Hi guys, i have just upgraded from my old:
Pentium 4
80gig SATA
ATI 9600XT
1 gig of ram
To the new stuff
AMD duo core 6400
Nvidia inno3d 8800GT
4 gig of crossair ram
and the best off all a 22" widescreen monitor.
Just would like to know what you guys think?
So now i am able to run UT3 on full specs with no problem, Crysis also has no problems in running on full specs @ an avreage 20-30 fps.
This cost me in total $750
Oh one thing i think i FU**ED up on is the asus m2n-E sli board, its totaly sh*te. And i would like your help to find a new board with the support for the AM2 socket.
Full Version: New system
Would of been better to go with a Core2, but overall not bad. Also I hope that 4 gigs of RAM is running on Vista/64-bit.
Why not take a look at this and post your benchmark results:
http://www.counter-strike-dl.com/forums/in...?showtopic=5669
Why not take a look at this and post your benchmark results:
http://www.counter-strike-dl.com/forums/in...?showtopic=5669
I was going to go with the core 2. But i had so many troubles with intel in the past, in most cases the chip burning out, or not giving me the full preformance. The AMD chip seems to be doing ok at the moment, although it is really hot at times, esspecially during crysis or UT3.
I was running vista on it when i built the system, but it was just too slow for me and all these security questions just hack me off, also many troubles with games on vista, so now i am back on XP with much better preformance. I think i'll wait for another year before i might put vista on the second HDD.
Still would like to know what you think about the mobo, it just seems to be really unstable with sometimes random hangups when the system is idle!!! Any suggestions are welcome and would apreciate if you could give me a better board to look at. This one cost me about $50, so i am looking at a max price of $120 +/- $20.
I was running vista on it when i built the system, but it was just too slow for me and all these security questions just hack me off, also many troubles with games on vista, so now i am back on XP with much better preformance. I think i'll wait for another year before i might put vista on the second HDD.
Still would like to know what you think about the mobo, it just seems to be really unstable with sometimes random hangups when the system is idle!!! Any suggestions are welcome and would apreciate if you could give me a better board to look at. This one cost me about $50, so i am looking at a max price of $120 +/- $20.
I don't blame you for leaving Vista, but my comment on it was directed at the 4GB of RAM. The maximum that can be used on your current XP is 3GB, or with modifications I think 3.2GB - 3.5GB. So there's going to be a little wasted with your current setup.
I can't really help you on the motherboard much, just get one with the same socket and the features you want really. As long as it's a good make one's as good as the other.
I can't really help you on the motherboard much, just get one with the same socket and the features you want really. As long as it's a good make one's as good as the other.
QUOTE(Elanzer @ Jul 23 2008, 02:37 AM)
I don't blame you for leaving Vista, but my comment on it was directed at the 4GB of RAM. The maximum that can be used on your current XP is 3GB, or with modifications I think 3.2GB - 3.5GB. So there's going to be a little wasted with your current setup.
I can't really help you on the motherboard much, just get one with the same socket and the features you want really. As long as it's a good make one's as good as the other.
I can't really help you on the motherboard much, just get one with the same socket and the features you want really. As long as it's a good make one's as good as the other.
I do believe it can be corrected with xp 64-bit, but many applications don't support it, and can be a bit buggy.
yea i am aware that the 32 bit xp can only utilize 3.2 to 3.5 Gig with tweaks. I see my ram as the 3.2 gig, and it does the trick, the reason i got 4 gig is because when i got the crossair it was on offer so the last 1 gig stick didn't cost me anything which was good.
I did the 3d mark test before and got something around 10500 on the 22" LCD which i can imagine makes a hit on preformance this was all on stock, but i'll do some tweaking later tonight and run it again and will upload it later.
Yea i am not really sure about motherboards, but i'll be searching all over the net trying to find a good one.
I did the 3d mark test before and got something around 10500 on the 22" LCD which i can imagine makes a hit on preformance this was all on stock, but i'll do some tweaking later tonight and run it again and will upload it later.
Yea i am not really sure about motherboards, but i'll be searching all over the net trying to find a good one.
Whoops, forgot to specify bits in my post. Edited.
QUOTE(WolfXI @ Jul 23 2008, 11:47 AM)
I do believe it can be corrected with xp 64-bit, but many applications don't support it, and can be a bit buggy.
I am not going 64 bit, no chance. been there before and learned the hard way. And yes alot of apps either don't have full support with 64 bit or are really bugged.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned Vista 64-bit instead, it is somewhat more pleasant than the XP 64-bit experience, but like you said it's still not worth it IMO. We had a similar discussion here recently about it and came to a similar conclusion.
QUOTE(Elanzer @ Jul 23 2008, 11:54 AM)
Yeah, that's why I mentioned Vista 64-bit instead, it is somewhat more pleasant than the XP 64-bit experience, but like you said it's still not worth it IMO. We had a similar discussion here recently about it and came to a similar conclusion.
agreed
So far I'm having no issues with Vista 64-bit.
Luck of the draw?
Luck of the draw?
QUOTE(Silverbullet7 @ Jul 23 2008, 04:08 PM)
So far I'm having no issues with Vista 64-bit.
Luck of the draw?
Luck of the draw?
Same here, i mean hell. I'll have to get an other HDD to see how XP runs and what is better, but i've had NO problems with vista.
Yeap. I've not noticed any performance drops or compatibility problems.
Basically it does what it I ask it to do at a pretty good rate.
I guess it also depends on your processor, RAM, and other factors, too.
Basically it does what it I ask it to do at a pretty good rate.
I guess it also depends on your processor, RAM, and other factors, too.
You wouldn't notice the performance drop unless you benchmark or run two identical systems side by side.
That's what I did. I brought my laptop to my friend's house and we both ran a few programs at the same time. He was also running XP 64-bit.
QUOTE(Elanzer @ Jul 23 2008, 10:37 AM)
I don't blame you for leaving Vista, but my comment on it was directed at the 4GB of RAM. The maximum that can be used on your current XP is 3GB, or with modifications I think 3.2GB - 3.5GB. So there's going to be a little wasted with your current setup.
I can't really help you on the motherboard much, just get one with the same socket and the features you want really. As long as it's a good make one's as good as the other.
I can't really help you on the motherboard much, just get one with the same socket and the features you want really. As long as it's a good make one's as good as the other.
Not sure if you mentioned this already but with 4GB of ram by default x86 windows will show it as 3.25 though graphics RAM may factor in but I'm not sure, I think 2GB is all that can be allocated to a single application with the Kernel and graphics memory going into the other 1.25GB a bit but there is some kind of tweak where by you can have 3GB for a program and 1GB on kernel IIRC. Not sure if this applies to 32bit but I would have thought so considering 64bit detects it anyway.
Either way you'll get better performance with 3GB over 2GB anyway, assuming the game is memory intensive, something like BF2. I was just reading about this today so I'll come back in a bit with some of it explained better than I could.
QUOTE(The_killer @ Jul 23 2008, 10:48 AM)
I did the 3d mark test before and got something around 10500 on the 22" LCD which i can imagine makes a hit on preformance this was all on stock, but i'll do some tweaking later tonight and run it again and will upload it later.
Unless you changed the resolution that 3DMark uses then the size of the screen will not affect your score.
QUOTE(Silverbullet7 @ Jul 23 2008, 05:08 PM)
So far I'm having no issues with Vista 64-bit.
Luck of the draw?
Luck of the draw?
I wouldn't say so really, a lot of the early problems with Vista are sorted now and it can certainly be faster than XP though not in all cases, assuming you have SP1 installed then you're probably not losing much performance over XP, you may even be gaining some depending on how much RAM you have.
It does indeed apply to 32-bit.
QUOTE(Silverbullet7 @ Jul 23 2008, 06:16 PM)
That's what I did. I brought my laptop to my friend's house and we both ran a few programs at the same time. He was also running XP 64-bit.
Try 32-bit and more games/benchmarks with solid figures.
Found it so I'll just copy and paste.
QUOTE(Corasik)
Windows 32bit limits each application to 2Gb memory space, and by default the physical memory is divided into 2gb userspace, and 2gb kernel (Although the /3gb boot hack switches to 3Gb userspace, and 1gb kernel).
Anyway, a limitation of 32bit windows is any 1 application cannot access more than 2gb of physical ram, above 2gb pages will be put into the swapfile instead.
64 bit windows actually has the same 2gb limitation, however with both 32bit and 64bit software there is a complier option which enables large memory support. For 32bit applications on 64bit windows that option extends access to physical memory to the full 4gb, for 64bit windows the limit is set by the version of windows. Vista64 ultimate has a whopping 128gb limit, and even that is a "software" limitation.
4GB on 32bit windows is pretty limited use really, although not completely useless the 2GB limit I mentioned is per application, so say you have 3GB memory after the graphics cards ram, and other bits and bobs are mapped in, windows itself + antivirus/firewall etc will take their normal few hundred meg of ram, and your game will get a full 2gb all to itself. Clearly better than 2Gb shared between game, os, and various other processes.
Interestingly, 32bit applications compiled with the large memory option, will run just fine on 32bit windows, but with the standard 32bit limitations, so there is disadvantage to the software developers to enable the additional memory support on 64 bit systems, while remaining compatible with Windows 32bit
. (Compiler flag for Visual C++ = /largeaddressaware). Im not sure if its possible to see which flags were set during build though.
Anyway, a limitation of 32bit windows is any 1 application cannot access more than 2gb of physical ram, above 2gb pages will be put into the swapfile instead.
64 bit windows actually has the same 2gb limitation, however with both 32bit and 64bit software there is a complier option which enables large memory support. For 32bit applications on 64bit windows that option extends access to physical memory to the full 4gb, for 64bit windows the limit is set by the version of windows. Vista64 ultimate has a whopping 128gb limit, and even that is a "software" limitation.
4GB on 32bit windows is pretty limited use really, although not completely useless the 2GB limit I mentioned is per application, so say you have 3GB memory after the graphics cards ram, and other bits and bobs are mapped in, windows itself + antivirus/firewall etc will take their normal few hundred meg of ram, and your game will get a full 2gb all to itself. Clearly better than 2Gb shared between game, os, and various other processes.
Interestingly, 32bit applications compiled with the large memory option, will run just fine on 32bit windows, but with the standard 32bit limitations, so there is disadvantage to the software developers to enable the additional memory support on 64 bit systems, while remaining compatible with Windows 32bit
. (Compiler flag for Visual C++ = /largeaddressaware). Im not sure if its possible to see which flags were set during build though.QUOTE(Rifleman @ Jul 23 2008, 01:22 PM)
I wouldn't say so really, a lot of the early problems with Vista are sorted now and it can certainly be faster than XP though not in all cases, assuming you have SP1 installed then you're probably not losing much performance over XP, you may even be gaining some depending on how much RAM you have.
I've got 4gb of RAM so that might also be why I have great performance.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.