Commercial Desktops vs. Whiteboxes
-
@Minion-Queen said:
Remember that most everyone only needs a 2 monitor setup unlike me.
Three is ideal though...
-
@thanksaj Work rigs for NTG employees. Not anything ridiculous.
-
@Mike-Ralston said:
@thanksaj Work rigs for NTG employees. Not anything ridiculous.
Yeah, I know. Still, don't go i3. i5 is worth it for the extra $$.
-
@thanksaj said:
At least go i5. That makes way more sense than an i3, given how much most people are doing at once.
What aspect of the i5 makes you feel that way? It's really thread engine count that matters there.
-
@thanksaj said:
I couldn't imagine an i5 instead of my i7, but that's just me...
Are you pushing your CPU? What makes an i7 make sense for you?
-
@thanksaj said:
Three is ideal though...
I use two, more than that and I lose productivity.
-
@thanksaj said:
Yeah, I know. Still, don't go i3. i5 is worth it for the extra $$.
I'm not saying that it isn't, what what aspect of the i5 do you feel makes it worth the price difference?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Three is ideal though...
I use two, more than that and I lose productivity.
Have you used three? Extensively?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Yeah, I know. Still, don't go i3. i5 is worth it for the extra $$.
I'm not saying that it isn't, what what aspect of the i5 do you feel makes it worth the price difference?
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. Also, IT machines get bogged down over time as opposed to most normal users. Normal users have the same programs all the time and generally can't install programs of their choosing. IT will download something to try and install it but sometimes forget to uninstall it. We also tend to be doing a lot more tasks as once than average users. This is coming from a pure experience perspective. I've just had better experience with the feel of an i5 in a system than an i3.
-
@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.
