Computer Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread II
- Thread starter Methos
- Start date
Mise
isle of lucy
You can easily play triple AAA games at 1080p with medium settings on a sub-£100 gfx card. For me, £80 has always been the sweet spot. I don't know how that translates into USD.
The way I buy graphics is this:
1) Decide that I want a new graphics card
2) Find the latest "best graphics cards for the money" list on tomshardware (here)
3) Find the cheapest ~£80 one online and buy that one
If you have a bigger budget then obviously buy the best graphics card for that amount of money instead
The way I buy graphics is this:
1) Decide that I want a new graphics card
2) Find the latest "best graphics cards for the money" list on tomshardware (here)
3) Find the cheapest ~£80 one online and buy that one
If you have a bigger budget then obviously buy the best graphics card for that amount of money instead
So I've bitten the bullet and am getting a new smartphone to replace my beloved Blackberry Style (to my knowledge, the only 'flip' blackberry ever made) which makes me a sad panda because nobody makes smartphones in the vastly, and dare I say objectively, superior flip configuration.
Anyway, I restricted my choices to free upgrades with a 2-year extension on my contract, so I won't be going with the Blackberry Q10, which also makes me sad. I am on Sprint, so my choices were more limiting than if I were at AT&T or Verizon, but I love sprint so no way am I switching. iOS choice was the 5c, Windows phone choice was the HTC 8XT, and Android had the Samsung Mega 6.3", LG G2, something called the Sprint Viper which is apparently made by some PRC company called ZTE, and a few others that were clearly inferior.
I chose the LG G2 and basically I am just hoping you folks will tell me I made the right decision. I really, really do not like Google and actively avoid them as much as possible, which has made this a nerve wracking decision for me. It's just that from what I can tell from specs and reviews, of my choices the G2 is light years ahead of all the others. Would like to hear from anyone that has one.
Oh, it -might- get here tomorrow, but I personally find that highly unlikely and figure Monday is a far more realistic delivery date.
P.S. - I figure this is legit for the 'computer questions' thread since this phone is going to be a far more powerful computer than my old laptop from 2006.
Anyway, I restricted my choices to free upgrades with a 2-year extension on my contract, so I won't be going with the Blackberry Q10, which also makes me sad. I am on Sprint, so my choices were more limiting than if I were at AT&T or Verizon, but I love sprint so no way am I switching. iOS choice was the 5c, Windows phone choice was the HTC 8XT, and Android had the Samsung Mega 6.3", LG G2, something called the Sprint Viper which is apparently made by some PRC company called ZTE, and a few others that were clearly inferior.
I chose the LG G2 and basically I am just hoping you folks will tell me I made the right decision. I really, really do not like Google and actively avoid them as much as possible, which has made this a nerve wracking decision for me. It's just that from what I can tell from specs and reviews, of my choices the G2 is light years ahead of all the others. Would like to hear from anyone that has one.
Oh, it -might- get here tomorrow, but I personally find that highly unlikely and figure Monday is a far more realistic delivery date.
P.S. - I figure this is legit for the 'computer questions' thread since this phone is going to be a far more powerful computer than my old laptop from 2006.
Thanks for not helping out Canada's struggling tech sector. 
I don't have a G2, but I've used the Nexus 5 quite a lot, and it's my default Android recommendation, along with the Moto X or Moto G depending on budget. The G2 is basically a Nexus 5 with a bigger battery and ******** updates since LG/Sprint derps around with them for several months after Google push them to the Nexus 5.
HTC 8XT is old and low-res screen, it should rightfully be <$200 off contract. And it's not Nokia/MS - there's really no real reason to bother with anyone else on WinPhone.
iPhone 5c is a hilarious troll by Apple. Prior to the release of the 5s, they'd discount the previous year's model by $100, which already makes a year old phone far more expensive than it's worth. With the iPhone 5s, instead of discounting the iPhone 5 by $100, they made the iPhone 5c, which is worse than the iPhone 5, and priced that at $100 less than the 5s. Also Apple pricing is kind of deceitful regarding storage - the 5c is free with contract, but it's only 16GB with no microSD slot, so it's really $100 extra for equivalent storage as everyone else.
Samsung Galaxy mega is too large, low resolution, poorly updated version of Android, shoddy Samsung build quality.
I don't really care enough about Sprint-exclusive ZTE phones to look up particular problems with the Sprint Vital, but it's also poorly updated Android and not better than the G2.
There do seem to exist Android flip phones, but I doubt you'll see them in America: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_g9098_androidpowered_flip_phone_crops_up_in_china-news-8558.php
I don't have a G2, but I've used the Nexus 5 quite a lot, and it's my default Android recommendation, along with the Moto X or Moto G depending on budget. The G2 is basically a Nexus 5 with a bigger battery and ******** updates since LG/Sprint derps around with them for several months after Google push them to the Nexus 5.
HTC 8XT is old and low-res screen, it should rightfully be <$200 off contract. And it's not Nokia/MS - there's really no real reason to bother with anyone else on WinPhone.
iPhone 5c is a hilarious troll by Apple. Prior to the release of the 5s, they'd discount the previous year's model by $100, which already makes a year old phone far more expensive than it's worth. With the iPhone 5s, instead of discounting the iPhone 5 by $100, they made the iPhone 5c, which is worse than the iPhone 5, and priced that at $100 less than the 5s. Also Apple pricing is kind of deceitful regarding storage - the 5c is free with contract, but it's only 16GB with no microSD slot, so it's really $100 extra for equivalent storage as everyone else.
Samsung Galaxy mega is too large, low resolution, poorly updated version of Android, shoddy Samsung build quality.
I don't really care enough about Sprint-exclusive ZTE phones to look up particular problems with the Sprint Vital, but it's also poorly updated Android and not better than the G2.
There do seem to exist Android flip phones, but I doubt you'll see them in America: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_g9098_androidpowered_flip_phone_crops_up_in_china-news-8558.php
Thanks for not helping out Canada's struggling tech sector.
Sorry. Believe me, I wanted to. But I just cannot justify paying for a phone, even one with a superior form factor (real honest to goodness keyboard.)
Mise
isle of lucy
Quick question I just asked this in fiftychat - can anyone here help?
<Mise> any programming types here?
<Mise> i'm making what i thought would be a tiny android app that looks up a value in an array of 400 integers and returns the position (using Arrays.binarysearch)
<Mise> actually tehre's 2 arrays of 400 integers
<Mise> but anyway
<Mise> the app comes out at like 673kb
<Mise> which is much more than i thought it would be
<Mise> cos previous android apps i've made have barely been over 50kb usually
<Mise> the biggest one previously was 200kb
<Mise> but those were made in eclipse whereas this one is in android studio
<Mise> so i'm thinking the size difference is either (1) because of using 2 arrays of 400 each, which might not be the best way of holding that data, or (2) because of some stuff in android studio that i need to turn off when compiling for release
<Mise> any ideas? gut instincts?
<Mise> it's not exactly a problem for it to be 673kb but i just wonder if the size is a symptom of some other problem e.g. with my android studio settings or with using an array rather than some other data structure thing that i'm unaware of that would be more efficient
<Mise> any programming types here?
<Mise> i'm making what i thought would be a tiny android app that looks up a value in an array of 400 integers and returns the position (using Arrays.binarysearch)
<Mise> actually tehre's 2 arrays of 400 integers
<Mise> but anyway
<Mise> the app comes out at like 673kb
<Mise> which is much more than i thought it would be
<Mise> cos previous android apps i've made have barely been over 50kb usually
<Mise> the biggest one previously was 200kb
<Mise> but those were made in eclipse whereas this one is in android studio
<Mise> so i'm thinking the size difference is either (1) because of using 2 arrays of 400 each, which might not be the best way of holding that data, or (2) because of some stuff in android studio that i need to turn off when compiling for release
<Mise> any ideas? gut instincts?
<Mise> it's not exactly a problem for it to be 673kb but i just wonder if the size is a symptom of some other problem e.g. with my android studio settings or with using an array rather than some other data structure thing that i'm unaware of that would be more efficient
Mise
isle of lucy
Thanks for the info, I'll look in to the optimisation settings in the IDE. It definitely doesn't have debugging info on. I turned on "ProGuard", which is apparently the default code optimiser for Android. It's still 419kb though =/
marlowe221
Chieftain
Hey folks,
If I am building a PC with a i5-4570 and a R7 265, will a 80+ bronze PSU at 430w be enough muscle to run it all?
Is Corsair a good brand for PSUs?
If I am building a PC with a i5-4570 and a R7 265, will a 80+ bronze PSU at 430w be enough muscle to run it all?
Is Corsair a good brand for PSUs?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The R7 265 runs at 150w. Just pointing out that the R7 265 has dropped True Audio.
Robert FIN
Emperor
Hi again!
I was looking low/mid priced com parts from a finnish computer store website today to be wiser because I wanna build my first com in a few years or sooner. I checked out some CPUs (aka processors). I noticed a weird thing: Intel i3 3220 offers 2.8GHz for 126€ and AMD A10-5800k offers 3.8GHz for 108€.
That's completely insane to me who is still total noob in computer parts knowledge. I hear it all the time that Intel is so OP in more expansive products but how about these parts? I don't get it. Can Intel sell the product for that price just because everybody knows and trust Intel? How would these parts run games?
Thanks.
I was looking low/mid priced com parts from a finnish computer store website today to be wiser because I wanna build my first com in a few years or sooner. I checked out some CPUs (aka processors). I noticed a weird thing: Intel i3 3220 offers 2.8GHz for 126€ and AMD A10-5800k offers 3.8GHz for 108€.
That's completely insane to me who is still total noob in computer parts knowledge. I hear it all the time that Intel is so OP in more expansive products but how about these parts? I don't get it. Can Intel sell the product for that price just because everybody knows and trust Intel? How would these parts run games?
Thanks.
Robert FIN
Emperor
I don't understand. How I'm supposed to know what is faster if these numbers are just added there for fun?
For gaming purposes, this chart is a handy way: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
Robert FIN
Emperor
OK. Thanks.
So the Intel that I mentioned is in B-tier and the AMD is in C-tier? If the list is based on research about what is faster, isn't it cheating from AMD to say that their product is faster than intel if its not?
So the Intel that I mentioned is in B-tier and the AMD is in C-tier? If the list is based on research about what is faster, isn't it cheating from AMD to say that their product is faster than intel if its not?
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,311
Indeed. You could also look at a car analogy with horsepower. The Ford F-350 pickup truck clocks in at 385 horsepower in its standard configuration. By comparison, the Porsche Boxster has a measly 315 horsepower. Of course, the Boxster has a much higher top speed than the F-350 - something along the lines of 173 mph versus 120 mph. Horsepower is a factor in which car is faster, but just because a car has more horsepower doesn't mean it's faster. Similarly, while gigahertz is a factor in which CPU is faster, the CPU with more gigahertz is not necessarily faster.
And along the same lines, just as it's perfectly okay for Ford to advertise that the F-350 has 385 horsepower, it's perfectly okay for AMD to advertise that their CPU runs at 3.8 GHz - it does. You just have to keep in mind that AMD's CPU isn't necessarily faster.
It was actually Intel who is likely more guilty of advertising megahertz above all else. Especially during the Pentium 4 era, Intel heavily advertised their CPUs as being faster because they had more megahertz than AMD's. However, AMD's were more efficient in other regards, and were thus generally faster. Nevertheless, a lot of people bought into Intel's marketing that because they had more GHz, they were faster, and bought Intel even though AMD's processors were usually faster and, in some cases, less expensive as well. These days, it's AMD who has more GHz and Intel whose processors are more efficient in other regards, but AMD isn't advertising megahertz above all else like Intel was a decade ago. (Although if AMD had as big of a marketing budget as Intel does, they might well be doing so)
For more details, read up on the Megahertz Myth.
