The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

Guys, let's not bash 64bit because you had problems with 64bit XP. Vista 64bit it MILES better when it comes to drivers. You probably wont have ANY driver problems at all. Just check before you upgrade. And even if you dont have 64bit programs 32bit programs run the same in Vista 64bit. And if you DO manage to get 64bit programs(maybe something all you video encoders out there can find 64bit version of your programs?) you will probably see something like a 40% increase in performance over the 32bit version, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT.

 

so I 've got an intel quad. I'm assuming that any 64bit sys won't work as good as a 32bit on intel, is this correct

 

64bit Vista will work just as well as 32bit Vista on Intel CPU if you use 32bit programs and WILL BE FASTER WITH 64BIT PROGRAMS.

 

I'm sorry, but you have me completely lost. What senses do I need to come to? I didn't say anything about Mort! I mentioned his post about the bios, and I mentioned that he and Spamual were Asus fans. Now I see he's leaving! Why?? More than two months ago I asked Morty to please drop all the stuff about the bios in fact I've asked him twice. I've likewise done the same thing about my attitude with GigaByte. I've barely mentioned them until a couple of days ago, since! Even my opinions for builds have been politically correct! Once I realized that I was just as wrong, I apologized to Morty. That's not the case here. I don't object to him throwing out an Asus with the bios being the better one for more extreme overclocking and leave it at that! I would agree with that 100% Or if someone came back and asked you why, I wouldn't have a problem with a brief explanation of the differences. It's just not necessary to go over the whole bios every time someone recommends a different MB!

I don't know where the GigaByte Fanboyism Mort's talking about is, but we seem to have people here who own both Asus and Gigabyte MBs, and they like them both. Or like Abuzar said, he's bought mostly GB MBs, and the Asus he had was no good. He's still open to the best bang for the buck that comes along, from any decent manufacturer.

Sammorris Said:

I agree with every word Sam said! That's exactly the way I look at it too! About 3 weeks ago someone blew through here looking for a MB. I recommended the P5Q Deluxe. It was simply the best MB for the job he wanted it to do. He needed more Sata ports, and the P5Q Deluxe filled the bill perfectly. He's already purchased it, installed it and PM'd me a thank you.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any GigaByte fanboyism here any more, and I was 90% of it before! I mean look at Rick when he was having problems with an Asus MB. We were there to help him resolve the problem of getting through to Asus Customer Service, not pick on his choice of MB! Did I think about it? I laughed thinking about it because of the irony of it all, but it would have been the wrong thing to do, so I sent him a phone number I had for Asus, that he didn't have and went on to other things! I don't think I could be any nicer about it, so I see no reason for Morty leaving!

Respectfully,
Russ

 

abuzar1,
You should see the same 30% that you lose with the Intel, on an AMD when running 64 bit programs!

Russ

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

lol why buy ram if its not to be used HHAHA, thats the funniest thing i have heard sam, no offence.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.