The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

You just put a VERY large smile on my face man. Thats the best descryption ive heard to date. VERY good post here.
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

 

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.

 

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.

 

I had my choice of 32bit or 64bit when I downloaded mine from M$??

Russ

 

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.

 

Sam I never once said it was harmless..... I said we fight ESP when people deny they are fanbois haha!

Russ... Ahh my bad, that's some sexy ram!

 

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 Ahhh yes. But then they'll begin producing 128bit, RIGHT??? Is their some galactic limitation on this??? LOL Totally joking.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

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!!!