quraji
zap
- Reaction score
- 144
I haven't used a Mac in a while...can they right-click yet?
Jokes aside, are you leaning towards a Mac for the OS or what?
Jokes aside, are you leaning towards a Mac for the OS or what?
Right on! I own one myself, OSX boots in < 15 seconds and logs in and is fully usable after clicking log in button after 0.5-1 second.Also, buy a high end sdd in addition or instead of a traditional hdd. That's the best investment you could make in a computer today imo.
Lolz, I think they've made a few improvements since you've last used one.I haven't used a Mac in a while...can they right-click yet?
I already own one, in fact in my home we have 4Jokes aside, are you leaning towards a Mac for the OS or what?
Hmmm, I semi agree, I'm not convinced yet, anyone want to post a few setups from NewEgg? I'm going to go have a look nowAs for the actual question, yeah the iMac seems like a pretty decent alternative to the other setups presented so far. I would be pretty surprised if you can't find a cheaper alternative on the PC side though. The verdict is that custom built computers > all.
My CPU is a quad. It runs at 3.2GHz without an overclock. It can turbo to much much higher, but we all know that overclocking reduces the life of your chip, even with good cooling. You're not proving anything.Actually no I didn't, 2.8GHz that turbo boosts up to 3.46GHz faster than the 3.2 when all cores aren't active iirc, and also it's a Core i7, that means it has 4 physical cores that can run two threads, OSX and Windows recognize 8 cores, that's better imo.
Overclocking is not Turbo Boost, I'm pretty sure Turbo Boost OCs the processor depending on how many cores are in use and manages it. It's not constantly running @ 3.46GHz.My CPU is a quad. It runs at 3.2GHz without an overclock. It can turbo to much much higher, but we all know that overclocking reduces the life of your chip, even with good cooling. You're not proving anything.
My processor has turbo boost as well; you install a tray application and a driver, and then you can turbo boost. I choose not to run it, partially because the driver was written for Vista and I fear Win7 compatibility issues, and partially because I just do not need it.Overclocking is not Turbo Boost, I'm pretty sure Turbo Boost OCs the processor depending on how many cores are in use and manages it. It's not constantly running @ 3.46GHz.
Interesting, but I still prefer Intel.My processor has turbo boost as well; you install a tray application and a driver, and then you can turbo boost. I choose not to run it, partially because the driver was written for Vista and I fear Win7 compatibility issues, and partially because I just do not need it.
Like I said it's not the same as 8 physical cores but it still does help.As far as HT goes, I'm sure the technology helps. But I doubt it creates a simulated 8 core experience... seems like such a trick would be revolutionary - double computing power without adding any cores.