|
cpu processors
|
|
|
victor14
Member
|
9. December 2007 @ 20:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
will i need to get more ram to run vista, download games, burn stuff and playing games while retaining the performance of the pc?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. December 2007 @ 20:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
if you're doing all that at once, it would be useful to have 3 or 4GB. That, however is the limit of any 32-bit OS (and therefore any useful OS) so getting any more than 4GB is pointless.
|
|
victor14
Member
|
9. December 2007 @ 20:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
According to my specs, is it worth it to get vista?
|
Senior Member
|
9. December 2007 @ 20:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well since the 3870 is DX10 compatible, and since Vista can only offer that then yes its worth it.
|
|
victor14
Member
|
9. December 2007 @ 20:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
which version of vista is the best for my new Pc. Is ultimate good?
|
Senior Member
|
9. December 2007 @ 21:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you have money to burn, then Ultimate is ok. However, Vista Ultimate has features that people would never use, and I dont think it is worth the extra $100. After reading some reviews, Vista Home Premium was the winner for gamers.
Since you are getting 4GB of ram, you will need to get the 64 bit version of Vista, since the 32 bit version will only use up to 2GB of ram.
|
|
victor14
Member
|
9. December 2007 @ 21:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
how much is windows vista home premium 64 bit version?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 07:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'd strongly advise against the 64-bit version of Vista usually, you'll have an absolute headache of a time trying to install anything other than the bare essential drivers. Doesn't the 32-bit Vista support up to 4 gigs now?
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
i hope it does...because Vista is beautiful but it's slow and ram eater...
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
I quote from Paul Thurrott's Windows super site, on 64-bit:
"Vista Home Basic (and Home Basic N) support up to 8 GB of RAM, compared to 4 GB for all 32-bit versions of Vista"
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 09:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
hmm...how does that work...home basic can support more than others...
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 09:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, the 64-bit version of Home Basic can support 8GB.
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 09:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 09:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Looks like with my 512MB GPU I'm to expect a small amount over 3GB then...
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 11:50 |
Link to this message
|
i don't get it...why is AMD cpu slower than Intel's, is it b/c of the cache or the processor speed or even both?...
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 11:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Neither, it's because of the architecture. Simply put, at the same clock speed and with the same amount of cache, the Core 2 architecture can do more work per second than the Athlon64 / Phenom architecture.
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
but how come Athlon64 is faster than P4...does it has anything got to do with the nanometer?
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 14:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Nope, simply down to the way things are organised inside.
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
hope AMD can turn the table over...more competition cheaper the products...
will E4400 be good enough to play games like Crysis and UT3 on quite high graphics with high-mid end card...
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 15:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
The E4400 is easily fast enough to run those games. It's as fast as an X2 4200+ if not faster. That CPU certainly has no trouble. I use an E4300 and I can run those games fine, although I suppose it is overclocked... :)
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 15:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
i was thinking for a even cheaper CPU the E2180...what do you think sammorris?
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 15:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
The E2180 will suffice for now, yes.
As for my PC specs, see my first blog post (back in September I think I wrote it)
|
Senior Member
|
10. December 2007 @ 15:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
so IT will suffice i guess i get that for now...if i OC it, it should run much faster...
@sammorris i see you have Thermaltake ToughPower 750W PSU is it any good? do you recommend it
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. December 2007 @ 15:47
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. December 2007 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
Not if it's as much as I paid for mine. It's a pretty decent PSU, although far from the quietest around, but when I got it, it was £95. The Corsair HX 520W which is IMO a better unit is only £60. There's no need for anywhere near as much power as 750W, you'll never use it. As for why I have one, suffice to say I didn't know back then!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
REAM
Suspended permanently
|
10. December 2007 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
I'd strongly advise against the 64-bit version of Vista usually, you'll have an absolute headache of a time trying to install anything other than the bare essential drivers. Doesn't the 32-bit Vista support up to 4 gigs now?
Actually most programs and hardware now have 64bit drivers. any signed drivers are forces to have 64bit drives aswell according to MS.
the 64bit version of vista has really picked itself up from its launch, but that was the same with XP vs 98.
|
