Seriously, go fuck yourself. I stopped reading here.

strager wrote:

(Harddrive failure when you don't have regular backups is a fun learning experience. =])

stenut wrote:

Get me right, i was highlighting procs within the same price range, not core segment
Phenom II x4 925 (Quad) & I5 650 (Dual) - I5 priced almost double of P2x4, and the top end of I5 (still a dual) is equivalent to a 6cores of AMD.

Daru wrote:

strager wrote:

(Harddrive failure when you don't have regular backups is a fun learning experience. =])

True words.

For Derekku: You should try an OS reinstall to tide you over for the time being. So long as the crashes on your laptop aren't caused by some hardware failure, then reinstalling your OS should fix the problems that you've accumulated on it.

Ketchup wrote:

Take note of the Bold section. There are a few things wrong with this.
Frist, the "top-end" i5 as you so eloquently put it, is NOT a dual core, it's a Quad core. ~blabliblubleblo
My suggestion to you is to take your fanboyism and shove it straight up your ass.

Phenom II x4 925 (Quad) & I5 650 (Dual) - I5 priced almost double of P2x4, and the top end of I5 (still a dual) is equivalent to a 6cores of AMD.

stenut wrote:

Ketchup wrote:

Take note of the Bold section. There are a few things wrong with this.
Frist, the "top-end" i5 as you so eloquently put it, is NOT a dual core, it's a Quad core. ~blabliblubleblo
My suggestion to you is to take your fanboyism and shove it straight up your ass.

Finally a reinforcement arrived?

Owh my bad, indeed they are quad. I'm sorry I got messed up with my spreadsheet here
but ~ kindly read my sentence again:

Phenom II x4 925 (Quad) & I5 650 (Dual) - I5 priced almost double of P2x4, and the top end of I5 (still a dual) is equivalent to a 6cores of AMD.

see the comma blind one? I'm referring the equivalence to the price term; did I mention performance? (sorry to have you screwed up
think it over, what on earth would make you think that I was likely to compare a dual I5 performance to a 6cores's? senseless
I wasn't even proposed any performance comparison in btween models you've mentioned (awh now second screw
anyway I'm glad you did aware of that the top-end of i5 is a quad (yeah it's a 750)

and yeah after going thru all your "too-funny" statements has make me another chance to screw you for a third time:
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=236153
Rmb to go thru all the following posts, as those understandings would even further your statement as an epic joke (find someone else for translation, and pls read back at what I've stated in my first post
just don't tell me "omg this is so not true" "hell this is biased" yadayada
You don't have the balls worth of showing off yet
fanboyism...pardon + LOL?!?!?! You had better consult an optical specialist soon.

Derekku Chan wrote:

Ph0X, I believe you forgot RAM :V

blissfulyoshi wrote:

Derekku Chan: May you please tell us but else you will be doing with this PC? I don't think the processor debate can be handled very well without some further information such as how often you try to encode movies, do photoshop, and various other processes.

strager wrote:

blissfulyoshi wrote:

Derekku Chan: May you please tell us but else you will be doing with this PC? I don't think the processor debate can be handled very well without some further information such as how often you try to encode movies, do photoshop, and various other processes.

Eh. For any CPU reasonably good, specific applications probably won't matter for Derekku. As long as it works.

Which is why the CPU war is irrelevant; just pick AMD one.

IppE602 wrote:

slightly better instructions set of the Intel CPU's.

Loginer wrote:

How does $490.88 sound?

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Publi ... r=11843031

None of what you just said made any sense at all. It didn't further your argument and it just made you look like you lash out at people when you're wrong about something. I stated the facts in depth, and if you're incapable of understanding this then I feel sorry for you.
You may look cool to some of the kids online coming back at me with this pile of garbage, but anyone with sense will see what I posted above for what it really is. You didn't further your argument at all and only succeeded in making yourself look even more like a fanboy/girl.

If you had bothered reading what I said, then you'd know that the link to your benchmarks was unnecessary and redundant because I already stated as much. Once again re: Multithreaded processing. These benchmarks do not take advantage of all 6 cores, so the comparison between a 4 and 6 core processor is a waste of time.

AMD Phenom x4 (there is batch which is unlockable to six cores) or Intel I5
I5 did better in terms of gaming despite of being a dual core proc
additional cores can be crucial as normal app runs based on cores, not threads (unless apps are optimized to do so)

Daru wrote:

Stenut- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos#Rhetoric

stenut wrote:

None of what you just said made any sense at all. It didn't further your argument and it just made you look like you lash out at people when you're wrong about something. I stated the facts in depth, and if you're incapable of understanding this then I feel sorry for you.
You may look cool to some of the kids online coming back at me with this pile of garbage, but anyone with sense will see what I posted above for what it really is. You didn't further your argument at all and only succeeded in making yourself look even more like a fanboy/girl.

If you had bothered reading what I said, then you'd know that the link to your benchmarks was unnecessary and redundant because I already stated as much. Once again re: Multithreaded processing. These benchmarks do not take advantage of all 6 cores, so the comparison between a 4 and 6 core processor is a waste of time.

In my first post:

AMD Phenom x4 (there is batch which is unlockable to six cores) or Intel I5
I5 did better in terms of gaming despite of being a dual core proc
additional cores can be crucial as normal app runs based on cores, not threads (unless apps are optimized to do so)

blind remains blind
a deep bow from me for acknowledge your idiocy
at the same time, I've realize how bad you're at reading those benchies

Daru wrote:

Stenut- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos#Rhetoric

appreciate that, in return:
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E5%AD ... 1%E4%B8%8B

Now I see some constructive suggestions
Unlike those google-able spams (no comment - should have shut up
refrain myself from posting, have fun

stenut wrote:

In my first post:

AMD Phenom x4 (there is batch which is unlockable to six cores) or Intel I5
I5 did better in terms of gaming despite of being a dual core proc
additional cores can be crucial as normal app runs based on cores, not threads (unless apps are optimized to do so)

IppE602 wrote:

Metroids one is good too though the PSU is a overkill, 500W would suffice mighty fine.

Ketchup wrote:

Loginer wrote:

How does $490.88 sound?

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Publi ... r=11843031

Loginers suggestion is almost exactly what I would have suggested.

Ph0X wrote:

Any other suggestion on the ram?
I got pretty the same ram 2-3years ago for 10$ less

strager wrote:

Ph0X wrote:

Any other suggestion on the ram?
I got pretty the same ram 2-3years ago for 10$ less

Just 10$?

I remember when that set (though the light blue version, whatever the difference is (it was 800 though)) was 40$. =[

Xanek wrote:

Post Pic of completed computer when your done

Pix or it didn't happen

strager wrote:

fff I was about to post

Pix or it didn't happen

Derekku Chan wrote:

Expected another "where are the goddamn pics"post. :v

Ph0X wrote:

5970

strager wrote:

Shoulda ordered one of these.



YMMV on price ... 50$ to 500$ to 2000$ new.

adam2046 wrote:

I don't know, don't you think the disc would kind of get in the way?