The Computer Thread

@Carciofus: I do in fact have a Raspberry Pi, but I have not had much time/inspiration to experiment with it yet...

I heard about them off of /g/, and I have yet to get one, if I do. What's the hype about them, anyway? Weren't they meant for schools?

Cheap, tiny, Linux-running computers with decent graphics processors and pins that can be easily used to control electric circuits. A tinkerer's dream.

You didn't back up your Appdata?

In my case I did, but my external drive dun' fucked up, which is quite a bummer.

That said, yeah, back that shit up, yo.

edited 12th Sep '12 1:38:48 AM by Balmung

Here's where stupidity kicked in: I tried the x64 install option first, which failed for some reason. So I went with the x86 install which worked without a problem, but I found out that I had nerfed my computer, since x86 equals 32-bit. Okay, not a problem. Popped in the disc again, installed x64, and it worked. Did disc cleanup and it got rid of both lesser OS installs, including my app data from Vista.

Oh well. I can count on one hand minus a lot of fingers how many times I've totally redone an existing computer, so I'll file this into the 'lessons learned' folder.

Kerbal Space Program is back, I have a nice mostly-empty Minecraft folder, and I only installed the games I really enjoyed from Steam. Plenty of room for all those Fallout Nexus modfiles I tend to collect and hoard.

Besides, in about a year, I'll probably have a nice new shiny Asus gaming laptop to replace this one, like a G74.

I'm actually looking to build a decent gaming desky later this year. I don't intend to throw out my laptop any time terribly soon, though.

edited 12th Sep '12 3:30:22 AM by Balmung

Specs?

I'm waiting for Haswell to build mine, even though Moore's Law won't even apply.

Not sure yet. I do intend to just throw in two hard drives because I don't care for partitioning and I want the redundancy. I'm certainly gonna have Windows on one and Linux on the other, though. I'll determine the rest of the hardware when I have the cash. I'll probably do a single graphics card in the HD 79xx series.

edited 12th Sep '12 4:13:24 AM by Balmung

Are you going to use SSD(s) or physical spinning drives?

I hate partitioning as well. I have no idea how to do it on Linux.

Also, Intel/AMD?

edited 12th Sep '12 4:42:02 AM by Shaggy

I'm kind of an AMD fan, so I might give them a crack again. They usually also have better performance per dollar. Hell, I can get 8 actual AMD cores for less than a comparable i5. I'll probably use spinning drives to save money and get more capacity.

I'll be looking to make this in the $900 range (OS and monitor notwithstanding)

edited 12th Sep '12 4:52:33 AM by Balmung

You may want to look at all the reviews for Bulldozer. They're... iffy. Even if you need eight cores (and you don't, gaming uses 4 on Battlefield 3 at ultra) you're still losing performance per core.

Then again, if you're getting into video editing and such that requires a huge amount of cores, there's no reason not to.

Really? I can't say that the per core performance of the i-series has ever seemed very impressive to me. I mean, my old Athlon x2 4200+ felt pretty powerful even on single core tasks up until I replaced it, whereas my i5 has felt sluggish at the same since it was new.

Ooh, that $139.99 six-core AMD piece looks pretty nice, and has a better per-core clock speed than the 8-core unit I was looking at.

edited 12th Sep '12 5:16:22 AM by Balmung

Here are benchmarks. The i5-2500k is $160 at Micro Center and the FX-8150 is $180, for reference.

In store pickup only. For me, that i5's price is more than $200, while the FX-8150 is $190 is the same. 8 cores is probably a bit much, but I can get a faster (per core) 6-core unit for substantially less, and considering the price difference, I'm willing to write off a bit of the i5's alleged performance. I stand by my statement that I have been continuously underwhelmed by my (admittedly previous generation) i5.

edited 12th Sep '12 5:31:45 AM by Balmung

A faster six core unit? Link please?

You could also just go with the 2400, which is the same price.

edited 12th Sep '12 5:38:35 AM by Shaggy

FX-6200 Clock speed 3.8 GHz, with "4.1 GHz Turbo", whatever the hell that means (for what it's worth, most of the Intel units seem to have something like that too). $140

Is Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge supposed to be better?

edited 12th Sep '12 5:43:50 AM by Balmung

If you aren't stuck with the command line, the easiest way to partition a disk on Linux is gparted.

Ivy Bridge is Intel's newest flavour of chipset/cpu, but it is a power hog compared to the older Sandy Bridge kit.

Isn't Ivy Bridge the one that's more heat-intensive as well?

Yes. Every review I have read on the new Intel chipset/cpu combo seems to be saying that it performs well, but not well enough to justify trashing a perfectly good Sandy Bridge combo and it generates way too much heat due to a flawed interconnect design in the cpu itself.

So if you're replacing a really old processor, go for it, but if you have something decent already, it's not worth the additional cost and heat generation.

Yup, pretty much. I am slowly acquiring the bits to build a Sandy Bridge based system. I am using most of the stuff in my old gen Core i7 based system other than the motherboard, which has a shagged socket, and the processor, which simply will not fit in the socket 1155 based motherboard I just bought.

Last thing on the list is the processor. I want a core i5 2500k part, as those are unlocked and are built to be overclocked. From what I see on ebay, selling my core i7 920 should just about cover it if I get a decent price for it and get a similar result on an auction bid for the one I want to buy.

edited 12th Sep '12 1:17:45 PM by TamH70

I'm waiting until Haswell. I don't think it's going to be anything special. I think Intel is trying less now that AMD's processors are performing and selling poorly.

Regardless, whatever I'll be doing won't be until at least late next month.