Tech question....

[jtniehof]

So, given that Westmere is very available, and Sandy Bridge is becoming available, is there any reason to build an AMD-based system this year? It looks like they've slowly slid behind Intel and, while Bulldozer should catch them up, consumer desktop won't be until late this year, and I'm guessing a part I'd be willing to pay for is looking more like 2012.

(Build target: quiet HTPC which will also double as storage box and moderate gaming.)

Comments

[xeresrazor.livejournal.com]

At this point AMD's only worth it if you're building a super budget conscious box and don't mind dealing with low performance. A low end Sandy Bridge should be perfect for a HTPC box, especially with the new onboard graphics.

[jnik.livejournal.com]

Thanks. That was the impression I was getting. I saw a few recommendations for the Athlon II X3 455, which is fairly comparable to the Westmere i3's, but the power consumption's 30% higher or so. If I'm paying extra for quiet box, PSU, etc. then it's worth a little extra to keep the power draw low and not have fans running full-bore.

I like the onboard graphics but to get the 3000 you need to shell out for a K-series i5, and the 2000 seems a little underpowered. I'll probably start with the on-board and then eventually get something like a Radeon 5750.

[xeresrazor.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a little weak for gaming, but so is the 3000 if you're going to do any serious gaming, especially at HDTV resolutions. The 2000's more than powerful enough for video playback and transcoding.

[jnik.livejournal.com]

I was seeing the 3000 as about twice as powerful as the 2000. Of course, now that I think about it, for serious gaming I'd need a windows partition, so running Linux software RAID on the rotating drives wouldn't do it. Either the games would have to run off the SSD or I'd need yet another drive...