Related
As we all know, the new trend in smartphones now is moving towards the new cortex a9 chips such as the tegra 2, orion, QSD 8960 (I think), etc. However, is all this raw horsepower really necessary? I mean, sure, apps open up 1 sec. faster, web pages load 4-5 seconds faster, and I understand the concept on future proofing, but single core devices are just as capable. To me, 500 is not worth not being able to wait 5 seconds. And don't forgot about Google's new baby, the Nexus S. What is your opinion? Are you getting a dual core? Personally, I am waiting for the quad cores!
Everything will drop in price over time. Right now, of course it's expensive, it's a new feature.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Do we really NEED a computer/HD-TV that fits in your pocket, has wireless data, apps, wifi hotspot capability, and even makes phone calls/texts?...
I say yes. Plus, don't forget the potential battery life gains out of multi-core. But hey.... I carry around a spare battery, and that works pretty well for me.
No, we don't, BUT, they'll make us THINK we WANT it and that's ($$$) what's important to them.
Like you said, those 4-5 seconds load up time, worth it for $500? Naaa.
I'll stick with my Vibrant and let others be the beta testers.
These such things are not really our NEEDS, but our WANTS.
XPLANE9 said:
As we all know, the new trend in smartphones now is moving towards the new cortex a9 chips such as the tegra 2, orion, QSD 8960 (I think), etc. However, is all this raw horsepower really necessary? I mean, sure, apps open up 1 sec. faster, web pages load 4-5 seconds faster, and I understand the concept on future proofing, but single core devices are just as capable. To me, 500 is not worth not being able to wait 5 seconds. And don't forgot about Google's new baby, the Nexus S. What is your opinion? Are you getting a dual core? Personally, I am waiting for the quad cores!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You kind of contradicted yourself with the last sentence.
personally, i only use my device to make calls, txt'g, listen to music and maybe surf the web (rarely). i don't think i would benefit THAT much from a dual core, but on the other hand, if the battery life is better......
aside from that, i'm getting great battery life out of the rom i'm running now, so that isn't much of an issue now.
XPLANE9 said:
As we all know, the new trend in smartphones now is moving towards the new cortex a9 chips such as the tegra 2, orion, QSD 8960 (I think), etc. However, is all this raw horsepower really necessary? I mean, sure, apps open up 1 sec. faster, web pages load 4-5 seconds faster, and I understand the concept on future proofing, but single core devices are just as capable. To me, 500 is not worth not being able to wait 5 seconds. And don't forgot about Google's new baby, the Nexus S. What is your opinion? Are you getting a dual core? Personally, I am waiting for the quad cores!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"You will never need more than 640K" -BG
It's inevitable. Power will become better, apps written for dual cores and so on. This is pretty much an open ended question with an infinite answer. In short Yes.
There's no such thing as "too much" in the technology world.
You may not need it right now, but the apps will advance and become even better, since the multi-threading will bring new possibilities.
Also, I never thought I would need 6 cores on my desktop PC. And look at me. I'm playing for a Dual 6-core Xeon server to fall from the sky right on my yard.
Apple/AT&T can answer this question better since they are good at convincing people they do not need more than 2GB of data or flash on their smartphones
Why would anyone need more then a 2400 baud modem
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
VICosPhi said:
Apple/AT&T can answer this question better since they are good at convincing people they do not need more than 2GB of data or flash on their smartphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet they are killing the market so far, maybe the OP has a point, do we really need all this processing power? what we need from phones is for them to utilize what they already have more efficiently. If Team Whiskey can make roms that takes me from 8-12 hours a day battery life to 20-24hours on the SAME hardware, I think that's where manufacturers should be spending their time. Zero lag anytime, excellent battery life and even a 600-800mhz processor will be blazing on Android.
Apple has done a great job with that for the most part..hope Google does follows suite soon!
Dual cores will improve battery life.
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk
Not only that but there is an overwhelming trend away from laptops to tablets and smart phones. The more horse power these phones have the more we will be able to do with them. In addition Frany1029 is right, dual cores will drastically improve battery life over what we have now. Plus itll be cool to have a phone that is more powerful than most netbooks.
VICosPhi said:
Apple/AT&T can answer this question better since they are good at convincing people they do not need more than 2GB of data or flash on their smartphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I LOLd hard.
And yeah, I think that progression is inevitable. Its always been that way with everything. Evolve or get left behind. Simple as that.
Yes.
I want system on chip with dual core cpu and dual core gpu. You wanna talk bout battery life? Lol.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
jamesd86 said:
Yes.
I want system on chip with dual core cpu and dual core gpu. You wanna talk bout battery life? Lol.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't say I really want system on a chip. Might lead to some severe lock down of the OS.
Do we need dual cores? Depends. For heavy media devices, PMPs and such I can see the need for dual cores. For a smartphone? Not really.
A 1.4 GHz Single Core with a 1900 mAh battery and 4" Super LCD/AMOLED screen would do me just fine.
I prefer backgrounding (iOS/WP7) with push notifications (WP7-style) to 3rd-party preemptive multitasking. System apps can multi-task, those that need to (media player, browser, etc.).
I am actually starting to question the value of Adobe Flash on a smartphone now, after seeing how terribly it performs on this one. I also question the value of ridiculous 4G speeds for users who don't tether their computer to their phone...
dungeon defenders will answer your question.
Do I NEED my BMW? No. But it's always nice to have. Same can be said of pretty much any luxury, and right now, that's exactly what the dual core processors are.
But delayed for a good reason,
they exchange the original foreseen dual core soc for a quad core.
Yammy.
Good move for samsung but would the 2 additional cores really give that much of a performance boost since 99% of the apps are single threaded.
Also I wonder whats up with the 11.6, it seems to have gone so silent!
Another good reason would be to exchange the screen for an 1080p AMOLED!
Sent from my superior GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
EarlZ said:
Good move for samsung but would the 2 additional cores really give that much of a performance boost since 99% of the apps are single threaded.
Also I wonder whats up with the 11.6, it seems to have gone so silent!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they give you a quad core for the same price as a dual core with better performance and better battery life, then why not.
I think they are doing this to make it more competitive in comparison to the new iPad. By giving it a quad core, the average person thinks it would be better than the new iPad since many people have a "4 cores are better than 2" mentality from a marketing standpoint. If they also have data numbers to back that up, such as better benchmark scores, etc, then that would help. It would still be a challenge to convince the average person, however, that Android on a 10.1 Note is a better experience than iOS on an iPad however, but if they can show the advantages of the S-Pen, better performance for gaming, and other such things, they might be able to get a better foothold on the tablet market.
Apple definitely has a dominance in the tablet market, but in a few years time, Android tablets will start to significantly eat at this lead just like it did with the smartphone market. By offering choices and differentiation from the iPad, and in the case of the Note: S-Pen functionality and the better quad core CPU, and with better pricing than an iPad, then I think we can see the Note tab doing well.
The Note 10.1 is great all around, the only two places it lacks (in my opinion) is the low screen resolution and the 16:10 aspect ratio of the screen. I will never buy a tablet around the 8-10 inch size that isn't 4:3 in screen ratio. If Sammy came out with another edition that fixes both issues I would seriously consider picking one up.
Zamboney said:
Another good reason would be to exchange the screen for an 1080p AMOLED!
Sent from my superior GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With the current quality control on superamoled, that is a nightmare for a lot of users including me. Im pretty ok with the pls screen after using my friend's tab for a day.
---------- Post added at 09:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------
adelmundo said:
If they give you a quad core for the same price as a dual core with better performance and better battery life, then why not.
I think they are doing this to make it more competitive in comparison to the new iPad. By giving it a quad core, the average person thinks it would be better than the new iPad since many people have a "4 cores are better than 2" mentality from a marketing standpoint. If they also have data numbers to back that up, such as better benchmark scores, etc, then that would help. It would still be a challenge to convince the average person, however, that Android on a 10.1 Note is a better experience than iOS on an iPad however, but if they can show the advantages of the S-Pen, better performance for gaming, and other such things, they might be able to get a better foothold on the tablet market.
Apple definitely has a dominance in the tablet market, but in a few years time, Android tablets will start to significantly eat at this lead just like it did with the smartphone market. By offering choices and differentiation from the iPad, and in the case of the Note: S-Pen functionality and the better quad core CPU, and with better pricing than an iPad, then I think we can see the Note tab doing well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No issues with the price, i wonder if they will also go with a quad gpu.
Ios tablets apps are a bettet experince compared to andriod apps, used a friends ipad2 for a week and found all of its apps significantly better compared to andriod, imho.
LiquidNitrogen said:
The Note 10.1 is great all around, the only two places it lacks (in my opinion) is the low screen resolution and the 16:10 aspect ratio of the screen. I will never buy a tablet around the 8-10 inch size that isn't 4:3 in screen ratio. If Sammy came out with another edition that fixes both issues I would seriously consider picking one up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 on aspect ratio.
I still using my tablet 4:3 1440x1050 because of the aspect ratio.
If I cant get 1920x1200 I dont want then 16:10 in a tiny tablet.
I like 16:10. Its perfect for reading and browsing the web. But i only will upgrade my 10.1 tab if the resolution doubles to 2560*1440
For a tablet with a Pen which will be mostly used in portrait mode to scribble on or for playing board games like chess, 4:3 aspect ratio is much more suitable but not much so for watching movies, so each has its own cons and pros,it comes down to what suits ones need more.
EarlZ said:
Good move for samsung but would the 2 additional cores really give that much of a performance boost since 99% of the apps are single threaded.
Also I wonder whats up with the 11.6, it seems to have gone so silent!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ICS UI runs on a separate thread (read: core) wherever possible where as GB chops it about - hence the lag. As soon as games on ICS start utilising the extra cores, 4 will be better than 2!
To be honest, its only likely to be intensive apps that you'd notice any difference - and that probably means gaming. If, like me you use your tablet for Web browsing, watching videos and only occasionally for games 2 cores is plenty. Having said that, everyone wants new tech for speed and product lifetime.
friedje said:
But delayed for a good reason,
they exchange the original foreseen dual core soc for a quad core.
Yammy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do we really need the 2 extra core?
sega_lou said:
Do we really need the 2 extra core?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No,but this beeing my first Android phone,not counting my HD2,and from what I have seen I would rather go for a two highly clocked and simultaneously running cores,and a big sized battery.
emuX said:
ICS UI runs on a separate thread (read: core) wherever possible where as GB chops it about - hence the lag. As soon as games on ICS start utilising the extra cores, 4 will be better than 2!
To be honest, its only likely to be intensive apps that you'd notice any difference - and that probably means gaming. If, like me you use your tablet for Web browsing, watching videos and only occasionally for games 2 cores is plenty. Having said that, everyone wants new tech for speed and product lifetime.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depsite all that, the preview video on the Tab 2 10.1 and Note 10.1 still shows signs of animation lag.
EarlZ said:
Depsite all that, the preview video on the Tab 2 10.1 and Note 10.1 still shows signs of animation lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And it will stay that way, since Android applications are based on Java, and Java is laggy even on my Quad Core i7 running PC.
hagba said:
And it will stay that way, since Android applications are based on Java, and Java is laggy even on my Quad Core i7 running PC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cry Cry QQ More.
Its all games and Android Java apps are Blazing fast.
And yes more cores is better.
Android is a well done multi-core architecture. Its SDK make you use multi core features.
So we need all the cores we can have. Even GB or Froyo can take advantage of a 4 core processor.
Just a quick fact.. my galaxy note right now has... 173 process running.... so.. I guess that multi core isnt bad at all kids.
do these parts work together
motherboard: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-M5A78L...1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242271&sr=1-1
2 graphics cards: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-11...V8SI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1355241889&sr=8-3
case: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CiT-Vantage-Gaming-Audio-Reader/dp/B0071KZNUY/ref=pd_sim_computers_1
psu: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cooler-Mast...AKOM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355242153&sr=8-1
ram: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CMZ...1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242548&sr=1-2
cpu: http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Bulldoz...1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242232&sr=1-1
hdd: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-ST3...AGSO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1355242411&sr=8-3
are the specs good enough to run battlefield 3 smoothly on high settings
frederic2707 said:
do these parts work together
motherboard: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-M5A78L...1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242271&sr=1-1
2 graphics cards: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-11...V8SI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1355241889&sr=8-3
case: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CiT-Vantage-Gaming-Audio-Reader/dp/B0071KZNUY/ref=pd_sim_computers_1
psu: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cooler-Mast...AKOM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355242153&sr=8-1
ram: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CMZ...1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242548&sr=1-2
cpu: http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Bulldoz...1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242232&sr=1-1
hdd: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-ST3...AGSO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1355242411&sr=8-3
are the specs good enough to run battlefield 3 smoothly on high settings
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your build is very similar to my current one. The mobo, case, cpu, psu and ram will all be fine. But you will not be able to run two gpus on that system. It only has one pcie x16 slot and can only take one graphics card. You'd be better off getting something like a 6850 or gtx 550/560.
HazzaBlake said:
Your build is very similar to my current one. The mobo, case, cpu, psu and ram will all be fine. But you will not be able to run two gpus on that system. It only has one pcie x16 slot and can only take one graphics card. You'd be better off getting something like a 6850 or gtx 550/560.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would add that, as a general rule, if you don't do any video-editing or high-GPU intensive calculations (gaming is not one), a 2-cards setup is rarely worth it. You usually have a better deal by buying one high-end graphic card than 2-medium.
Of course, if you don't care about money, two 600$ cards will do wonders
Motherboard?¿ really good parts
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
I'm not a huge fan of the case, you'd be better off having the PSU at the bottom of the case, not up top like it looks like. Tom's Hardware has a great article about air cooling set-ups that really helped me plan my set-up.
I'd also go for one better GPU than two, like roninfight said. Look up cards and how they run BF3 at your resolution. BF3 is gpu-dependent from what I remember, so the CPU isn't such a big issue for that particular game, but can be for others like Skyrim. Dual GPU can lead to micro-stuttering and other issues, even with the top-of-the-line cards - so unless you have a compelling reason to need the processing power, it's not really worth bothering with.
If you're looking for a gaming machine, I'd look at Intel processors. Unless things have had a big shake-up in the AMD camp (which I wouldn't really guess since AMD has publicly announced they're going to focus on the mobile market instead of desktop - but maybe they had something in the line). For most of the games I was planning on playing, the testing done put Intel CPUs ahead on pretty much all of them. I don't have hardware loyalty
If you were going with that set-up, I'd question if the PSU was enough - also, I would check out if it has enough connectors for two GPU. I'd have to look at it in-depth, but it seems from a glance that you'd be cutting it close and might only support one card, but I didn't go track down the specs on it.
Are these parts better http://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/P4J2K9GHTWJ9
frederic2707 said:
Are these parts better http://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/P4J2K9GHTWJ9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PSU needs to be at least 500w and i recommend you get a single gpu instead of sli. It really isn't worth the hassle unless your running three screens or 2560x1600 resolution.
Change PSU to corsair as they're much better and I'd suggest nvidia instead as nvidia drivers are still better than amd's at the moment.
I'd also change from the 8 core amd to a quad core intel. I have a 2500k and its brilliant. make sure u get 64 bit os aswell!
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda app-developers app
your build is all ok and puts well together in every aspect
Yes those are better
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
IPCPARTPICKER is a great website that checks for compatibility and finds the best prices for your build. It uses many sources: Amazon, Newegg, etc.
Check it out, enter your build there.
I currently am using a LeEco S3 with 3GB of RAM. I have decided to move on to a Moto G5 Plus since Best Buy has the pre-order deal with the $5 case. It ultimately comes down to how much I am spending. The 2GB version is $229. The 4GB version is $299. I don't want to cheap out yet at the same time I don't want to throw an extra hundred down and not notice a real difference multitasking wise. Would you say that the 2GB is good enough or am I better off spending the extra for the 4GB version? It sucks every review I've seen and read is specifically on the 4GB version.
fatesealer said:
I currently am using a LeEco S3 with 3GB of RAM. I have decided to move on to a Moto G5 Plus since Best Buy has the pre-order deal with the $5 case. It ultimately comes down to how much I am spending. The 2GB version is $229. The 4GB version is $299. I don't want to cheap out yet at the same time I don't want to throw an extra hundred down and not notice a real difference multitasking wise. Would you say that the 2GB is good enough or am I better off spending the extra for the 4GB version? It sucks every review I've seen and read is specifically on the 4GB version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2 GB is okay but your system would be using like 1.9 GB on an average.With upgrades to O more ram is likely going to be required.So it's better to go with 4 GB variant than have a lagging phone after updates.
I am a g4+ user with 3 GB RAM.
Lol I just did the same thing! Returned the S3 for the g5 plus 64gb. The S3 has weird lag even though it's processor is "better" so glad I switch cause this thing flies! Depends on your app usage but the 4gb model is necessary for heavy users and gamers! Casual use then go for the 2gb.
That's funny. I was wondering this but I already ordered the 2 GB one lol. That's me second-guessing myself. Currently using a Nexus 6 with a busted antenna(?).
Hi,
This is my oppion: 2GB of RAM is a joke from Motorola/Lenovo. Forget completly any Android 7 phone with less than 3GB of RAM!
I suffer a 2GB Moto G4 (not plus) for a year with only 2GB or RAM... just a constant lag.
2gb is too slow
I have brazilian version of Moto G5 Plus and for me until now is excellent 2 Gb of RAM
I have the 2GB version and for me it is more than enough. At most I have 3 or 4 apps going and I don't game on my phone. The most I'll tax it is using navigation with a podcast going or making a phone call. But if you're a heavier user then yeah the 4GB would be a better bet.
2 gb is plenty. It works great!
If you look around there are A LOT if articles out there explaining why anything over 2gb is pretty much useless.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Developers surely are not targeting over 2GB yet as the vast majority of phones in use are 2GB or less. Maybe if you wanna switch between apps much, have a lot of web tabs open, etc, you will see benefit from more than 2GB? I bought 4GB RAM version because I want to be able to keep the phone for about 3 years, and I already had as my previous phone the OnePlus One, which needed to be replaced as I had used it for 3 years and the edges were starting to crack, battery is old, etc. I didn't want to DOWNGRADE to LESS RAM (not so logical reason, just I didn't feel like my new phone after three years should have less RAM than my old one).
I think I'd be happy with 2GB RAM phone. I kind of wish it had NFC because I think I'd like to be able to use Android Pay (though I never did actually use it when I had OnePlus One for 3 years?!!). I remember forgetting my wallet one time I went out and thinking how nice if I could pay with my phone, which I wouldn't forget.
To go big at the onset will cost you $70. Unless you wait until the phone's price gets under $70 it'll be an expensive upgrade later.
My phone, with four gigs, frequently runs with 1.8 to 2 gigs in use.
Plus the extra onboard storage that comes with the 4gig model is kinda sweet.
I'm not a big spender but the jump to the 300 model was easy for me to justify without me feeling like I was lying to myself as to why I wanted more.
fatesealer said:
I currently am using a LeEco S3 with 3GB of RAM. I have decided to move on to a Moto G5 Plus since Best Buy has the pre-order deal with the $5 case. It ultimately comes down to how much I am spending. The 2GB version is $229. The 4GB version is $299. I don't want to cheap out yet at the same time I don't want to throw an extra hundred down and not notice a real difference multitasking wise. Would you say that the 2GB is good enough or am I better off spending the extra for the 4GB version? It sucks every review I've seen and read is specifically on the 4GB version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go with the 4gb varient, you won't regret. [emoji4]
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Remember those e-machines that have the sticker saying "This machine is never obselete?" Yeah, you know how that turned out. You don't want your phone to be an e-machine saying that. I exchanged my 2GB model for a 4GB model simply because I am a heavy user, I had a lot of reloading apps in multitasking; no regrets there on upgrading. It depends, though: unless you're a heavy user like me (games, mulit window, chrome, youtube, ect memory hungry apps) you won't see a major difference. Still, more is better, and choosing the 4GB of memory over the 2GB would be future proofing for updates, such as the upcoming Android O and Android 7.1 (that is if Lenovo doesn't drop us like it dropped the 2015 Moto G). In general, with more RAM, more apps can stay open, and games, if you play them, will run just a bit better if they are memory heavy. You won't notice anything if an app opens right where you left it, but you will notice if it reloads on you. Nevertheless, even standard issued apps like Chrome and YouTube use a lot of memory. I'd say shoot for the 4GB RAM and 64GB Storage. It's better for the long run, and really you'll want it soon enough.
tl;dr it depends, but futureproofing is a good idea.
Defiantly go for the 4gb variant.
Depends on your usage. I tend to use 2-3 apps at a time and close them regularly. Besides, I don't use the phone for gaming.
If you plan on keeping tons of apps in memory and expect them to be there after 2 hours, yeah, 4GB is the way to go.
bornlivedie said:
Depends on your usage. I tend to use 2-3 apps at a time and close them regularly. Besides, I don't use the phone for gaming.
If you plan on keeping tons of apps in memory and expect them to be there after 2 hours, yeah, 4GB is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2GB of RAM is just dandy for any smartphone application. Even games.
There are a few reasons you find more memory on phones; some good, some not-so-much.
RAM is Cheap. Really cheap these days. In the days of 32-bit CPUs, there was no practical value to offering more than 3GB RAM, like my Samsung Note Pro 12.2 tablet here. But with 64-bit processors, 4GB is a few bucks more than 2GB. Naturally, manufacturers don’t want you to know this. After all, even if it’s $2.00 a phone, if you’re Apple, that’s $200 million extra profit in a year.
Marketing Wars. Consumers are a simple people.. they don’t really know how stuff works. So basic numbers sell. A 4GB phone just sounds like twice as much as a 2GB phone. A 20Mpixel camera sounds so much better than a 12Mpixel camera — even though the top phone cameras right now are 12Mpixel cameras (the iPhone 7 is also a 12Mpixel camera, but not on the top, its sensor is too small).
Multitasking. The rule of thumb for Windows, at least, used to be 2GB per CPU core. Which means my PC here ought to have at least 12GB. I have 64GB… no problem. But if you extend this to Smartphones, pretty much no one has 2GB per core (and yeah, there are 8 core Smartphone chips, but most of those are big.LITTLE designs, they only normally use four cores at once). Neither Android nor iOS are as memory-hungry as Windows, and we’re not running a full Photoshop or Altium (my EE CAD software) or AutoPano Giga (the reason I have 64GB on my desktop). A typical Android application can ask for up to 48MB of RAM, no more. But there’s a special way to ask for hundreds of MB of RAM (considered impolite), and native apps can make Linux calls and get all they want. And you can actually have them all runinng at the same time. So if you’re a power user, you may want more than 2GB. But it’s not one app, it’s having a faster system with everything running.
High Density Screens. When I had a smartphone with 256MB RAM, I also had a 640x480 screen. My LG V10 today has 4GB RAM, but it’s also got a 2560x1600 screen. So does a 13x increase in screen resolution need a 16x increase in memory? Not exactly. On Android, your apps have to deal with all kinds of different phones, and most apps don’t need to directly interface with allocating screen bitmaps or anything, any more than a web browser does. But iOS is based on pixels and bitmaps, and also, there were very few models. So every software compamy knew exactly what resource they had. Then the iPhone 6 Plus came out, with the same 1GB as all sorts of other Apple phones. Only, the screen was 1920x1080 resolution. And all screen drawing was actually done in 1242 2208x1242 and then downscaled to 1920x1080. Bottom line: the overhead too enough extra memory over any other 1GB iPhone that some things just broke. Which is why they put 2GB into the iPhone 7.
So if you’re an iPhone user, your only choice is 2GB today in a new model. That’s exactly the right amount, since the memory size will drive software development. And you don’t have the option for more, anyway. For Android, 2GB is a good amount for 2017. I’m not really convinced I need more than that. Then again, I haven’t used up half of the 64GB internal flash on my V10, and the 256GB microSD card is mostly full of photos and music. Not critical, but nice to have.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
mindmajick said:
2GB of RAM is just dandy for any smartphone application. Even games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true, any app from the Play Store will run just fine even with 1GB of ram.
But what I was talking about was the fact that most people just leave a ton of apps open and expect them to be that way for long periods of time without redrawing the entire app again.
If you leave open2 games, chrome, whatsapp, messenger spotify, play store, gmail, outlook, evernote, etc... and expect every single of them to be open, you're gonna have a hard time with just 2GB of ram.
That's why 4GB of ram is necessary.
I do not open more than 4-5 apps at a time and tend to close them right after I'm done with them, so 2GB is plenty, even for future versions of Android (if we trust that they will maintain the same line of work for future versions).
When I saw the topic of a beginner's guide to building a PC, I jumped for it because I remember building my first PC. It actually wasn't nearly as long ago as you'd think. I also remember how clueless I was. Obviously, I know about everything that goes inside of a computer, but once I was faced with the task of putting all of that together, I was like a deer in headlights.
PrerequisitesLet's start off with a list of everything that you're going to need:
CPU
Thermal paste
Motherboard
CPU cooler
Case
Power supply
RAM
Storage
GPU (optional unless you have an Intel F-series processor)
An operating system
And then, of course, don't forget about the necessary peripherals:
Monitor
Keyboard
Mouse
Speakers
Webcam
External peripherals are beyond the scope of this post, but take note of what you need, keeping in mind that the PC you're building doesn't have the built-in parts of an all-in-one PC, like a microphone, speakers, and a webcam.
How to get started or: Pick a CPUFirst of all, and I cannot stress this enough, PCPartPicker is your friend. The site lets you plug in a list of parts that you're planning on using and it will tell you if there are any compatibility issues. It's super useful. In fact, even if you know that your parts should be good to go, run them through PCPartPicker anyway just to make sure.
The other key thing you need to do when getting started is to pick a CPU. This is an important first step because you're pretty much building out the PC around this choice. There aren't any motherboards that support both Intel and AMD CPUs.
Choosing between AMD and Intel (see, I didn't put the same company first twice in a row so you guys can't yell at me) is the first step. Once you do that, you can decide what kind of performance that you need. I wrote a guide to Intel CPUs and what the product names mean. With AMD, you have Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, and Ryzen 9, and performance goes according to how high that number is. The same goes with Intel and the Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, and Core i9.
Intel has a bunch of different suffixes. If there isn't one, it's a standard 65W desktop processor, so something like a Core i5-11600 is pretty mainstream. Add a K and it's now a 125W processor that's unlocked for overclocking. And as mentioned above, an F means that it does not have integrated graphics, so you'll need a graphics card.
Pick a motherboard, or a case, or bothNext, you have to pick a motherboard and a case. I'm including both in this section because it's a matter of priorities. Do you want a case that fits your motherboard or a motherboard that fits your case? If you already know what case you want to use, start there and find motherboards that work. If not, start with a motherboard that has what you want.
First, let's cut your motherboard choices in half. If you're using AMD Ryzen, you need an AM4 socket. In you're using Intel 10th- or 11th-gen, you need an LGA 1200 socket. Note that with Intel, 12th-gen will use a new socket, so this is not upgradeable.
Next, you have to pick the size of your motherboard, and this is where compatibility with the case comes in. There's eATX, ATX, mATX, and mini-ITX, all in size order. This very much comes down to how big of a PC you want to build. Looking for something that's super-small and can hide behind your monitor? That's where mini-ITX comes in. Want something big and beefy that's going to have some serious power and thermals? Go for eATX.
When picking a case, it will tell you what size board it can fit. Obviously, the CPU, motherboard, and case choices go hand in hand.
Now that you've narrowed down your motherboard choices to the socket and the size, you're in good shape. It's time to start looking at ports, PCIe slots, and more. Make sure that you've got the ports to plug in what you need and the latest USB standard. Make sure you've got enough memory slots. A big one is the graphics card you want to use. Make sure there's room for it not only on the board, but in the case.
Pick a CPU cooler and thermal pasteNow, it's time to figure out how you're going to keep that CPU cool. Here's the bottom line. The more your CPU heats up, the worse the performance gets. The cooler you can keep it, the more it can sustain peak performance.
The first thing that you have to choose between is air cooling and liquid cooling, and there are pros and cons to each. Air coolers can be easier to install and more cost-effective, but if you want a good one, they take up a lot of space. Liquid cooling can be better if you plan on doing a lot of overclocking.
Personally, I'm a big fan of air coolers from Noctua. I use a Noctua NH-U12A, which is not only designed to be one of the best air coolers around, but it's quiet too.
So, after you decide if you want liquid or air cooling, you then have to looking at how cool it keeps the CPU and also how much noise it makes. That noise is important.
Then there's the thermal paste, which sits between the CPU and the CPU cooler. The more evenly it's applied, the better the cooling. Many CPU coolers, like the one I mentioned above from Noctua, come with thermal paste. You can always shop around though. A tube of thermal paste costs under $10, so using the best one there is should be an easy way to keep your CPU cool.
Pick a power supply and a GPUAs you can see, a lot of these parts go hand in hand. In fact, once you've put this all together, you'll find that they all go hand in hand. But we can't talk about the power supply without picking a GPU.
Picking a GPU is optional. Like I said, you might want a simple productivity machine with a Core i5 and integrated graphics. You also might want a gaming rig with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090. And then there's everything in-between.
With that in mind, you need to pick a power supply. This is an area that you'd definitely be well-off to use PCPartPicker for. It will tell you the wattage of all of the parts you've picked so far, and then tell you if there are any compatibility issues with you pick a power supply. I'd suggest picking one with plenty of wattage to spare so you can upgrade down the line.
Another thing is that you should definitely get a modular PSU (power supply unit). That means that the power cables aren't attached to the PSU itself. You can add cables as you need to, and since you're a builder now, you're probably going to need to at some point.
The other thing that's important is efficiency. You'll see an 80 PLUS rating that can be Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, or Titanium. This is important, because it's based on how much power is lost due to heat.
RAM, storage, and OSIf you've made it this far, you're in good shape. This is the easy part.
With RAM, you want more, and you want faster. It's that simple. You can also look up how fast of memory your CPU supports and go for that. The same goes for storage. An M.2 SSD is the way to go if you can, but there are also SATA SSDs. You can get an HDD if you're on a really tight budget, but I don't recommend it.
As far as the OS goes, it's between Windows and Linux. Windows costs money; Linux doesn't. I'm not really here to tell you which one you should go for.
Putting it all togetherAlright, you've got all of your parts and you're ready to build your dream PC! It's the second-most exciting feeling behind the first boot.
Most of this is going to be about plugging things in where they fit, but sadly, it's not that simple. You need to start working through the manuals that came with your motherboard and your case. Those are going to tell you exactly what to plug in where, and most of it is fairly straightforward. There are few things that will actually break if you do them wrong.
The one thing that will break if you do it wrong is installing the CPU in the motherboard. It's important not to apply any unnecessary pressure when doing this because you could bend the pins on the chip or the board (depending on who made the CPU). Damage one of those and you've got some very expensive paperweights very quickly. To be clear, there's nothing to be afraid of here and it's very easy to do. Practice some healthy caution and you'll be fine.
Installing the motherboard in the case is something you'll need to follow instructions to do, which is fine, as it's easy enough. Once it's screwed into place, there will be several cables in the case that have to plug into the board. These will be for fans built into the case, for additional USB ports, and so on.
The other thing you'll have to install in the case is the PSU. Read the instructions and make sure the fan in the PSU is facing the right way. This is not something that you want to do incorrectly. There are a few cables to plug into the case and the board. Once the GPU is installed, you'll have to plug that in too.
Next, you'll probably be installing the CPU cooler. Make sure to apply thermal paste before you do. A pea-sized dot right in the middle of the CPU will do it. Do your best to bring the cooler directly down on the CPU, rather than doing it from an angle. This will spread it evenly across the chip.
Obviously, the graphics card, the storage, and RAM can fit into their respective slot. Note that for most boards, if you have four RAM slots and you only have two RAM sticks, you're better off separating them by one slot for dual-channel memory.
Once that's all done, you should be ready to plug it in and boot it up. You might not want to close the case on first-run, so you can make sure all of the fans are spinning. You can plug your USB drive with the OS into a USB port and boot into it to install the operating system.
Something went wrong!Well, you've made it this far and now something doesn't work. Isn't that always the way it goes?
The most common problem is probably that you pressed the power button and nothing happened. After all, if the thing that went wrong is that you broke something, you should just buy a new one.
If it's not booting, now it's time to start checking cables. Make sure that everything is plugged in securely, particularly the CPU cooler. Make sure that the PSU cables are plugged in at both ends. If there were any steps you weren't sure about, such as if you plugged something in in the right spot, revisit it.
If you just can't figure it out, come back here and ask for help.
Question @therichwoods --- I'm an extremely heavy user of Chrome. I'm talking dozens of tabs open at all times in multiple windows. I assume I'm going to want to maximize my RAM to take full advantage? Or is CPU/GPU also important in my case?
svetius said:
Question @therichwoods --- I'm an extremely heavy user of Chrome. I'm talking dozens of tabs open at all times in multiple windows. I assume I'm going to want to maximize my RAM to take full advantage? Or is CPU/GPU also important in my case?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TBH CPU is always important. But RAM should definitely be a priority.
Hi
Just upgraded my complete system from an AMD FX8350 with 32gb Ram to a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32gb ram. Currently using my old HD7870 Graphics cards in Crossfire but as these are now nine years old am looking to upgrade to a more recent card(s) bearing in mind that I am a pensioner and it has taken me a year to gather new, system, what would you recommend in Graphics cards for this build.
Motherboard is an MSI B450 Gaming Plus Max, Ram is Corsair DDR4 2666 4x8Gb. TIA
Stransky said:
Hi
Just upgraded my complete system from an AMD FX8350 with 32gb Ram to a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32gb ram. Currently using my old HD7870 Graphics cards in Crossfire but as these are now nine years old am looking to upgrade to a more recent card(s) bearing in mind that I am a pensioner and it has taken me a year to gather new, system, what would you recommend in Graphics cards for this build.
Motherboard is an MSI B450 Gaming Plus Max, Ram is Corsair DDR4 2666 4x8Gb. TIA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That really depends what you want to do with your graphics card. Looking for a GTX1060/1660 might be a good idea, I had the latter one and you can play a lot of recent games in high settings with your ryzen.
Keep in mind buying a graphics card nowadays is REALLY expensive, even used ones, when you can get one. New ones are sold over the recommended manufacturer prices due to the mining scene and Corona!
Stransky said:
Hi
Just upgraded my complete system from an AMD FX8350 with 32gb Ram to a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32gb ram. Currently using my old HD7870 Graphics cards in Crossfire but as these are now nine years old am looking to upgrade to a more recent card(s) bearing in mind that I am a pensioner and it has taken me a year to gather new, system, what would you recommend in Graphics cards for this build.
Motherboard is an MSI B450 Gaming Plus Max, Ram is Corsair DDR4 2666 4x8Gb. TIA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should've opted for ram with xmp since ryzen benefit the most from faster ram. I'm currently using aorus 3200mhz 2x8gb kit with xmp enabled and it's better compared to it's stock settings.
Insanenity said:
You should've opted for ram with xmp since ryzen benefit the most from faster ram. I'm currently using aorus 3200mhz 2x8gb kit with xmp enabled and it's better compared to it's stock settings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's XMP?
svetius said:
What's XMP?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XMP (Extreme Memory Profiles) is a technology that allows you to change memory settings by selecting a different profile, which takes advantage of higher than standard memory speeds. Simply stated, XMP is the "easy button" of RAM overclocking, as manual RAM overclocking can be an unnecessary headache!
svetius said:
What's XMP?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAM over 2400Mhz is overclocked. X.M.P is just a system to overclock your ram. It's standard now. Personally I wouldn't bother with anything over 3600Mhz as it gets too pricey for the performance. Go no lower than 2666, try for 3200 (this tends to be the cheaper one anyways). I believe you will need to enable X.M.P in your uefi when you install it otherwise you'll just be running 2400. Like Insanenity said, it's just a 1 click setup so there's no fuss.
If you're not focused on gaming; while 16GB is fine, if you find a 32GB kit in your budget than definitely get it. Get a fair CPU with over 6 cores. (so ryzen).
LTT just did a video on something that might interest you.
This could be a good option for your productivity build as it's bang for buck. But if you have the budget for R7 5000's than just go for that.
Tldr: Chrome is a ram and cpu whore, use firefox...
I'm kidding, invest in CPU and RAM more than others if chrome is your concern.
p.s. Feel free to ask questions
strongst said:
That really depends what you want to do with your graphics card. Looking for a GTX1060/1660 might be a good idea, I had the latter one and you can play a lot of recent games in high settings with your ryzen.
Keep in mind buying a graphics card nowadays is REALLY expensive, even used ones, when you can get one. New ones are sold over the recommended manufacturer prices due to the mining scene and Corona!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply. Will just have to hang on to Current cards and hope prices drop in the near future on the GTX 1060/1660 cards. Too expensive for me ATM even second hand
Stransky said:
Thanks for the reply. Will just have to hang on to Current cards and hope prices drop in the near future on the GTX 1060/1660 cards. Too expensive for me ATM even second hand
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, unfortunately the prices are beyond the reality... If the bitcoin hype decreases, there might be a chance back to reality
strongst said:
Yeah, unfortunately the prices are beyond the reality... If the bitcoin hype decreases, there might be a chance back to reality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just caught a news story headline that 30-Series cards will be available in stores, soon at reasonable prices soon - as BTC drops below 30K this morning....
HipKat said:
I just caught a news story headline that 30-Series cards will be available in stores, soon at reasonable prices soon - as BTC drops below 30K this morning....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Luckily I got my 3060TI in 2020 for a low price, now it costs 50-80% more
strongst said:
Luckily I got my 3060TI in 2020 for a low price, now it costs 50-80% more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I looked and Best Buy has it for $399. Less than I paid for my 1080 2 years ago
HipKat said:
I looked and Best Buy has it for $399. Less than I paid for my 1080 2 years ago
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In stock for 399? Surely out of stock, otherwise it must be a mistake Sounds like the MSRP for the Founders Edition.
strongst said:
In stock for 399? Surely out of stock, otherwise it must be a mistake Sounds like the MSRP for the Founders Edition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll go look again when I get a break, but I'm pretty sure you're correct about it being the founders edition