![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
![]()
I'm contemplating replacing my 7-year-old tower containing an AMD Phenom II X3 720 and an SSD as C: drive with a new machine. I find myself caught between competing desires and would appreciate advice.
My competing desires are:
The first two pull me towards the new NUC i7 due in May with a pair of SSD's. It's a 2-core CPU The last pulls me towards a tower or mini-tower with a 4-core i7 (e.g. 4790) plus SSDs. My simultaneous environment for computing is:
My question: Would I'd notice the difference between a 2-core and a 4-core i7 for the typical work environment described above. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
|
![]()
Yes, as you've already been told in response to the same question at Windows Secrets.
It's a bit strange choosing software sites to ask hardware questions of this sort. CPUs and GPUs are better discussed on a site dedicated to hardware such as CPU World or Tom's Hardware. Those sites can give you direct hardware comparisons that we do not, e .g.: compare i7 4790 with the top NUC i7 best NUC graphics The info you've provided is somewhat incomplete as you don't mention how you're running the three FullHD screens and what would happen if you bought a NUC. The best graphics, the Iris Pro Graphics 6100, has a maximum resolution of 2560x1600 so you won't be using that to fill the screens. You're also the only person who can decide the priorities for the competing desires: energy use (quietness is often closely related), size (which you must be considering with the NUC as an option), and responsiveness. Personally, I'd forego the small size and some part of low energy use with the NUC and get a larger case for lower cost and greater flexibility including more options for CPU, graphics, quietness, and responsiveness.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
![]()
My thought in asking on different sites was that there were different audiences who might have different perspectives. I'm concerned about the software responsiveness primarily, which is why I included TechSupportAlert, my longtime favorite for software.
You provided a worthwhile response in questioning the 3-screens requirement. I thought I'd determined that using displayport with a hub would allow me to have three screens, but I'll have to check further. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
|
![]()
You can drive three screens but integrated graphics won't support three screens at FullHD.
NUCs and the like are great for gateways/routers, NAS, streaming media servers, attaching to a TV, and other types of server which don't need good graphics. But I wouldn't recommend many users buying a workstation that doesn't have an option to upgrade from the integrated graphics. That is usually the weakest component in a low-power system because better graphics require more power. Also the higher the screen resolution that it is driving then the more system memory is cannibalized to service it.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|