Computer Upgrade Time

[Bront]

I have 4Gb and its well sweet but I stress that ram a lot more than most. Right now 2 should be enough but its always just a matter of time. I want more already but my mobo tops at 4 ! Note well tho that you NEED a 64 bit OS to go with that 64 bit CPU in order to use more than 3GB and even then you have to use the simple PAE fix to get windows 32 bit past the 2Gb spot. I.e., go vista for DX10 and take the 64 bit version.

Don't go 64 bit OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no point yet, drivers are still buggy or non-existant, it generaly runs slower on anything written for 32 bit, and there is nothing screaming for it now, UNLESS you need the extra RAM, and you don't.

 

[Thanee]

For that kind of rig, I'd get 2 GB to start with in a 2 x 2GB set. The difference will be noticable.

2x1GB you mean, I suppose. That's what I'm doing.

I'd go with 1 HD, as you can always add another one later. RAID is cool, but it basicly increases your failure rates on your computer due to HD problems exponentialy, since either one can take you down. If you weren't going to raid, well, the space difference isn't that great on the 500 vs 320s, and the 500s are likely slightly faster.

Not a RAID. Just two seperate drives instead of two partitions on a single drive.

...heaven forbid...

Heh.

I'd recomend a bigger PSU. It will likely be more reliable, produce less heat (A PSU running near capacity will produce more heat), and therefore run quieter. It also can help add some extra stability to the machine, as PSU problems are a pain to diagnose and often show up as other problems. I'd go into the 650-800 watt range.

I thought the 550W is already more than is really required, but I will look into this. Thanks!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Redrobes]

A few points to clear up. A larger PSU will use about the same amount of power as a smaller PSU because they deliver the amount of power required by the stuff connected to it. Like Bront says a larger one is likely to be more robust but all else being equal it would produce the same amount of heat. What matters is the PSU efficiency. I would agree that maybe the efficiency drops when a PSU is being run near to its limit but if you have say 300W of stuff to drive and an 85% efficient PSU then the input power into it would be 300 / 0.85 W. The rest (15%) is the heat generated by the PSU as a by product and must be vented along with all the other hot air. So a cool PSU is an efficient one regardless of max capable power. I agree with Bront that something quite beefy is required for dual core AMD + 8800 GPU but add efficiency into that mix too.

Since you have said that you already have XP and are going with 2x1Gb then I would be tempted to run with that for a while. Only a few games and demos actually use DX10 right now. It depends on whether you want to run a particular game that is DX10 or not or can be bothered to do a full OS reinstall later.

If you do go >3Gb or plan to, you have no choice but to go 64 bit. I dont know how good Vista 64bit is. I run XP x64 which is based on Win Server 2003 64. All I can say is that my drivers are rock solid and I run an nVidia card and I also have a Cannon printer connected to it. I know that HP scanners are all 64 bit and Intuos Wacom tablets are too. My old (ancient) laser jet does not have a 64 bit driver and I have some other old bits of kit that would not work either.

In terms of speed. If you run with a core 2 duo then all of your x86 (32 bit) apps would be run in emulation mode so its bound o be slower. The AMD X64 CPUs have hardware units to run x86 legacy code in them so they run proportionally faster. The core 2 duo is the better chip no contest tho especially in terms of power and heat. EMT64T (64bit) code is always faster than x86 code no matter what 64 bit capable CPU you run on because it has an extended instruction set. For example all SSE instructions are included as standard in x64 whereas they are generally omitted in 32bit apps.

Most software is still 32 bit. All MS code is dual 32 or 64 bit, all my apps are multicore and dual 32 / 64 bit stuff too so its not like there is nobody developing for it. SysInternals have a good range of system tools all in 64 bit which is worth picking up. Games however are generally not but I cant see that staying the case for too much longer. We are in a transition phase and its about 50:50 for who has 64 bit capable CPUs and losing 50% of your market obviously means that you either have to support both or just go with 32bit. Since the apps run slower in emulation then for games as one example the need for speed will prevail.

I dont have an 8800 series GPU. From those people I talk to it seems like the mutts nuts tho and I want one. I would get the 640Mb edition as it would make a huge difference to me but thats me and im not typical. You would have to match the games requirements against your budget. The GTS has 6 multiprocessors, the 8500 and 8600 have 1 or 2 respectively. So yeah, big performance difference.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I am looking to upgrade as well - probably to E6600 2.4 Core 2 Duo chips, but most likely in a prebuilt desktop - like a Dell or HP, etc. I've built PC's in the past, but my time is more precious than it once was!

Does anyone have any comment on which desktop companies are best? HP, E-Machines, Dell, etc? Price and reliability are concerns...

 

[Thanee]

Hey, my comp will be prebuilt, too. It just will be custom prebuilt.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I agree with Bront that something quite beefy is required for dual core AMD + 8800 GPU but add efficiency into that mix too.

Yep, will keep that in mind. Thanks!

Since you have said that you already have XP and are going with 2x1Gb then I would be tempted to run with that for a while. Only a few games and demos actually use DX10 right now. It depends on whether you want to run a particular game that is DX10 or not or can be bothered to do a full OS reinstall later.

Nah, I want to get Vista for this machine, though maybe I will install XP as well, depending on how smooth Vista runs and whether there are any compatibility issues with some older software I still like to use.

We are in a transition phase and its about 50:50 for who has 64 bit capable CPUs and losing 50% of your market obviously means that you either have to support both or just go with 32bit.

The AMD CPU is 64bit capable, or isn't it? So it would only be the OS, which needed to be changed.

I dont have an 8800 series GPU. From those people I talk to it seems like the mutts nuts tho and I want one.

Tom's Hardware also has some praise for this chip (and especially the 320 MB 8800 GTS).

I would get the 640Mb edition as it would make a huge difference to me but thats me and im not typical.

I'm still pondering about that one as well, but most likely will stay with the 320 one, since it's so much more cost-efficient (i.e. the cost increase to get the 640 instead does not match the advantage gained from it).

Bye
Thanee

 

[drothgery]

Did you mean 65nm, or 65W? Both seem to be 90nm. The 5600+ is available as a 65W version.

Bye
Thanee

I'm going by availability at newegg.com, which is probably of little relevance to you in .eu, but is an easy place to check for what's actually available vs. what Intel/AMD says is available. There are 90nm and 65nm versions of the 5000+, and the 65nm version has a lower TDP rating (I think it's 65W). If there's an 65W/90nm version of the 5000+, or any kind of low-power version of the 5600+, it doesn't look like it's widely available.

 

[drothgery]

Don't go 64 bit OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no point yet, drivers are still buggy or non-existant, it generaly runs slower on anything written for 32 bit, and there is nothing screaming for it now, UNLESS you need the extra RAM, and you don't.

While probably good advice to a hardcore PC gamer, my Core 2 Duo T7200 laptop (2GHz/667MHz FSB/4MB cache) has been running 64-bit Vista for about six months without issues.

 

[Redrobes]

The AMD CPU is 64bit capable, or isn't it? So it would only be the OS, which needed to be changed.

Yes the Athlon64 range is all 64 bit whether single core or X2 dual core. You need a 64bit CPU, a 64 bit OS and a 64 bit compiled app before it runs in native 64 bit.

...the cost increase to get the 640 instead does not match the advantage gained from it.

Yes its just more texture memory. That can possibly have an impact on performance since there is a hit from sending textures to the card. Most graphics these days use a texture set and it tries to keep it all in memory and pick them out when rendering. Its a lot faster if the texture exists than to find that you need to resend it back to the card. You probably wont notice an issue with 320Mb and all games without exception would allow for different amounts of video ram but I swear I would use 4Gb on the video card if it had it I am waiting to see if the next gen nVidia card will have more ram.

 

[Thanee]

If there's an 65W/90nm version of the 5000+, or any kind of low-power version of the 5600+, it doesn't look like it's widely available.

Well, it's listed as available at the store, where I am going to buy the computer, so I suppose they have it or can get it.

Bye
Thanee