3.2Ghz is 3.2Ghz, there is no difference in terms of how many processes it can perform within a second. The Intel and AMD cpu's use a different instruction set entirely, not all of the AMD's ones are as streamlined as Intel's. But that's to be expected anyway. It would still be equivalent to a high 2.xGhz for an intel. Most likely within the region of 2.7/8. Which is still a fast processor by any means, my Macbook runs an intel dual core 2.4Ghz and the compile times on that alone are enough. Rendering takes a while, but that's because I'm missing 2 cores and HT.sirch345 wrote:Young Virt, I did know about the start button for W8, but didn't know about the task bar option, so cheers for that. I don't know very much about AMD cpu's, so I have learned a bit more from your reply. One thing I did read is that a 3.2Ghz quote for an AMD processor is less speed than 3.2Ghz for an Intel processor. So AMD must use a different method than Intel for working that figure out which could be misleading I feel. That Medion PC from Aldi has a integrated graphic's card as I understand it, integrated into the motherboard. Although not all AMD pc's have that type of motherboard.
Jazz, my thoughts on W8 are it's more to do with a new learning process that put people off, plus with it being so new at the launch there were bound to be issues that needed ironing out. I agree you have to move with the times, or you get left behind.
Chris.
And I'm pretty sure you can get taskbar's. I do think that's what my friend said when he tried telling me how good it was. (Just done a google search for windows 8 taskbars, there seems to be one included as standard?)
£400 seems about what my budget can manage