Core Intel, with dual GTX Titan Z's, and Dual Radeon HD 7990's, both in separate Video loops...
-
@scottalanmiller For what you want, you shouldn't have to spend more than $600, and that's if we put the extra money in to make it look pretty.
-
If these are desktops - why a SSHD? Other than some performance - what benefit does a desktop get from installing a SSHD?
-
@g.jacobse said:
If these are desktops - why a SSHD? Other than some performance - what benefit does a desktop get from installing a SSHD?
You are understating the performance gains from install an SSD.
-
@coliver said:
@g.jacobse said:
If these are desktops - why a SSHD? Other than some performance - what benefit does a desktop get from installing a SSHD?
You are understating the performance gains from install an SSD.
Agreed 100% - you can take a crusty old beaten up E6400 w/ 4gb ram + i5 and make it fly with a decent SSD.
