On Nov 12, 2011 7:58 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > It's time for a new desktop, I'd rather the the money to Amazon or Ebuyer > than the Inland Revenue. I'm currently running a Core2Duo system, but use > AMD before that, so I have no real allegiances. > > I was thinking of something like an AMD 1100T 6 core CPU, the new > Bulldozers are expensive and initial reports are not that promising, but > an Intel that gives the same bang per buck would do. I'm thinking > Gigabyte for motherboard, based on comments made here in similar threads > (like the one Dale started a while ago). I need lots of SATA ports > (fortunately, I bought a pair of 2TB drives a fortnight ago, just before > the prices went ballistic). > > I'm not a gamer, but I want a system with plenty of grunt. Video > performance is not critical, on board would suffice, except I need > something with dual output to drive two monitors. Do any of the onboard > jobbies do this or is a separate Nvidia still the best option? >
AFAIK onboards very rarely have support for dual monitor. Besides, having a separate somewhat-beefier GPU might be usable in some cases. For instance, Ubuntu's Unity and Windows' Aero both rely on GPU to do their eye candy stuff. C'mon, don't be stingy... spare one PCIe slot for a graphic card :-) > Thoughts would be welcome, and please feel free to start your own ATI vs > Nvidia and AMD vs Intel flamewars. OK, I'd rather you didn't, but I'm not > about to waste electrons asking for the impossible :) > Honestly, I hate Intel for their tendency to confuse people with their CPU features (e.g., I must be doubly sure if a new processor supports VT-x). But then again, AMD still has no answer for Intel's *Bridge juggernaut. Horrible times :-( Rgds,
