E7200/Radeon HD3650 OR Q6600/GeForce 7100 ?

[MSH]

Which would you rather buy:

Q6600
GeForce 7100
320 GB HD

OR

E7200
Radeon HD3650
640 GB HD
$20 more

The Radeon seems like a better card, but I'm not a gamer. I only intend to
watch video and TV. OTOH, MPEG4 encoding could be handy.

I'm not a programmer or database/spreadsheet user either and I don't need
much number crunching power. I intend to use Fedora 10.

So, which would you go for?

What about the Asus My Cinema P7131H as a TV tuner?

Thanks!

 

[GT]

Which would you rather buy:

Q6600
GeForce 7100
320 GB HD

OR

E7200
Radeon HD3650
640 GB HD
$20 more

The Radeon seems like a better card, but I'm not a gamer. I only intend to
watch video and TV. OTOH, MPEG4 encoding could be handy.

I'm not a programmer or database/spreadsheet user either and I don't need
much number crunching power. I intend to use Fedora 10.

So, which would you go for?

Sounds like you don't need much power - no games, not many office
applications, just an expensive TV tuner - why not just get a personal DV
recorder (like the sky plus box) and a cheap netbook for word processing.

 

[MSH]

Sounds like you don't need much power - no games, not many office
applications, just an expensive TV tuner - why not just get a personal DV
recorder (like the sky plus box) and a cheap netbook for word processing.

A desktop computer will hardly cost $200 more than your suggestion. I now
have a 19" monitor and I'd like my next to be a 24", not a 10" I also do
a little bit of photo editing and, having done some film editing in the
good old days, I'd like to see what digital editing looks like. What will
result from this is unsure.

A desktop computer is more solid and offers more possibilities.

 

[Paul]

A desktop computer will hardly cost $200 more than your suggestion. I now
have a 19" monitor and I'd like my next to be a 24", not a 10" I also do
a little bit of photo editing and, having done some film editing in the
good old days, I'd like to see what digital editing looks like. What will
result from this is unsure.

A desktop computer is more solid and offers more possibilities.

Have a look at some articles that benchmark how much %CPU is needed
to play back movies. For example, your HD3650 may have UVD, which
accelerates movie playback. (Both video card companies have their
own version of accelerator.) You can look at the system specs here
and the test results, to get some idea of whether the processor
(E7200) is future proof enough or not.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3258&p=1

You'll notice in those results, that when acceleration is not
available, the processor ends up being pretty busy. If the
processor gets busy enough, the movie may begin to stutter.
This would be most evident with HD content of some sort.

Where the quad core processor might excel, is in movie editing.
To give an example, I used Windows Movie Maker, as a quick test.
I dragged some garbage video I downloaded off the web into it.
When reading in the movie, WMM used one of my processor cores
to do the job. When writing out the (edited) movie, both
cores of my dual core processor were working. One at 90%,
the other at 100%. So depending on the application, there
can be situations where the quad core helps (work is divided
to the cores). But for tasks that are single threaded (a lot
of stuff, email, word processing, older programs), then the
speed of a single core is what determines the performance level.
In those cases, an E8600 would be a better fit (has the highest
core speed, for software that only uses one core).

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=All&ProcFam=2558&SearchKey=

Paul

 

[GT]

A desktop computer will hardly cost $200 more than your suggestion. I now
have a 19" monitor and I'd like my next to be a 24", not a 10" I also
do
a little bit of photo editing and, having done some film editing in the
good old days, I'd like to see what digital editing looks like. What will
result from this is unsure.

As soon as you mention photo and video editing, my immediate response is to
get as much RAM as you can fit in whatever PC you get. CPU power will make a
difference to video editing, so if this is a serious pastime, then you
should consider a higher spec processor. If you hang on a few months, then
the brand new Intel Core i7 will be mainstream and you will get serious
power (faster than any current Core2), or a cheap deal on the 'soon to be
retired' socket 775 stuff you are currently looking at. Any graphics card
that claims to be HD should suffice - you don't need to get a fast card
unless you decide that you do want to play games, so you can save quite a
bit of money there. Any graphics card available at the moment has more power
than Windows could ever require, so the HD feature will improve video
playback, but any money spent on 3d power will be wasted.

 

[MSH]

As soon as you mention photo and video editing, my immediate response is
to get as much RAM as you can fit in whatever PC you get. CPU power will
make a difference to video editing, so if this is a serious pastime

You only know a pastime is serious after you've passed some time at it,
which is not my case.

How would 3G sound for a pastime with Linux? (Don't tell me Linux editing
software is not th ebest in town. I know.)

, then
you should consider a higher spec processor. If you hang on a few months,
then the brand new Intel Core i7 will be mainstream

The problem is I've already hanged on too long on a Celeron with 256 MB RAM.
It will be at least 2 years before the i7 and DDR3 RAM fall within my price
range: $1000 for the computer.

and you will get
serious power (faster than any current Core2), or a cheap deal on the
'soon to be retired' socket 775 stuff you are currently looking at. Any
graphics card that claims to be HD should suffice - you don't need to get
a fast card unless you decide that you do want to play games, so you can
save quite a bit of money there. Any graphics card available at the moment
has more power than Windows could ever require, so the HD feature will
improve video playback, but any money spent on 3d power will be wasted.

Thanks for all your advice!

 

[MSH]

Have a look at some articles that benchmark how much %CPU is needed
to play back movies. For example, your HD3650 may have UVD, which
accelerates movie playback. (Both video card companies have their
own version of accelerator.) You can look at the system specs here
and the test results, to get some idea of whether the processor
(E7200) is future proof enough or not.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3258&p=1

You'll notice in those results, that when acceleration is not
available, the processor ends up being pretty busy. If the
processor gets busy enough, the movie may begin to stutter.
This would be most evident with HD content of some sort.

Where the quad core processor might excel, is in movie editing.
To give an example, I used Windows Movie Maker, as a quick test.
I dragged some garbage video I downloaded off the web into it.
When reading in the movie, WMM used one of my processor cores
to do the job. When writing out the (edited) movie, both
cores of my dual core processor were working. One at 90%,
the other at 100%. So depending on the application, there
can be situations where the quad core helps (work is divided
to the cores). But for tasks that are single threaded (a lot
of stuff, email, word processing, older programs), then the
speed of a single core is what determines the performance level.
In those cases, an E8600 would be a better fit (has the highest
core speed, for software that only uses one core).

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=All&ProcFam=2558&SearchKey=


Thanks for your advice, Paul. For the time being, I don't want to invest too
much in a Quad Core or top Dual, so the E8200 is out. I suppose I can get a
E7200 or Q6600 for around $700. That's what I expect to pay.

 

[Paul]

Thanks for your advice, Paul. For the time being, I don't want to invest too
much in a Quad Core or top Dual, so the E8200 is out. I suppose I can get a
E7200 or Q6600 for around $700. That's what I expect to pay.

I went to the HP.com site and selected -

HP Pavilion a6660t series Base price $550

E8400 Processor 3GHz + 50
2GB RAM (upgrade later - retail RAM is dirt cheap) 0
128MB NVIDIA GeForce 9300 and TV Tuner Card/PVR + 50 (...software PVR)
320GB drive 0
On system board LAN (10/100/1000Base-T), no wifi 0
LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive 0
Usual garbage card reader 0
Integrated 7.1 channel sound with front audio ports 0
(Install freebee security tools...)
HP w2007 20-inch LCD 1680x1050 + 99 (stinky rebate to fill out)
HP keyboard and HP optical mouse 0
Vista Home Premium SP1 (your choice 32 bit or 64 bit) 0

Total $699 (after rebate)

Home Premium includes MCE, and presumably the video/tuner
is compatible with it. (Be prepared to buy some other
TV recording software later.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista_home_premium

The Geforce 9300 is just a renamed 8400GS. So if
looking for benchmarks, you'd look for that name
instead. There are two tuners on the card,
an ATSC and an NTSC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc (covers ATSC and NTSC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAM_tuner (missing from the card)

Maybe something like this later would fill in the gaps. One of
these connects via Ethernet cabling and your router.

SiliconDust HDHomeRun Network-based Dual Digital HDTV Tuner Ethernet Interface
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16815327005

I didn't work very hard, to find the machine above. I'm willing to
bet you can find a better configuration without too much trouble.
And if you already have an LCD monitor to use, that brings you
closer to affording some other toy to go with it.

I wasn't able to find a picture of HP's video card, to
verify the faceplate has a useful set of connectors on it.
If you're curious, maybe HP has presales support who could
sent you a link or some pictures of it. I would expect to
get a remote with it, for integration with MCE. The connectors
are important, if you have aspirations to connect other
stuff to it (like a second monitor).

Paul

 

[MSH]

I went to the HP.com site and selected -

Yes, it seems quite cheap but, when you consider Acer, they're really dirt
cheap. I suppose they never had to deal with a Fiorina