Planning a new computer - what do you think?

[ssampier]

[off topic]

Interesting. Does that apply to servers as well? I have a server with dual processors and 8 GB of RAM. I was thinking of using Windows 2003 server. Am I going to use the RAM effectively?

[/off topic]

 

[Cabled]

32 bits = 4Gb and 32 bit windows by default splits that address space 50-50 into user and kernel and the kernel does not need a lot of memory so with 2Gb you get a little reserved for kernel and you get the rest. As far as I know, the PAE switch tells the system to use 1Gb for kernel and 3Gb for user so if you fit 3Gb then you use a little for kernel and you get the rest. With 4Gb most of the extra 1Gb is wasted. You cant use it and the kernel does not need it.

When you have a 64 bit OS like Vista 64 or XP x64 AND you have a 64 bit CPU like the AMD64/X2 etc or the intel Core Duo 2 etc then your in business. If you run a true 64 bit app then you can access more than 4Gb in that single app. If you run 32 bit apps then you can run more apps than require 4Gb - i.e. you can run 2 apps each taking 3 Gb and it will be ok.

So, to OP - if you are running a 32 bit OS like XP or vista 32, stick with the 2Gb.

I'm going to step back in here and give this a qualified "Well, yes and no." There are generally a LOT of little fiddly bits running in a windows environment...run something like AdAware and look at how many processes are running even on a freshly installed and booted system...it will be several hundred tiny little voices in the virtual dark Get above 2 gigs of Ram and you're basically freeing a full 2 gigs for applications and relegating all that other stuff to the other 2, which will often be under-utilized, true. You could even get away with 3 gigs likely, but that's a weird memory config that a lot of mainboards don't care for. It makes less difference with a single core processor, but I can't see any decent reason to get one of those, but you WILL see a performance difference making no other change than going from 2 gigs to 3 or 4, but 4 is a hard ceiling unless you go 64 bit OS as many have noted.

 

[Goobermunch]

But yeah, the PSU is pretty crucial. FWIW, I bought a CoolerMaster to replace the one my machine came with. Again, I've found it to be good - but again, there are a number of excellent brands of these. For example, Corsair and Silverstone.

Let me second this.

Two years ago, I had a Radeon 9800 with 512MB of ram. I also had the PSU that came with my case (I couldn't even tell you the brand). The Radeons were pretty finicky about just precisely how much power they were drawing, and long story short, my video card lasted about 7 months before dying.

The problem, however, was the PSU. It was incapable of providing the precise voltage and amperage called for by Radeon. I dropped about $100 on a Thermaltake (I think) PSU, and haven't had any problems with the replacement video card.

--G

 

[SteelDraco]

The decision to go 2GB of RAM rather than 4 was one of cost; I can splurge later, and pick up an extra 2GB without having to change anything significant about the system. Same with the hard drive - I have about 95 GB right now in a pair of IDE drives. One of the reasons I picked the motherboard I did was that it's got an IDE slot, so I can just port everything over. I don't tend to keep a lot installed at one time (usually WoW and one other game) plus whatever stuff I've downloaded. Since I'll have a nice burner again, I'll be able to clear things out rapidly. 160GB is, I think, more than enough for now. And heck, if I decide I want to add more room later, there's still going to be four SATA slots sitting open.

I don't think I'll be picking up a 64-bit OS in the near future, so the question of memory addressing does come into the RAM decision too. Anybody have much experience with a 64-bit OS? Is it actually worth getting one?

The problems with the 8600, though, concern me. That kind of thing is why I posted this. If it's just not worth the money, I'll check out what else looks good. Let me see here... hm. I'm starting to see what drothgery means about supply problems. The price jump between the 8600 and the 8800 seems to be about $100, more than I'm really wanting to spend on the card. I'm wanting a card with 512MB of memory, and all the Radeon 3850's with 512MB are out of stock atm.

 

[drothgery]

I don't think I'll be picking up a 64-bit OS in the near future, so the question of memory addressing does come into the RAM decision too. Anybody have much experience with a 64-bit OS? Is it actually worth getting one?

On one hand, I'm running Vista x64 without any problems. On the other hand, I prefer to game on consoles, even if I keep up with video card reviews. It sounds like there are enough problems that it's not a no-brainer yet, but I'd go x64 on anything you're planning on keeping for 3 years or more at this point. I'm pretty sure that Real Soon Now 32-bit Windows is going to get shuffled off to the 'hard to get unless you're a huge corporation or in the 3rd world' space.

The problems with the 8600, though, concern me. That kind of thing is why I posted this. If it's just not worth the money, I'll check out what else looks good. Let me see here... hm. I'm starting to see what drothgery means about supply problems. The price jump between the 8600 and the 8800 seems to be about $100, more than I'm really wanting to spend on the card. I'm wanting a card with 512MB of memory, and all the Radeon 3850's with 512MB are out of stock atm.

If you've got a video card that will work on your new motherboard right now, I'd hold off on the video card until 8800GT / Radeon 38xx supplies are better. Compared to the new cards, the older $150-$250 are just terrible values.

And look around for some benchmarks in your favorite games; it seems like there aren't many games where 256MB-512MB (Radeon 3850 vs. 3870) or 320 MB vs 640 MB (with the older GeForce 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB) makes a big difference, especially if you're not running at very high resolutions.

 

[Thanee]

Here's a good review for the 8800GT which has tons of benchmarks and comparisons.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/geforce_8800_gt/

Bye
Thanee

 

[azhrei_fje]

This thread has quite a few comments regarding memory layout on Windows. Some of them have stated, "Windows does this" when it would be more appropriate to say, "Windows Server 2003 does this" or "Windows XP does this." Because not all Windows are created equal in the area of 64-bit support and large memory support.

I'm not going to attempt to correct the misconceptions, since I would probably mis-state something myself and just cause more confusion, and I don't frequent this section of the forum so I probably won't be back to correct any errors I might make.

The long-and-short of it is that I agree with the OP's conclusion: start with 2GB and upgrade to 4GB later.

Concerning disk space, you might consider going with a dual-drive RAID if you're going to be hitting the drive much. If all you're doing is gaming, then don't bother. But if you're going to be editing large digital photos or doing any movie editing, the difference in filesystem performance will be worth it. As the OP said, however, he can always add a pair of drives in a RAID configuration later, so this is not something that needs to be done right away. But knowing about it in advance gives him (or her) the time to research it.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, upgrading RAM or HDD space is about the easiest to do, so just start out with something that works and fits your budget comfortably and then upgrade later, when you really need it.

Bye
Thanee