|
The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition
|
|
|
Any Flaming Results in a Temp Ban or Worse. Your Choice!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
17. January 2009 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
Ok. Here is the Gskill performance. Voltages were identical. I will not post that info. Windows performance bench unchanged. I will not post that.
Now here is the Kingston performance comparison. Higher mark, But all in all ALMOST identical performance. And the higher mark is simply do to MORE ram.
Im noticing a few LOWER scores. Perhaps once the ram has acclimated to the system...?
Freguency running unchanged, but... I believe my CAS 6 Gskill was running at CAS 5 timings, where my CAS 5 Kingston appears to be running at 6. LOL, Thats pretty friggin funny. Any thoughts guys?
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
17. January 2009 @ 15:57 |
Link to this message
|
omegaman7
CAS ratings only reflect default settings but how many of us do that? I've seen manufacturers such as Corsair give two different CAS ratings for RAM with the exact same chips, and the only difference is that one was DDR2800 and another 1066. When one loosens CAS times we can increase bandwidth and when we tighten them we have to lower it, and through the process voltages go up or down depending on what we choose. The only outlier here is how the chips are binned.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2009 @ 15:59
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:06 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks man. I do recall doing something in the bios for the Gskill. Im gonna attempt it with the kingston in a minute here. I must admit, Windows 7 is definetely running a little smoother now. It was smooth before, now its VERY smooth. I just hope I dont eat my words, LOL! And whats this I read ALOT about the 3.25 -3.5gb limit people talk about. Every utility I look at shows 4gb, 4gb, 4gb! Does windows 7 32bit address that past issue? Or am I looking at something wrong?
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:08 |
Link to this message
|
When vista sp1 came out they updated the how much ram the system would report if there was 4gb. it reports that you have 4gb but you can still only use 3-3.5
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
And whats this I read ALOT about the 3.25 -3.5gb limit people talk about.
It's all about math! Notice the exponent?
This includes everything in your system that has memory such as graphics cards, audio cards, hard drives and so forth.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2009 @ 16:29
|
Senior Member
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:30 |
Link to this message
|
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
Quote:
And whats this I read ALOT about the 3.25 -3.5gb limit people talk about.
It's all about math! Notice the exponent?
This includes everything in your system that has memory such as graphics cards, audio cards, hard drives and so forth.
Hmmm... im aware of the binary conversion. I wasnt aware that it came in to play in this matter.
Atleast it didnt occur to me. I suppose it should of, LOL
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2009 @ 16:34
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by krj15489:
Here is a good article to read if you want to know more about the 32bit 4gb limit.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html
You just put a VERY large smile on my face man. Thats the best descryption ive heard to date. VERY good post here. :D
So am I understanding the part about 64bit RAM limitation? 2 Exabyte limitation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG OMG! We really need to embrace the 64bit OS. Even a supercomputer Wouldnt Need all that RAM, LOL
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2009 @ 16:44
|
Senior Member
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:47 |
Link to this message
|
Yes the limit is 2 exabytes but currently you are limited by the motherboard and how much ram the os you have can support. for example 64bit vista home premium can support 16gb. I agree, I only use a 64bit os on my main computer. I think that windows 7 should have been 64bit.
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
So am I understanding the part about 64bit RAM limitation?
Yes, 64 bit operating systems can use more RAM then our boards can ever hope to socket. Remember we aren't discussing addition when we go from 32 bit to 64 bit, we're discussing exponentials.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. January 2009 @ 16:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by krj15489:
Yes the limit is 2 exabytes but currently you are limited by the motherboard and how much ram the os you have can support. for example 64bit vista home premium can support 16gb. I agree, I only use a 64bit os on my main computer. I think that windows 7 should have been 64bit.
I had my choice of 32bit or 64bit when I downloaded mine from M$??
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
17. January 2009 @ 17:06 |
Link to this message
|
I downloaded both vers. Im strongly considering running 64bit today. Cause ultimately, 64bit is what I wanna run, what I wanna buy. I needed strong comparisons.
Well... I toned the clock down to 533, and now my ram frequency is underclocked to 261mhz. Latency unaffected. Sorry if this sounded like a pointless endeaver to some, I am newbish, and firsthand hands on is a very good way for me to learn. Guess its going back up to 800mhz. This board doesnt support much for timings, multiplier, etc. I jumped at this build because it was a good buy, a considerable upgrade from what I was running. And I wasnt using afterdawn NEARLY as much then. :D
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
17. January 2009 @ 18:57 |
Link to this message
|
Sam I never once said it was harmless..... I said we fight :D ESP when people deny they are fanbois :p haha!
Russ... Ahh my bad, that's some sexy ram!
|
Senior Member
|
17. January 2009 @ 22:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by krj15489:
Yes the limit is 2 exabytes but currently you are limited by the motherboard and how much ram the os you have can support. for example 64bit vista home premium can support 16gb. I agree, I only use a 64bit os on my main computer. I think that windows 7 should have been 64bit.
I had my choice of 32bit or 64bit when I downloaded mine from M$??
Russ
I meant 64bit only. All new and recent computers are 64bit compatable so why not just make the switch now?
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
17. January 2009 @ 23:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by krj15489:
I meant 64bit only. All new and recent computers are 64bit compatable so why not just make the switch now?
I couldnt agree with you more. This 32bit 64bit is pretty nonsense, When most programs produced are 64bit capable, or offer a 64bit version. Processors support it, hardware supports it, etc, etc. They need to make the switch now, and get it over with. They're making ME nuts. LOL :D Ahhh yes. But then they'll begin producing 128bit, RIGHT??? Is their some galactic limitation on this??? LOL Totally joking.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
18. January 2009 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
Okay, I got another Seagate 500GB HDD today and set it up in RAID 1 configuration with my WD 500GB HDD. Unfortunately things went down hill from there.
Besides the HDD being bad, the computer refused to boot with RAID enabled, BSOD when windows was loading every time. Had to change the configuration (in the bios) back to IDE before it would boot again. Does anyone know why the computer won't boot with SATA configuration set to RAID?
The computer know thinks that the good HDD (the WD 500GB) that was part of the RAID1 configuration is no longer initialized, even though it was being used before it was added to the RAID array. How do I delete the RAID array with out losing the data on it and get windows to recognize it again?
Thanks for the help,
Parker
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 04:35 |
Link to this message
|
Well... I installed windows 7 64bit on my rig. Seems to be smooth so far. once again, 25 min install. I'm sure however when the FULL bloated release comes out, that it will take probably atleast 25% longer. But... who knows. NOW, im gonna play with getting these graphic bugs fixed. See... in the 32 bit version(probably this one as well), the native windows 7 drivers dont play well with my graphics card. Atleast I dont think so. Im gonna try a vista driver to see what happens. If your curious of the bugs, PM me. I suppose its no surprise to anyone though. Native drivers dont usually mesh well with add-in cards of a GPU, Sound card, nature. I must admit however, that the native drivers in 7, compared to native drivers in XP, its astounding!!! They've come along way. You DONT need to install right away!!! With XP, it was pretty choppy, FOR ME ANYWAY.
EDIT - Well now. I found this interesting. I dont know about vista(yes im behind the times), But it would appear that Windows 7 64bit, MAY have the ability to install ANY program regardless of being x86/32bit. Good to know. Well, atleast I'll kinda know if I have a problem, thats not the culprit.
Ok ok. Thats abit of topic. I apologize. But the OS is essential to a PC too, isnt it?
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2009 @ 04:56
|
Moderator
|
18. January 2009 @ 06:44 |
Link to this message
|
I'm all for discussing a bit of OS stuff in this thread, if nothing else it helps those PC builds see a bit of variety when it comes to OS.
As to 32/64 bit, i honestly don't know why it's such a big deal in the world of pc's. 64bit is old news in Enterprise computers, in fact it's a non event as it's just standard. The only time i've ever come across a problem in the last 9 years is if you install a 32bit Oracle database/binary on a 64bit OS. I can't remember the details but it's only a problem when you try to configure Oracle in 64bit after having installed it in 32bit.
Anyways my point is that i just don't see why 64bit is taking so long to be the standard. I've used 64bit linuxes but much the same as i have read about 64bit XP/Vista (haven't used 64bit in any Windows), it's all down to program/device support or lack thereof, so on pc's i just stick to 32bit until such time as the pc community can get it's act together and it becomes (much) better supported.
The one 64bit Linux that i had the most success with (Mandriva 2006.0) had some programs that didn't exist in 64bit but i found 32bit versions that worked stably. I even had my Creative USB external sound card configured correctly which was a bonus. I tried later Mandriva versions but also tried various other linuxes and with so much OS choice it's hard sticking with something sometimes.
(I really should put 2006.0 or a newer version/different distro back on that HP laptop as it's become unused and unloved since i bought the Acer netbook; the HP (Turion64) has got Windows 7 Beta on at the moment but is unusable due to AVG hitting 100% CPU all the time; i won't use a Windows OS without virus protection but the beauty of linux is that you don't actually need virus protection, but it's available just in case).
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 18. January 2009 @ 07:34
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 07:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
Anyways my point is that i just don't see why 64bit is taking so long to be the standard.
Indeed. Couldnt agree with you more. They really do need to just make the switch. Unbelievable in a world where computer technology advances VASTLY monthly, HECK weekly...that they cant make a switch to a technology thats been inching its way into our lives for years! What could they possibly be afraid of? There has to be a reason that they dont embrace 64bit.
Originally posted by creaky:
since i bought the Acer netbook; it's got Windows 7 Beta on at the moment but is unusable due to AVG hitting 100% CPU all the time
Is that a dual core buddy? Ive had ONE core lock up in windows 7, rather unusual. It was due to Internet explorer 8 or a network driver, or whatever! but it only locked one core. So I could end the task seamlessly. Thank god im not running single core on windows 7!!!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Moderator
|
18. January 2009 @ 07:39 |
Link to this message
|
The HP laptop is an older one, actually it must be about 4 years old now. It's an AMD Turion64 ML30 (can't remember what that equates to in GHz). The 7 Beta is on the HP laptop and not the netbook, have edited previous post as it was a little confusing.
Anyways i'm hoping that Windows 7 will actually run on older than multi-core hardware. The netbook uses the proverbial Intel Atom N270 CPU but i'm leaving XP on that one, it's my bulletproof *cough* downloading *cough* machine that stays on for weeks on end with zero issues.
I do have a couple Dual Core machines that could end up being upgraded to Windows 7 but the Quad Core machine and all other (older) machines will stay on XP and linux; as i say i am hoping that Windows 7 will run on older than multi-core hardware, it's certainly supposed to be optimized for netbook CPUs so am hopeful 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 18. January 2009 @ 07:42
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 07:54 |
Link to this message
|
Well...im afraid I have nothing to offer on the avg issue. ive not had any issues. Best of wishes to you man :) Beddy bye here,:) Hope you get that resolved
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 08:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Omegaman, you could install 32-bit programs in 64-bit Vista as well. It's only 32-bit drivers that won't work.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Omegaman, you could install 32-bit programs in 64-bit Vista as well. It's only 32-bit drivers that won't work.
So this ability was implemented in vista? Or did XP have the ability too?
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 14:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
XP had it too I believe. The difference is that there were next to no 64-bit drivers for XP. The support for Vista-64 is better.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
18. January 2009 @ 14:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
XP had it too I believe. The difference is that there were next to no 64-bit drivers for XP. The support for Vista-64 is better.
Good to hear. i'd like to finally experience 64bit. I guess with NEAR full support though, I wont be expecting TOO many bugs. I dont mind a bug every now and again. Keeps me on my toes. :D
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
