The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition
|
|
Any Flaming Results in a Temp Ban or Worse. Your Choice!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
30. September 2008 @ 23:26 |
Link to this message
|
Nope, 32bit programs run the same on 64bit Vista. What I understand from the AMD thing is that 64bit programs run slower on Intels than they do on AMDs, but it doesn't matter because Intels are faster anyway and they win :)
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. October 2008 @ 00:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by abuzar1: Nope, 32bit programs run the same on 64bit Vista. What I understand from the AMD thing is that 64bit programs run slower on Intels than they do on AMDs, but it doesn't matter because Intels are faster anyway and they win :)
abuzar1,
It doesn't matter in terms of benchmarking, but since the I/O speed if faster on an AMD, that additional I/O speed should improve things considerably. The first thing people notice right away when I boot up OxiMoron, is how fast it boots as it's noticeably faster than my E6750 is doing it. Once Core i7 comes out, AMD loses that advantage somewhat. It all depends on how they do the memory and Cache!
Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 00:55 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, AMD will lose that advantage thanks to the integrated memory controller.
I really want AMD to some out with something amazing as I've always been somewhat of an AMD fan. Although reality being just that I would build a Q6600 based system for myself any day the thought of an AMD build has crossed my mind.
Thing is, I like to overclock. A lot. As much as I can on my budget. So if I was running stock systems I might choose AMD, but I have to take into consideration how difficult it is to sell an AMD gaming computer and the fact that it doesn't overclock as well.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. October 2008 @ 02:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by abuzar1: Yeah, AMD will lose that advantage thanks to the integrated memory controller.
I really want AMD to some out with something amazing as I've always been somewhat of an AMD fan. Although reality being just that I would build a Q6600 based system for myself any day the thought of an AMD build has crossed my mind.
Thing is, I like to overclock. A lot. As much as I can on my budget. So if I was running stock systems I might choose AMD, but I have to take into consideration how difficult it is to sell an AMD gaming computer and the fact that it doesn't overclock as well.
I would like to try my hand with a Phenom 9850 2.6GHz Black Edition 125w instead if the 140w one!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103273
On this Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128352
My thinking says it should be a close match with the low end Intel Quads. I can do this as an upgrade to what I have now for $313! I already have everything else I need. Nice cheap Quad core upgrade to play with. I'm thinking about it! LOL!!
BTW! Gaming AMDs are very popular here, I guess since AMD sponsors a lot of gamers here
Best,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 07:27 |
Link to this message
|
Chris: I only have 64-bit Vista for the driver-compatibility reasons, and to it's credit, I have all the drivers I need, and they were all easy to find, and while the loading time is atrocious at 5.5 minutes, that's less the fault of 64-bit, and more the fault of it being vista.
As for memory usage, I'll put it this way. I can only ever use up to 2.7GB in XP. 3.5 in Vista64 is easily passed. Generally the difference is about +1100MB, and having 64-bit OS only unlocks an extra 512MB, so with Vista you're still 600MB or so down...
Russ: My personal Brand of choice is Gigabyte, as it's just what I've had work for me since the three duff Asus boards, but I'm not going to defile good reviews of a newer board on the back of one known troublemaker and two pretty ancient socket 939 boards, so that's that. If someone wants an Asus, unless it's a known baddie, let them have it, I wouldn't expect them to come to any harm because of it.
As for AMD gaming, the main tie to that is the ATI side of the company, which have gaming pretty well sold, since it's the same company you're clearly going to link your own processors to the mix. Honestly though, as much as it's apparent a quad core works in some games, it's apparent that you really do need the absolute most per-core performance to max out some of these games, there are situations you can get into, particularly Crysis Warhead where I would say the only CPU that is powerful enough to get a truly playable frame rate is a Q9650 at at least 3.8Ghz. Given that a Phenom overclocked as far as it will go is barely equal to a Q9550 stock, they have a long way to go to be top gaming CPUs.
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:13 |
Link to this message
|
reading yuor reply russ it seems i must have not been clear when i said:
P5Q deluxe or maximus formula II, £10 between them
I was not recommending either of them for ANYONE, i was asking for my self, but on the forum. it seems to me you thought i was giving a recomendation the conversation you was having, but fortunately i was not.
i mearly asking for ME, and MY benifits, and you seemed to have taken that out of context, but i can see why as i did not say that it was specifically for me, then again i didnot say it was for the conversation you were having either.
As for the 64 bit OSes,
i use about 1.3 idleing no programs on vista 64 with 4GB ram.
the ram is there to use, so i am not compainling. why complain how much ram is being use if you bought alot? is the RAM not their to be used? is it affecting you if you have surpluss RAM and it is being used?
i understand if you have a little ram, but having alot and then comlaining about it being used.....
and 5.5 mins for sam on a nearly full drive....ouch HAHA lool
let me test mine from cold boot, and splash screen. till the HDD stops seaking.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:17 |
Link to this message
|
No, RAM is not there to be used. 2GB should be fine for almost anyone who doesn't max out their games, as it is sufficient for all bar STALKER, Crysis and Age of Conan if you use XP. In Vista, trying to play any game with 2GB is hopeless.
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:25 |
Link to this message
|
lol why buy ram if its not to be used HHAHA, thats the funniest thing i have heard sam, no offence.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:28 |
Link to this message
|
Why is it?
I have 4GB because I max out the games I play, which uses as much as 3GB in XP. Other people however, do not, and they can get away fine with 2GB in XP, but not in Vista, so the change of an OS causes them to need more RAM.
|
Moderator
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:34 |
Link to this message
|
RAM use/over-use is subjective. I'd already previously posted on how my G/F had to buy double the RAM for her pa's new Vista laptop, the extra RAM was just for the OS, that was before even using any apps on the blessed thing. But for me personally i wouldn't move to an OS knowing it needed a load more RAM. Remember i prefer to go for (new) OSes that wring more out of a machine, much much slower older machines at that, ie...... Linux. I don't do bloatware :)
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. October 2008 @ 09:37
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:38 |
Link to this message
|
Well exactly, I have 11 firefox tabs (and firefox is a known memory hog), 2 windows explorer windows, media player classic, Steam, a notepad file, windows calculator, live messenger, skype, utorrent, Xfire, DAEMONTools and AVG open at present, and my RAM usage sits at 817MB. With nothing but one firefox window and a handful of explorer windows I got vista up to 2170MB.
|
Moderator
|
1. October 2008 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
At the mo i'm using XP with Opera across 20 tabs, MSN messenger, Google Talk, AVG Free, and i have 50MB free out of 512MB on this old P4 lappie :)
ps my intention is to simply highlight that i don't buy into the idea that a new OS has to need more power and/or more cost. As someone from both the *nix world and the Microsoft world, it just doesn't wash :) (or sit well with me).
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. October 2008 @ 10:00
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:00 |
Link to this message
|
creaky, i understand, and i am not syaing buy more ram, or move to vista.
i am saying, in a situation, you have 4GB ram, but then are going to moan when it is being used, isnt that a bit contradictive? why buy 4GB of ram and then complain it will be used?
btw here are some vista boot times for hexus.net
notice that XP is quicker, but no was is vista 5 mins long to boot:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15525&page=7
that includes a POST
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. October 2008 @ 10:05
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:05 |
Link to this message
|
RAID0 isn't a typical scenario, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it, and in any case, of course Vista isn't going to take 5 minutes to load if you've got a RAID stripe... :S - they also don't say what peripherals are attached to the PC, as that forms the bulk of any windows boot time, the drivers. the XP splash screen passes in 4 seconds at first install, it's about 20 with multiple USB devices attached and installed.
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:08 |
Link to this message
|
i have over 30 tabs open on FF3 and WMP playing over 10GBs of songs, evereast ultimate and 5 sidebar gadetgs using 45% of my 4GB RAM.
|
Moderator
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:10 |
Link to this message
|
Don't get me started on the bloat of WMP.. I'll bite my tongue now :)
/wheels swivel chair over to my old Athlon 2800 XP running TinyMe Test Release 7 to get away from Microsoft for a while. Sanity still intact so far
:)
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. October 2008 @ 10:14
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:15 |
Link to this message
|
Haha. Media player classic uses 10MB. That seems pretty reasonable to me. :) I've not set up WMP on this PC so I can't measure it. Playing a 1080p film using MPC uses 65MB, which is still pretty small.
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:16 |
Link to this message
|
hehe, id choose a better program but im too lazy lol, but you see vista 64 really doesnt use that much, and near 2GB when im loading it up with "bloat" :p haha
also they use what ever came with the system so in its case just the tower, plus a monitor and kb/m.
5 mins is no way possbile, unless you have full HDD (ahem :p) and the HDD, was it defragged?
how about trying vista on a formated hdd?
my WMP is using 13MBs, and xfire is using 21, as is MSN.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. October 2008 @ 10:18
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:18 |
Link to this message
|
Given how ridiculously long Vista takes to install, I really can't be bothered to waste that much time on it. Once I get back to York I'm sending off the dud Raptor I bought for a fiver for RMA, so when that comes back, I'll test it out on that.
The Vista HDD is fragmented (and obviously can't be defragged due to the free space) but not to such an extent that XP says it should be defragmented. The XP HDD tested is also fragmented and also has a low amount of free space (7.6%) though not as low as the vista drive (currently 1.8%, was 3.9% when tested)
I note, you are using the task manager to measure commit charge, not memory usage. The two are vastly different. a program using 150MB in task manager can be using up to 1GB of real memory.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. October 2008 @ 10:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:38 |
Link to this message
|
kinda off topic here but we are talking about it.
i'll ask you sam since you mentioned it... why would these games(Crysis warhead) be made to play if you had to have a top of the line high dollar CPU to play it? i understand you sadi to play it at its best peek performance but if you cant play it at that high standard why are these games being bought and played if they look so crappy at lower settings?i really doubt someone is gonna buy a $50 game and then go buy a $569 cpu just to play it??? am i makeing any sence here...from what you have said about the game i wont bother buying it if i cant play it and look half way decent, cause i dont have a Q9650(unless Soph wants to loan his out..lol)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis always was a bit of a weird game in that department, it's the only game where the CPU limit is really a problem for a high-end CPU owner.
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
1. October 2008 @ 11:09 |
Link to this message
|
Damn you creaky...you knew I'd bite.
Anywho, here is a boot time script for ya Sam and Spam if'n you want to try it.
Option Explicit
On Error Resume Next
Dim Wsh, Time1, Time2, Result, PathFile, MsgResult, MsgA, AppName, KeyA, KeyB, TimeDiff
MsgA = "Please close all running applications and click on OK."
KeyA = "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RestartTime\"
KeyB = "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\RestartTime"
AppName = "ReBoot-Time"
Set Wsh = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
PathFile = """" & WScript.ScriptFullName & """"
Result = wsh.RegRead(KeyA & "Times")
if Result = "" then
MsgResult = Msgbox (MsgA, vbOKCancel, AppName)
If MsgResult = vbcancel then WScript.Quit
Wsh.RegWrite KeyA & "Times", left(Time,8), "REG_SZ"
Wsh.RegWrite KeyB, PathFile, "REG_SZ"
Wsh.Run "cmd /c Shutdown -r -t 00", false, 0
else
Wsh.RegDelete KeyA & "Times"
Wsh.RegDelete KeyA
Wsh.RegDelete KeyB
TimeDiff = DateDiff("s",Result,left(Time,8))
MsgBox "Your computer reboots in " & TimeDiff & " seconds", VbInformation, AppName
end if
wscript.Quit
courtesy of Sydney at Vistax64 forums.
http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/151819-boot-up-time.html
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 11:11 |
Link to this message
|
cheers loco let me try
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. October 2008 @ 11:15 |
Link to this message
|
So How do I use this? lol - as you can see I don't use Vista much.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
1. October 2008 @ 11:27 |
Link to this message
|
you make a notepad file
and then name it bootspeed.vbs
me with cold boot, got 77, and with a restart 84, from button press till xfire logs on (which is when i can start using my vista, and HDD activity stops)
|