Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I really suggest getting a quad core processor, not so much for now but to future proof it (at least as much as can be done) with the except of minecraft which can't use multiple cores, there aren't many applications coming out now-a-days that doesn't run better on a quad core, and with new applications coming out every day that use more and more processing power there's no downside considering you can get an AMD quad core for the same or less than an intel i3 dual core. obviously don't overspend to get it but if you have two comparable laptops, and one has a quad core processor (especially an AMD  ) go with that one. SomeKittens list of questions is also extremely relevant

You won't need quad-core for those simple tasks.

You won't need quad-core for those simple tasks.

Which is why I'm in the market on the bottom end of the price range.

most people buy computers for long term.......

Which is also true of me, and why I'm trying to get the biggest bang for my buck.  Still haven't found a new quad-core for $450 though

For the $450 price point, i think this is your best option.

Thanks, but that is NOT a 17inch monitor which is one of my requirements.

Scratch that. The chances are non existent. I just checked every major seller, new egg, best buy, all brand sites, those kinds of things, and you can't get a 17" screen

What about this one?  It seems to me that this one (which is at Best Buy) is cheaper and at least as good as the Acer you just pointed to.

Quote from: appleHater on December 01, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

Scratch that. The chances are non existent. I just checked every major seller, new egg, best buy, all brand sites, those kinds of things, and you can't get a 17" screen

What about this one?  It seems to me that this one (which is at Best Buy) is cheaper and at least as good as the Acer you just pointed to.

I personally dislike HP products as a whole, but for the price it seems like a decent deal. Basically, unless you are going to be working with some intensive applications, such as the Professional Adobe products, or gaming, any intel-i series processor, or AMD phenom II processor will work for you. Now that all modern laptops are 64bit, the potential power in a processor is much greater than before, making old dual-cores much more powerful. I personally have an old Athlon I used to run at 32 bit. Now that I installed Windows 7 64 bit, it beats even a Phenom processor ran at 32 bit. Also, most modern laptops come with enough graphic power to watch videos, even through an hdmi output. While the on paper specs may not be that great, they actually work better in real life than they look on paper.

Quote from: LordZardeck on December 01, 2011, 07:05:57 PM

While the on paper specs may not be that great, they actually work better in real life than they look on paper.

We'll call those Tebow Processors. 

Tebow?

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 01, 2011, 07:09:04 PM

Quote from: LordZardeck on December 01, 2011, 07:05:57 PM

While the on paper specs may not be that great, they actually work better in real life than they look on paper.

We'll call those Tebow Processors. 

Tebow?

Tim Tebow's one of the most underrated players of this season.

I don't either, but everyone else in my suite won't shut up about their fantasy teams...

I'm still not sure I understand your insistence on a 17" screen. If you want God to bless you, then don't put limitations on His blessings.

I'm not trying to limit his blessings, but since one of the main things that we do with our laptop is watch video, and since it usually (but not always) stays in one place, it just makes sense to go with the larger size screen.  If God dropped an absolutely phenomenal deal in my lap (ie. quad-core processor, more than 4MB RAM, dedicated graphics card, 7200 speed HD, and 15" monitor) then I would take it because EVERYTHING else on it is a step up from what I'm looking for (except the monitor).  But it would basically take something like that to outweigh the benefit that I'm expecting from a monitor that is 23% larger.

I personally dislike HP products as a whole

Do you like Acer more?  I heard their service was absolutely terrible.  Why don't you like HP?  Who do you like?

We'll call those Tebow Processors. 

That was funny.  I don't get what the big deal is about Tebow (other than his outspoken witness for Jesus, which I appreciate).  It's not like this is the first time the NFL has had a quarterback who was better at running than passing (ie. Randall Cunningham, Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick, etc.)

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 01, 2011, 07:09:04 PM

We'll call those Tebow Processors. 

That was funny.  I don't get what the big deal is about Tebow (other than his outspoken witness for Jesus, which I appreciate).  It's not like this is the first time the NFL has had a quarterback who was better at running than passing (ie. Randall Cunningham, Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick, etc.)

McNabb wasn't worshipped as a god for doing absolutely nothing. Vick didn't stand by and watch his teammate get tormented for no reason, and letting it affect the team in the process.
 
McNabb Culpepper and Cunningham can all complete passes. Theres a difference between being a better runner, and just not being able to pass, letting the defense win games for you AND STILL GETTING WORSHIPPED AS A FRANCHISE QB.

Quote from: LordZardeck on December 01, 2011, 10:25:38 PM

Quite honestly I think Acer, HP, and Dell are all low-quality. I much prefer Toshiba and my personal favorite, and the one I will only buy from any more, Lenovo.

This is good input, I hadn't really heard much from anyone else about brands making a difference.  Do others out there agree with Zardeck, or would you rank the brands differently?

Completely agree with his evaluation of dell

Disagree with the other two