A Simple Question Really...

[persia]

Had the Amiga kept evolving it would be a computer built out of energy now now out of plastic and silicon...

Seriously, I doubt anything like the X1000 would have been built. The AMiga probably would have moved to X86, moved to a UNIX kernel, added all the features that modern OSs have and be relatively indistinguishable from OS X...

He's also incorrect... I mean what exactly was the Amiga supposed to turn into? If it had kept evolving over the last 15 years it wouldn't be unlike the upcoming X1000... probably just higher spec... The SAM and X1000 carry the legitimate version of AmigaOS and for all intents and purposes the hardware is what it basically has to be (some modern variant) it demands my support and I shall support it...

As for the posters query, I can happily say I'm completely ignorant and have no insight whatsoever

[ElPolloDiabl]

No it would be the xbox 360, with good OS and also come in a tower version.

[runequester]

emulation can have its advantages:

Its useful for stuff you dont have the hardware for

Saving space

Saving money



I must admit, after getting a 1200 again, I've barely booted up UAE again though.

[Franko]

First off, thank you to everyone for your posts here, most informative and usefull and best of all no slanging match (so far!).

I reckon the problem I've had with PCs & Macs is that I have only ever known people who own them only really use them for things like accessing the internet or burning the occasional cd and the likes and they have no idea about what the machine they are using is actually capeable of doing.

The little knowledge I have of PC/Macs leaves me wondering what to buy, I don't know what's the best processor/gfx card to go for etc...

I don't want to buy a second hand machine and if I am going to buy one I would want to be able to easily upgrade it hardware wise. I reckon I wouldn't want to spend any more than about £2000 for a machine at first, as I am still unsure of how much I would actually use it.

I know I said at the start of this thread that I didn't really want to get into all the technical details, a mistake on my part, but if anyone could let me know what type of machine/proccessor type I should buy then this would be very much appreciated.

(Thorham, don't worry I'm not abandoning my Classic Amigas, just reckon it's time I had a look at the other side and do a bit of tinkering around there...)

Thanks everyone for all the info you have given.

Cheers :drink:

Franko

[fishy_fiz]

For 2000 pounds you could buy an absolute monster of a machine. As for what to buy, I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend. With a budget of 2k pounds an intel i7 of some description is the best bet, being that its the most powerful consumer cpu available. These come in 2 different sockets, 1156, which is the more mainstream variant, and doesnt differ greatly from the socket 1366 version, minus the fact it uses only a dual channel memory controller as opposed to the latters triple channel controller. Both use ddr3 ram from 1066mhz through 2200mhz(or higher if you want to spend the money) depending on a users wants. Obviously the faster the ram the better the performance, but dont disregard things like latency either,.... typically better timings equate to better performance than the higher speed (in mhz) variant with less tight timing. A step down the ladder would be something like an Intel i5-760, which is still quite a monster, although somewhat more affordable and is also a socket 1156 cpu. Incidently both are quad core systems (apart from the high end versions of i7, (i7-980)which can be hex core). Additionally they also support hyperthreading, which effectively means the system sees the cpus as having 2x as many cores as they physically do (not entirely accurate, but for conversations sake its near enough). As for AMD cpus theyre still quite powerful (as are all available modern x86 cpus), but theyre delegated to the budget segment for a reason,.... they simply cant compete with Intel for pure performance (or thermally) in most situations. Beware the 6 core AMD cpus, as although they look attractive on paper (reasonable prices) theyre often no better than the 4 core variants, even when multithreading is involved (software that can take advantage of multiple threads/cores). Lower clockspeeds vs the top end 4core versions as well as identical caches (ergo less per core) and no additional hardware to deal with internal cpu communications see to this. Another thing to be aware of with AMD cpus is that they wont work with faster ram and are restricted to ddr3-1600 (can go higher with overclocking and luck, but dont count on it). As for the very budget segment neither Intel nor AMD own this market in a clear manner. AMD is traditionally cheaper, but in terms of performance you get what you pay for, although the scales probably tip slightly in AMDs favor, especially for heavily threaded software (AMD's athlon x4 and phenom2 x4 cpus are quite cheap), although per thread Intel has the advantage. As for video cards, this isnt as clear as it was a few months back either. Had you asked then ATI/AMD wouldve been recommended without question for pretty much all pricepoints, but despite a few teething problems Nvidias Ferni range of cards are also a good buy. The new 104 based gpus (460) look especially attractive for thier price point. Really though apart from the budget segment (under 130$ where AMD are probably your best bet as they offer both superior performance and feature sets) you again pretty much get what you pay for with the exception of the afforementioined gf104 based gpus (460(which is both cheaper than a 5830 and performs more like a 5850, which is proportionally considerably more expensive)).
This is all assuming you go the non brand name PC route. A brand name usually adds a little to the price, especially when that name is Apple. While I have nothing against Apple products I'd never buy them myself as they simply dont offer the value (in terms of raw performance) I want. Others see value in different terms, and for them Apple products are worth the money (software bundles/osx/etc.).... each to thier own though.
I hope this is info. is of use to you and feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
p.s. Unless you want the absolute best available it'll be heard to spend 2k pounds. An Intel i7-860, 8 gig ddr3-1600, radeon 5870 (or nvidia 480), 2 terrabytes hdd space, bluray reader/writer, nice shiny case, nice sound card and 7.1 surround system and so on could be bought for well inside 1000 pounds...... you can of course go dual gpu, i7-980, etc., but Im assuming something that that would be overkill for you.... the above (or something similar) is a very nice "standard" high-end type rig.

[Franko]

Thank you Fishy_Fiz...

A lot of info to digest there, but very useful and informative. From the various ads/sites I'd looked at I wasn't quite sure if Intel or AMD processors were better. From your info I reckon Id best go for Intel, don't fancy another mac though they seem very limited in the ability to upgrade them.

Cheers for all that info, it's given me a better idea now of what I need to buy. I learned a long time ago that your as well splashing the cash to start with rather than buying a new basic machine and then spending ages buying all the other bit's n pieces to upgrade it.

Cheers :drink:

Franko

[runequester]

in the end it also depends on what its going to be used for.

Basic internet tasks, office crap and so on. Modest video card, a pile of ram and a half decent processor.

Hardcore FPS games, you'll want the biggest machine you can afford, which will give you a few years worth of computer.

If its going to run windows, toss in some extra RAM for good measure as vista and 7 will both pretty much sink your machine if you try to do more than one thing at a time.

[Franko]

in the end it also depends on what its going to be used for.

Basic internet tasks, office crap and so on. Modest video card, a pile of ram and a half decent processor.

Hardcore FPS games, you'll want the biggest machine you can afford, which will give you a few years worth of computer.

If its going to run windows, toss in some extra RAM for good measure as vista and 7 will both pretty much sink your machine if you try to do more than one thing at a time.

Hi runequester,

I wouldn't be using it for games at all, I prefer the old style games of the Amiga and my SNES R.P.G. games, not interested in all the 3D games people play these day.

The main uses I would have for such a machine would be for audio & gfx, creating/editing DVDs, remixing audio tracks and some D.T.P. and the internet.

While I can do all this from my various Amiga set ups, it can become a bit of a chore at times and I reckon a new powerful machine would be good for the times where I put doing something off on my miggy cos I haven't the time or can't be bothered waiting for my miggy to do it.

[runequester]

yeah, for graphics work, I'd definately splurge on the biggest, baddest machine you can get

[Franko]

I reckon going for the best I can for around the 2 grand mark should do the trick, just needed a bit of advice and info from folk before buying such a beast.

[ElPolloDiabl]

You might consider waiting. Both AMD and intel are changing their sockets around again. Intel is 1155 and 1355. AMD will be releasing a new core for their bulldozer series.
I'd reccommend a phenom II quad core system, the motherboard and cpu will be a lot cheaper so it's less of an investment. Quad core AMD will give you heaps of power for video work, just not as much as an i5 or i7. (It's slightly slower than a quad core i5).
Spend your the bulk of your money on goodies like an SSD or raid system.

[smerf]

I reckon going for the best I can for around the 2 grand mark should do the trick, just needed a bit of advice and info from folk before buying such a beast.

Hi,

For two grand you could buy one hello of a computer in the PC market. In the MAC market you would probably have to add another 1000 to get half the power of an A500.

Anyhow, enough of the MAC jokes because MACs are a joke. Lets discuss why I use Cloanto's Amiga forever and Amikit. I basically use it because I know that the original Amiga hardware is getting scarce, if something goes bad in my Amiga 4000 or my A1200, it would be hard to find a place to fix them. So I use them when I want to update my data for my disk files, insurance photos and data, my pictures and home videos. I use the emulator when I want to try programming, play games or just experiment. You will find that the emulator works super fast with a quadcore intel PC, and it works just about as good on my AMD 3700+ PC (although it gets strangled on megaball when it hits a lot of blocks and skips on the sound during this time.

Now lets look at the cost advantage, $39 or $49 for Cloanto Amiga forever, I just received an Amiga video to VGA adapter and a PCMIA port for an Amiga 1200 that just about cost that much. How about a USB port for an Amiga, $105 for one for an A1200, and $150 for one for an A4000, comes free on most modern day PC's.

OK, now are you going to buy a system, or build a system, I use Tiger Direct at http://www.tigerdirect.com to buy most of my computer needs and I build most of my computers, I find it a lot cheaper that way and get the most bang for my buck, when building a computer don't skimp to much on the graphics card, you will be sorry if you do.

My 6 year old AMD 3700+ and ASUS motherboard, with 2 gigs of memory, and 80 gig ide hard drive, with an AGP Sapphire ATI Radeon 3850 is still hanging in there and it plays most modern day PC games, and emulates the Amiga quite well, Cloanto's Amiga Forever 2010 just about does anything that any Amiga /CDTV / CD32 will do and by doing this you are saving your Amiga Hardware.

Anyhow have fun, don't be like the rest of these tightwads that use an old 486 machine and expect it to do huge things, it just ain't going to happen.

Have fun looking, if you have any questions about building your own, just ask.

If you buy a MAC sorry can't help, I would rather use my A500, or better yet my emulator.

On my Quadcore 6600, with my ATI Radeon 5750, and 4 gig of ram, Amiga Forever screams, sometimes when playing megaball, you really have to keep on your game.

smerf

[fishy_fiz]

The only problem with waiting is that there's always something new around the corner, so by the time what you're waiting for is released there's something else new around the corner again. Personally I'd go Intel at the moment, moreso becuase there's scope for improvement,... the am2/am2+/am3 systems have gone about as far as theyre going to with no scope for upgrading without the main core of the system being replaced. Little disappointed to say that really, I used AMD exclusively for quite some time and do like the barrack for the underdog, but when money is involved Im not one to let brand loyalty get in the way. Having said that though an x4 955 or 965 is still an ok machine, especially for thier price.

[Iggy]

in the end it also depends on what its going to be used for.

Basic internet tasks, office crap and so on. Modest video card, a pile of ram and a half decent processor.

Hardcore FPS games, you'll want the biggest machine you can afford, which will give you a few years worth of computer.

If its going to run windows, toss in some extra RAM for good measure as vista and 7 will both pretty much sink your machine if you try to do more than one thing at a time.

Extra Ram? Definitely! But Vista and Win7 sink multitasking? What kind of processor are you using? I've got a old dual core Athlon 64 X2 running at 3.0 Ghz and under either of those OS' I have just as good response as XP.
Of course I'd recommend at least 2Gigs of Ram (or better 4Gigs) because all NT kernel versions of Windows (basically everything from NT/2000 to Win7) can use the extra memory to buffer a lot of different hardware operations.

You want slow (or non functional) load XP onto a machine with less than 1Gig of memory and then open up a few dozen browers tabs or windows.
Your response will slow to a crawl or crash. Under Vista or Win7 (with enough memory) I've never had this happen. And, when you tell Vista or Win7 to shut down, they do so promptly. XP, if there's any processes running tends to sit there for a while like an Alzheimer paitent till it finally gets around to closing everything down.

Don't believe everything you hear about Vista or Win7. Pretending that either isn't a polished up version of XP is like pretending that WinME wasn't Win98 with a few minor changes.

[persia]

There are those who insist it's still 1989 and haven't a clue what Windows and OS X have done over the past two decades.

[runequester]

There are those who insist it's still 1989 and haven't a clue what Windows and OS X have done over the past two decades.

Possibly. I look at my friends computers and see how they run. Not really interested in theoretical performance.

Its a bit sad really. My wife's G4 laptop with 512 megs of ram runs slightly slower, as a friend of mines desktop with vista and 2 gigs of ram.

My desktop came with a vista install and it was crawling with 4 gigs of ram before I wiped it.

7 seems to be better about actually doing stuff, though watching my friend Rubens netbook try to boot with 7 was a painful experience. I guess they are pretty much just giving up on that market and letting Google take it.

The desktops at work are mostly xp, with a few being updated to 7, and again, crawling, though its possible the network setup is whats doing the damage here.
The XP machines arent any better though.


I make it a point of checking out new windows releases, as I know a few people who always stay on top of the upgrade curve.