| 1 |
On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> Do I need > 4 cores ? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
If you do video encoding, run chess analysis or are building software |
| 5 |
all day long, a 6 core helps. But you don't "need" them. You only need |
| 6 |
1 core. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W |
| 10 |
> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop. |
| 13 |
CPU power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount |
| 14 |
of money on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those |
| 15 |
CPUs really use 95W. That's just the thermal upper limit. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Also, some comments implied that Intels have a built-in GPU : |
| 19 |
> if so, would that save the cost of a graphics card ? |
| 20 |
> how would it compare to an Nvidia card ? how reliable are the drivers ? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yes, Intel CPUs now have graphics integrated into the CPU itself. The |
| 23 |
Intel drivers are top notch and are integrated into the kernel. Of |
| 24 |
course this also means that there are no third-party driver packages |
| 25 |
like for NVidia, so in order to update your graphics driver, you will |
| 26 |
need to update your kernel and X.Org stack. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Note that of course performance is abysmal if you're interested in |
| 29 |
running video games. With "video games" I don't mean Tux Racer, I mean |
| 30 |
stuff like Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, etc. If that's not your thing, |
| 31 |
then Intel graphics will be enough for you. |
Archives