Desperately Seeking Advice on New Computer!

[Neftren]

Haven't really been around recently, but I'm in dire need of help. So, I've got three desktop builds, and a laptop also on the table. I'm having a horrible time choosing. I need a laptop for portability (and it needs to be small), but it has to be powerful, so... I've arranged a quote for an M11x, as well as compiled three builds for a desktop (AM3, P55, X58).

Warning: Large, Stretchy Images Inside.

Alienware M11x-R2:
Soft Touch Stealth Black
Intel Core i7-640UM
1 Year Premium Warranty Plan
Bluetooth 2.1+EDR Module

Iomega SuperSlim DVD Portable Writer
Extra (2nd) 90W AC Adapter
Alienware Orion Neoprene Sleeve for M11x
Razer Orochi Wired/Bluetooth Mouse

Personalized Nameplate: Yes
AlienFX Color: Quasar Blue
OS Customization: Alienhead Chrome Blue
Steam and Portal: Factory Pre-Installed

Total Cost: $1208.78
AMD AM3:http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9019/amdbuild.png

Total Cost: $1086Intel P55:http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5940/p55build.png

Total Cost: $1081.92Intel X58:http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2113/x58build.png

I have to decide by tomorrow.

[Erloas]

Well you have no real specs for the Alienware laptop. With no specs its hard to judge it.

You didn't add any RAM to your first build, and your second build has RAM twice (I would assume one set from the second goes to the first build). On a second look, your first build is also missing a power supply... probably the same combo deal as the second build?

Other then the aforementioned problems there really isn't any appreciable difference between them. The Intels will be more powerful in some cases, the 6-core AMD in others.

What exactly are your use needs that it needs to be "powerful"? (to get an idea of how powerful it really needs to be)

Personally I would spend an extra $10 or so and get at least a 500GB hard drive instead of the 320GBs you have. And if you were going with the middle, I would switch the Seagate to the WD you have on the other builds.

Mostly personal preference, but I would switch the Nvidia 465 for an AMD 5830, as in most cases they are about equal in graphics power, but the 5830s use a lot less power then the Fermis. They are pretty much the same price.
*edit: and what size monitor are you running these computers on? Unless you've got a 23"+ (about, resolution changes at different sizes from some companies) monitor running 1920x1200 (or a 1080P tv being 1920x1080) then either of those graphics cards is way overkill for what you need. If for instance you monitor is running at 1600x1050 a graphics card half the cost will still run everything out there and for the near future at full setting.

For the most part though the builds are similar enough to make it next to impossible to give a decisive recommendation to one over the other. How much is an extra little bit of performance worth?

And can't say anything at all about the laptop without some real specs, but its a guarantee that it can't even come close to matching the desktops in terms of power. Though if it has "enough power" for your needs is another question.

[Neftren]

Well you have no real specs for the Alienware laptop. With no specs its hard to judge it.

They're available straight from Dell.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/alienware-m11x/pd.aspx?refid=alienware-m11x&cs=19&s=dhs


You didn't add any RAM to your first build, and your second build has RAM twice (I would assume one set from the second goes to the first build). On a second look, your first build is also missing a power supply... probably the same combo deal as the second build?

First build is intentionally lacking RAM and PSU. I'm still deciding on a combo deal (or split deal) on the first build. It'll be no more than $225 together though.

As for the second build, it's for an 8GB setup (as you can't add extra memory into a combo deal).

Other then the aforementioned problems there really isn't any appreciable difference between them. The Intels will be more powerful in some cases, the 6-core AMD in others.

What exactly are your use needs that it needs to be "powerful"? (to get an idea of how powerful it really needs to be)


Personally I would spend an extra $10 or so and get at least a 500GB hard drive instead of the 320GBs you have. And if you were going with the middle, I would switch the Seagate to the WD you have on the other builds.

Actually capacity is the least of my worries. I've got a 250GB drive in my current laptop that I'm hard pressed to fill right now. I just went with 320GB since it was the best price per gigabyte under $50.


Mostly personal preference, but I would switch the Nvidia 465 for an AMD 5830, as in most cases they are about equal in graphics power, but the 5830s use a lot less power then the Fermis. They are pretty much the same price.

I... actually require Nvidia for what I'm doing (CUDA and Folding). The benefit to the AMD build is the Lucid Hydra chip, so I could add in a 5850 later on.

For regular gaming, I'd be running on 1280x1024, but at all maximum settings in games (literally 32X AA if I can pull it off). For computing though, I definitely need the power.


For the most part though the builds are similar enough to make it next to impossible to give a decisive recommendation to one over the other. How much is an extra little bit of performance worth?

And can't say anything at all about the laptop without some real specs, but its a guarantee that it can't even come close to matching the desktops in terms of power. Though if it has "enough power" for your needs is another question.

And you have now run into the same issue that I have. All three desktop configurations are within $20 of each other.

As for the laptop, I mostly need it for schoolwork (and gaming doh!).

[Erloas]

Well there are a fair number of customization options on the Alienware that could be a lot of different things. But the video card in the Alienware isn't nearly as good as other options in similarly priced laptops. See Anuan's Recommendations! thread for some laptops in that price range that all have better video cards (though only one has an Nvidia card in it)

As for hard drive space, if you've got much for games you'll use up 320GB faster then you might think. Its not that hard when every game is 5-10GB. I didn't think I used that much, but I've got about 350GB used on my computer now. I also don't see the point in trying to save $10 on the HD considering the rest of the system. If this were a budget computer, sure, but you are well past that range.

As for Nvidia vs AMD. I'm virtually positive AMD has folding applications as well. If its just the generic idle folding though, I don't see the point. Seeing as pushing your graphics card for folding even when the rest of the system at is basically at idle you're going to be using a lot of power.
As for CUDA, what exactly are you using it for? Wouldn't the more universally practical OpenCL be a better choice since it does essentially the same thing but isn't limited on what it can run on? AMD has their version too, but I don't see either of them being of any practical use until a standard is picked out and adopted by everyone. With the possible exception of some high end post-graduate work at a University, I doubt you could be doing much of anything in CUDA that couldn't be done on a much cheaper card in a still very short period of time.
Although the graphics card bit is more general wondering rather then trying to justify the AMD cards over the Nvidia cards.

As for gaming, you probably wouldn't even be using 1/3 of that cards power for gaming if you're just running at 1280x1024. As an aside, I would really look at upgrading your monitor. I couldn't stand working at that low of a resolution for any extended period of time. It just seems like a waste of such great computing power to have your gateway into it be so old and low end (its not even a wide screen resolution, I would keep it as a secondary monitor and hook up a nice new one for the primary display) Of course I've been running 1600x1200 or greater since my first computer 10 years ago. The 26" I'm running now feels just about right, though every once in a while I still wish I had a bit more vertical space, but its generally 30" before the next resolution and I just don't have the space for one right now.

[Neftren]

Well there are a fair number of customization options on the Alienware that could be a lot of different things. But the video card in the Alienware isn't nearly as good as other options in similarly priced laptops. See Anuan's Recommendations! thread for some laptops in that price range that all have better video cards (though only one has an Nvidia card in it)

I'm not looking at the M11x for the GPU. I'm looking at it for form factor. There is nothing under 13" that has the same power, except the ridiculously expensive and insanely hard to obtain Sony Vaio Z11/Z12.


As for hard drive space, if you've got much for games you'll use up 320GB faster then you might think. Its not that hard when every game is 5-10GB. I didn't think I used that much, but I've got about 350GB used on my computer now. I also don't see the point in trying to save $10 on the HD considering the rest of the system. If this were a budget computer, sure, but you are well past that range.

Every $5 counts... Plus, I've got at least six games installed on my hard drive (adds up to around 45GB), plus the entire Adobe CS4 Master Collection (have to check, but is around 10GB). OSs are another 20. What's taking up most of my hard drive is actually disk images, but I have a 400GB external for that.


As for Nvidia vs AMD. I'm virtually positive AMD has folding applications as well. If its just the generic idle folding though, I don't see the point. Seeing as pushing your graphics card for folding even when the rest of the system at is basically at idle you're going to be using a lot of power.

Let's just say, I need a card from the green team to run the folding application that my work will entail. Besides, if I were to get a 5000 series card, I would shell out the extra $30 for a 5850, which is a much better usage of a few extra bucks compared to the hard drive. I appreciate your feedback, but let's just say for what I need to do, the green team is required. If I had a choice in the matter, then I would go with a 5850 for $300, but alas, I do not.


As for gaming, you probably wouldn't even be using 1/3 of that cards power for gaming if you're just running at 1280x1024. As an aside, I would really look at upgrading your monitor.

Um, I think you're vastly overrating the capacity of the 465. Think of it as a GTX275 on steroids, with DX11. As for the resolution, it's a 15" monitor (which is a pretty standard size in corporate America... companies aren't exactly rushing to get all their employees 23" LCDs for $150 each). It isn't small by any means. My laptop is only 1280x800. So, personally, I think you're just weird with being unable to stand that resolution :P.


My biggest issue is deciding on whether I want to pickup a laptop for work and mobility, or do I want to put together a desktop. If I do go the desktop route, I'm wholly stuck trying to decide between three different rigs. I think I'm on the verge of ruling out the P55 setup though.

[Erloas]

The 465 is the new Fermi architecture, it is completely different then the 275. But even the 275 is overkill for that resolution. That happens to be what I'm running now and at least of the games I have it has no trouble at all running games on high at 1920x1200. Though I did buy Crysis off Steam yesterday and I think that will change things a bit...

As for the laptop, I didn't really notice it was a 13" form factor. Personally I find that a bit small. Given the need for portability is generally not the times when you need a lot of power, if I had the choice I would pick up a good desktop and a netbook. Though it seems you probably don't have that option.

As for monitors... at work I've got a 17 or 19" (I'm not really sure) and this company is really cheap about computers. (heck we had a P2 hooked up until a year or so ago) I know many of the engineers here have dual monitor setups and many are in the 21" range. As it is, its almost impossible to find 15" monitors anymore, in fact I've been looking for a secondary monitor and can't hardly find anything less then 21" anymore.

The AMD build is going to have 4GB of RAM and a similar Corsair PSU I assume? If the total you have is right (since you are missing those parts and the newegg total is quite a bit less) and it really is only $20 difference between the two then I would go with the second Intel build. Even if the AMD build had 8GB I would still probably go with the Intel. Unless you know for a fact that you can consistently put all 6 cores to use, in that case I would go with the AMD system. It seems you are doing highly multithreaded work, but it seems its primarily done via GPU rather then CPU so I would question if the extra cores are going to get you anything because clock for clock and core for core the i7 is better.