# Upgrade? or build new?



## Hyena (Nov 7, 2008)

Alright, so I've got kind of an odd dilemma here. 

I'm having a really hard time playing quite a few games, HL2, Oblivion and Bioshock, More specifically I'm having issues with a game called "Dirt" its a rally racing game that is really awesome, so long as you have the xbox 360 controller. Now, I'm very sure my processor is the issue here. this is my build. 

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz socket AM2 (Single core)
Foxconn something or other mobo (pretty crappy, but not the issue)
2.5GB DDR2 667 RAM
Nvidia 8800GT 512MB 650mhz core. 
160GB Hitachi Deskstar HDD
Windows Vista Home Premium SP1

I'm very very sure its the processor. an example would be when playing Dirt, you will hear the processor kind of "popping" of "clicking" as its being pushed too hard, the sound of course coming from the speakers. the game is also playing "slow" but not jaggy like a video card issue. Sometimes I'll be playing and it will slow way down, then get like this sudden burst of speed as the CPU finally figures everything out or something. 

ANYWAY. My question is, being tight on cash, I really dont want to spend a whole ton of money into this computer. I figure get it bearable and leave it alone, then upgrade when stuff gets cheaper, or blow all the cash I've been saving up (for things other than computer nonsence) and get a top of the line system. 

my choices are .. spend $39.99 and get an AMD Athlon X2 64 AM2 4400+ at 2.3ghz per core.

or spend a little over $400 and get a Intel Core Two Quad Q6600 2.4ghz, asrock mobo with support for PCI E X16 2.0 and DDR3 ram. 2GB of DDR3 ram, and a 640GB hard drive as well as a 700W psu (my 500W is only enough for what I'm running now)

So... $39.99 VS $400. odd question, I know, but I cant really play any newer games anymore on a single core CPU. I know the Athlon X2 would be tolerable and maybe more a bandaid on a wound for half a year till I can afford to spend some more money and get a lot nicer stuff (processors and stuff will only come down in price) or I could splurge now, pay out my arse but not have to futs with it. 

Thanks so much. 
-Slopestyle


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2008)

I'd take a look at your hard drive, too, and make sure nothing's going on there. PIO mode can be a bitch if you're dealing with it.

Still, the CPU does seem to be the bottleneck. I'd personally look into getting a new motherboard to go with it, seeing as how the Foxconn couldn't possibly be doing you any favours with front side bus and overall stability. I'd recommend against ASRock, simply because the build quality isn't good. The boards do what they say on the tin (mostly, read the fine print and reviews; A lot of their boards do what they do via dirty hacks), but they don't last.

I'd recommend stepping up the CPU even further. 5000+ processors can be had for an extra $20 USD, and they'll get you pretty average performance, a huge boost from what you have now.

I also wonder what antivirus software you have - This can have a profound effect on your system speed as a whole, especially running Vista (where memory is at a premium unless you have 4GB of it).

Oh, and if you decide to go for the new computer in the end, stay away from DDR3 for now. No performance increase (especially on that ASRock) and a higher price.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 8, 2008)

I wouldent know too much about the Motherboards, this is my first non-elitegroup motherboard. the ECS stuff has always been very great to me. this foxxcon is pretty shoddily built I would agree, but I think the real main problem is the CPU. 

I was just looking into CPU's and it looks like I could get a Athlon X2 5000+ for about twenty bux more, so I would go with that. but I think replacing the mobo is kinda out of the question. I was thinking either spend very little money just to get me by until I can afford a quad core system and have myself set for a few years. 

this comp is actually kinda a scrapped emachines that I bought for $189.99 on newegg. I mainly dont want to replace the mobo because when I build a nice gaming computer in the future, I'd like to put the mobo and HDD back into the little emachines case and use it as a secondary computer.

I'm very sure RAM isnt the issue, when I game vista likes to dump all the physical memory and give a lot more to my games, I also kinda monitor it and most I've ever used was 1.5GB which is about 60% of my ram. 

so I guess the question now is more like "stick an Athalon X2 5000+ in my computer and have a fairly decent computer, or spend a lot and empty my wallets on something I really dont want to pay for if I dont have to" I'd rather spend like 250 or a little more on getting a quad core setup than a halfway decent dual core (aka 5000+ on a new mobo and not use the foxxcon) but I dunno, what do you think?

this was the asrock I was looking at. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157130


----------



## Bladekitty (Nov 8, 2008)

Being an Intel fan I suggest the latter... but you can save a mint by stepping down to a dual core (an E8500), especially since I don't think DiRT is one of those few games that can use all four cores. If you step down the mobo a bit and get DDR2 RAM (DDR3 is still too expensive, especially for the still developing performance gains - wait a year, whereas DDR2 is dirt cheap and even the value modules can be overclocked pretty far.). A 600W PSU is more than enough for any system running only one graphics card and even several drives - I'm running 2 hard drives, a DVD drive, and my graphics card ( 9800GTX) off a 550W PSU no problem.

With a little budgeting you could probably upgrade your PC to a decently future-proofed one at less than $250 with no problem - it's the graphics card that sucks the most out of your wallet anyway and an 8800 is still good.

If you really want to save money, then go for the Athlon. But BLEHG.


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 8, 2008)

I agree with Runefox about getting a new motherboard.  There's always the risk that you'll get a new CPU and the cheap motherboard might not "like it."  I've had problems like that before.

I would recommend waiting if you have to and getting a new Intel Core2 setup, which is a lot cheaper now, and better in every way (P35 chipset or better).  I've been building systems for a long time, and I always recommend NOT cutting corners on the PSU, motherboard, or memory.  That doesn't mean you have to buy the best.  Weaknesses in any of those parts can cause problems that are a horrible mess to troubleshoot.

I also think you should look at the better mb brands, like Asus or Gigabyte, but maybe the Asrock would be okay, but I agree...avoid DDR3.  It's a complete waste of money.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 8, 2008)

On the motherboard, Foxconn isn't the worst around, but it's not the best, either.

To identify the motherboard, download a program called CPU-Z, run it, go to the "Mainboard" tab and copy/paste everything in the "Motherboard" and "BIOS" sections. (Screen shot and attach, if it's easier.) That should be able to tell me if you can take a better processor or not.

If you decide to go with a new motherboard:
- ASRock is an ASUS subsidiary that builds budget boards.
- I generally recommend ASUS, Gigabyte and Abit.


----------



## Tomtenizze (Nov 8, 2008)

A CPU upgrade is all that you should need and maybe you should reinstall Windows and check your harddrive. I myself have an AMD64 X2 6400+, 8800GT and 2GB RAM and works just fine in any game, even with high graphic settings.

You should do fine with an AMD64 X2 5000+.

Also, you don't need a 700W PSU if you decide to a massive upgrade. If you're having trouble running your current setup with the 550W PSU then something is wrong with the PSU because that system doesn't use more then about 250W.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2008)

> because that system doesn't use more then about 250W.


Hmm... Actually, the video card alone is probably drawing about 130W idle and up to 245W peak. He's probably using more like 400-450W total.

Also, the main reason I recommend a motherboard upgrade is that Foxconn board probably isn't PCI-E 2.0; That's not a big deal, but depending on the board, it might also be limiting it to PCI-E 8x, which would put a bottleneck on that kind of card. Some budget boards don't like large power draw, either (while not graphics related, try an Athlon X2 6000+ (or any 120W or higher CPU) on an AMD 780G chipset; In some cases, it'll fry the board!).

I'd recommend ASUS almost exclusively; Gigabyte's all-solid capacitor boards are extremely good, but I would be wary of their standard electrolyte-based boards. Look for the "Ultra Durable All-Solid Capacitor Design" icon if you're looking into Gigabyte boards. Abit have been traditionally great, but I haven't seen anything new from them in ages. They don't seem to have the market penetration up here in Canada (or maybe just Newfoundland) that they used to enjoy.

Brands to steer away from would be Elitegroup/ECS (Extremely Cheap Shit; I've owned one and had the displeasure of selling them for a while when socket 478 boards became scarce - It's not pretty), MSI (well, sort of; I liken them to...), Foxconn (not that they're bad, but they're budget, not good build quality), Biostar (crap), Solar Energy (STAY AWAY)... ASRock would be there, too, but you can occasionally luck into a really good board. I'd recommend ASUS over ASRock, though, because for virtually the same price, you get a much better-built board.


----------



## Tomtenizze (Nov 8, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Hmm... Actually, the video card alone is probably drawing about 130W idle and up to 245W peak. He's probably using more like 400-450W total.





(Source xbitlabs.org, click the image for the full review)

Actually, no. His (and my) video card uses about 85W when under the heaviest load, and about 36W in idle. And I'm pretty sure that his Single core CPU uses below 100W under load. The only reason why someone would need a +750W PSU for their desktop PC is if they were to run on Triple/Quad crossfire/SLI setup combined with a Quad Core CPU.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/10 (The graphs are for the entire system, not just the graphic card and a Core 2 Extreme QX9650 3.0GHz was used)



Runefox said:


> Also, the main reason I recommend a motherboard upgrade is that Foxconn board probably isn't PCI-E 2.0; That's not a big deal, but depending on the board, it might also be limiting it to PCI-E 8x, which would put a bottleneck on that kind of card. Some budget boards don't like large power draw, either (while not graphics related, try an Athlon X2 6000+ (or any 120W or higher CPU) on an AMD 780G chipset; In some cases, it'll fry the board!).



As far as I know there is no single graphic card that gains any noticable performance from the use of a PCI-E 2.0 port. The performance gain from going from PCI-E 8x to 16x for a 8800GT would be quite small, under 5%. Put your point on the 780G chipset is very accurate and it some 780G motherboards does suffer from compatibility issues with high wattages CPUs. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-9931070-64.html


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2008)

I was mistaken about the power draw of the 8800GT; The site I got my readings from was rather flawed. Everywhere else seems to pin it at around 110W, absolute max.

Actually, PCI-E 1.0 x8 will slow the 8800GT down noticeably. Here's a Radeon HD 3850:







Take a look at the x4 reading (knowing that this is PCI-E 2.0, and therefore double the bandwidth of PCI-E 1.0); Also note that the 8800GT requires more bandwidth than the Radeon HD 3850 ever would. Tom's Hardware has an interesting article on it, and while PCI-E 1.0 x16 isn't really dead yet in terms of speed, PCI-E 1.0 x8 isn't enough to handle higher-end cards properly, and will bottleneck (especially in texture-heavy applications; Computation-heavy applications or places where all textures will fit into memory at once will have less of a performance impact).


----------



## Hyena (Nov 9, 2008)

Alrighty, I'll just reply to one post to save more of FA's precious bandwidth  

Lucky me, I was already a huge fan of CPUZ and already had it on my flash drive and installed on every computer I own. I had posted my original post on a different computer so I didn't have the ability to really shut down everything to get to CPUz (was gaming)

Mobo I am on has a PCI E X16 slot, and it is limited to 8X BUT, that is not the problem at all, I 100% guarantee its a problem of the processor. the 8800GT actually runs everything fine, despite the miserably slow bus speed.  the mobo is a Foxxcon ( "Gateway" ) MCP61SM2MA

on CPUz it tells me its max bandwidth is X16 but says its link width is X8 so I'm pretty sure. 



I really really hate intel with a fiery passion, they are rude pricks to deal with and they aren't terribly good to their employees here in Oregon (their headquarters) BUT, I haven't had any of their processors other than a few Pentium 4's which blew up on me. 

I dont think some people are really getting the idea here. I either want to spend little to no money for a temporary solution. I really am not going to spend $140 on a crap dual core when I can get a Q6600 for $189.99. so I kinda am saying, AMD dual core for cheap, or intel and paying out my ass. 

There isnt really an in between choice here for me. a decent mobo is going to be about $70 plus for either AMD or intel with their LGA775. then the dual core AMD is $60 and the Quad core intel is $189.99. I cannot justify at all paying over $100 for any dual core, if there is twice the power for a mere $90 more. not only that, but seeing dual core coded games trying to run on a single... watching quad designed games run on a dual core is going to be just as laughable. 

Thanks for the good information on the PSU info and video card wattage. I'm on a 500W right now, its running everything just fine, I just worry since the core two quad I think is like 95W. I mean, too much power isn't really a bad thing, is it? 

This is how the build would look either way. 

AMD Athlon X2 64 AM2 5000+ 2.6ghz
Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 512MB 650mhz
Foxconn MCP whatever the heck it was mobo
160GB Hitachi HDD (80GB is even enough space for me, this HDD is fast and has lots of cache so I'm not worried)
500W Apriva PSU
Windows Vista Home Premium
Total$$$: $59.99 

INTEL
Intel Core Two Quad Q6600 2.4GHz LGA 775
Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 650mhz
[insert decent motherboard here around the $70-$100 range]
160GB Hitachi HDD (if I buy a new HDD I can restore the old machine to its original spec so $60 for a HDD
500W Apriva PSU
Windows Vista Home Premium 
Total$$$: $189.99 + $70.00 = $259.99. With HDD $319.99

$59.99 VS $319.99 which would you choose? why? Eventually I;m going to build the core two quad system. the longer I wait, the cheaper its going to be and I will be able to get stuff minor things done now) with the same cash and save up later for the better system.

I just dont know, its a hard situation for me, money doesnt come easy like it used to, sadly. before I would just sell one of my basses or one of my bikes, but people just arent buying stuff right now and my job is hard enough to save up. I've got $450 right now in my hand, I just wonder, should I spend now? or patch up a wound and wait?

Thanks again so much for the replies, its really helping me out.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2008)

If you decide to go with an Athlon X2 5000+, you'll be getting a marked increase in performance, but nothing close to what you'd get if you rebuilt your system around a quad core CPU (from either side of the fence, really). The Intel system is a safer bet in terms of future-proofing, because you get the quad cores and you get a more modern, more efficient CPU (unless you go with an AMD rebuild with a quad Phenom, in which case the Core 2 Quads are just more efficient).

Patching up the system will basically get you up and running for a while, and then when the time comes, you can throw it at whatever menial task you have for it and buy/build a new one. Honestly, and I'll say it again, I'm no fan of your current motherboard, especially knowing it came out of an eMachines system (which are famous for spontaneous combustion of the motherboard and power supply with an accompanying $200 repair bill), but if you're comfortable with it, you can try the dual core. Bear in mind that depending on how old the board is, you may have to track down a BIOS update (MAY, likely won't) to get it to work properly with your processor - And you'll have to reinstall Windows whether you rebuild or just pop in a new CPU (Windows only checks for the number of cores installed during initial setup).

If you decide to go with the Intel rebuild, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is probably going to be flushing down the toilet pretty soon. The Q8200 actually edges out the Q6600 in a lot of benchmarks and matches it everywhere else, despite its 2.33GHz core and its 4MB of L2 cache. It makes up for that with SSE4 support (which is a major speedup as more apps use it) and lower power consumption/heat. Here are some benchmarks to look at.

From what I've been reading, the Q6600 is more along the lines of if you want to do some overclocking. There are reports of getting over 1GHz more out of that chip if you play your cards right; Then again, you're probably not going to be doing any of that, in which case the higher FSB, SSE4 support, and security in knowing the power consumption is lower will probably be a better deal. The Q8200 can be had for $189.99, according to Newegg.

There's a lot to consider. It's easy to say you should spend your money now and grab a brand new board and CPU, and really, that's what I would recommend to you, simply because the new board will set you up for any future upgrades, versus your current AM2 board will be obsolete soon (AM2+ is already here, and AM3 is on the horizon). Regardless, you can still rebuild your current AM2 system into the guts of your eMachines case and spend that $40 to rebuild _it_ at a later date.

Also, for the OS, I would HIGHLY recommend getting the 64-bit edition of Vista. It's snappier, and unless you need old 16-bit programs (which you can emulate anyway with things like DOSBox), there's nothing I've found to date that hasn't worked on it, and drivers exist for the 64-bit edition wherever drivers exist for the 32-bit edition. You get access to however much memory you can install into your system, and games have access to the 64-bit capabilities of your CPU. I recommend doing this regardless as to whether you end up with the AMD or Intel CPU.


----------



## jagdwolf (Nov 9, 2008)

personally I would scrap the Mother board and the amd chip, get a solid EVGA intel MB, and an Intel dual core.  I have a quad core, and love it but, there is very little on the market that will use it all.  

Keep everything else, but also make sure that the power supply cable with your case has an adapter for intel boards.

Good gaming


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2008)

EVGA isn't the greatest for motherboards, actually. I'd recommend against them.


----------



## Tomtenizze (Nov 9, 2008)

Hyena said:


> This is how the build would look either way.
> 
> AMD Athlon X2 64 AM2 5000+ 2.6ghz
> Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 512MB 650mhz
> ...



I say go with the AMD Athlon X2 64 AM2 5000+ 2.6ghz. Why?
Because there are not that many games (there are some) yet that get a huge performance improvement with a quad core and Intel is soon to release their new Nehalem microarchitecture, Intel Core i7.
The Intel Core i7 will use a different socket and DDR3 memory, if you would go with the Quad core now you would have to get a new motherboard/RAM when you were to upgrade the next time. You would also be able to play any of the current available games at high graphic settings with just the AMD CPU upgrade.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 9, 2008)

Hyena said:


> I'm having a really hard time playing quite a few games, HL2, Oblivion and Bioshock...
> 
> AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz socket AM2 (Single core)
> Foxconn something or other mobo (pretty crappy, but not the issue)
> ...



That system is a little way above mine, and I have no trouble running those games. It is in fact close to the recommended specs for 'Dirt'. I noticed you failed to specify the soundcard, are you using the onboard sound or what?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2008)

Soundcard shouldn't make a HUGE difference. Even in the case of hardware acceleration versus pure software, the difference may be about 5FPS. Then again, the extra cycles freed up would help out that single core CPU a bit.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

LizardKing said:


> That system is a little way above mine, and I have no trouble running those games. It is in fact close to the recommended specs for 'Dirt'. I noticed you failed to specify the soundcard, are you using the onboard sound or what?



here is the deal, dirt will hardly run (if at all) on a single core CPU when there are multiple cars on any given track. I don't care what the "minimum system requirements" on the box really say, its really apparent that Codemasters did not test at all their game on lower end systems. I can pretty easily revise the minimum system requirements need to be 

Intel Core Two Duo 1.8ghz/AMD Athlon X2 3800+
1GB RAM
Geforce 6800 / Readion X800
12.5GB HDD space
DVD Rom

I guarantee, its nearly impossible with everything off and 800X600 resolution to get anything better than about 15fps with multiple cars on the track.

the game averages about 45-65 fps when its just my car on a track or stage, on some events where there is a lot of cars (rally cross and rally raid are the worst) I get about 7-15 fps.

HL2 does just fine, Oblivion (maxed the snot out of everything) its kinda sorta okay (50fps) and then Bioshock doesn't really have many issues, its just when its loading something its horribly slow and laggy and you can hear the processor being stressed through the audio. 

as for sound cards, I'm using the creative sound blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro (was cheap)


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

Alrighty, so I have made a choice of what I'm going to do here. 

I'm actually going to stop playing Dirt, I'm going to save up just a tiny bit more (going to sell off some spare towers I have laying around too) and I'm going to build the quad core system now.

ya cant wait forever, and when you do make the purchase there is going to be something better next week. the way I look at it is Quad core is the future, Dual core is the present, single core is the past. now you could go a cheaper route and buy the current stuff, but then there is no hope for the future. in the same time you're going to end up spending the same money. you can build one good rig right now that will last 3-4 years, or you can build a cheaper standard dual core rig, and have to upgrade once four cores takes off.  I think I'd rather just get everything done now and be done with it. 

System build should look like 

Q6600 or the  Q8200 Intel Core Two Quad
Nvidia 8800GT 512MB 650MHz
[insert decent mobo here]
640GB Seagate HDD
X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro sound card
4GB DDR 1066 ram
64bit Windows Vista Buisness.

should total up to about $389.96. 

 Thanks all so much for the help. I wasnt really sure where to go with this, but this has helped me to narrow it all down. for builds I would only reccomend cheap ass dual core setups or then nicer quad setups. dual core is going to be dieing soon, folks. take it from someone who is trying to run dual core coded games on a single core processor, I really dont want to be in the same boat when and i things take advantage of 4cpus.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

Mmm...I'd still recommended a 4850 honestly. It's about the performance of two 8800GT's in one $250 package. But if the 8800 is fine and cost is a big factor, go for it.

You can get a Samsung Spinpoint F1 1024GB (1TB) HDD for about $120.00 It's actually faster than any other drive on some benchmarks and on most is just under the Velociraptor. But if that drive is cheaper might as well go for it.

I would recommend with the RAM you get Corsair Dominator, cheep, fast, reliable. That's actually what I have (DDR2 PC2-8500 1066)

Do you need that sound card? You can get a motherboard with a sound card that comes with it. As well a case with a good powersupply that comes with it that will run it all too.

It might cost a bit more, but if you can afford it, go for it!


----------



## jagdwolf (Nov 10, 2008)

Not sure 64 bit is the way to go.  Not everything is fully compatable with that.  I know you want to access that extra GB of ram, but here is my rig, its a year and a half old.  Just to give you an idea.

EVGA MB (had a BFG and it failed, had a Gigabyte, damn nice board, but they recalled it and were not replacing it with anything I like.)
Intel Quad core QX6700 Extreme
4 Gig Corsair Dominator PC8500 Ram
BFG GTX8800
WD Raptor 150 Sata
WD Caviar 160 Sata
Windows 32 Home Prem.
Sound card I cant remember the name of.  Rig is packed a way as I am building my home and flying on a laptop atm.

This whole rig is liquid cooled.  CPU, GPU, North Bridge and South bridge are liquid cooled on a dual loop, dual pump, dual radiator set up.  All Danger Den cooling....awesome products.

And yes, I built it.  I like the 32 bit software and thought it cant access the last gig of ram, the bios does and it gives it to the video card, which makes it freaking nice as that gtx is 768 of ram and then access to an extra gig of ram, is very very sweet.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

Well actually my roommate has 64 bit and everything he uses is compatible on it.

I will be getting 64 bit as well, and if he's having 4gigs of ram there is only like .6 gigs he's not being able to use with 32 bit. But 64 bit gives you a big performance jump with your computer just because it's allowing full use of hardware, not just ram.

And the ram isn't going to your videocard...32bits can only access 4 gigs of memory, that's including video memory. That's another reason to get 64-bits. 



> Windows memory manager is limited to a 4 GB physical address space. Most of that address space is filled with RAM, but not all of it. Memory-mapped devices (such as your video card) will use some of that physical address space, as will the BIOS ROMs. After all the non-memory devices have had their say, there will be less than 4GB of address space available for RAM below the 4GB physical address boundary.





> a 64-bit OS absolutely essential if you run applications that need to use more than 2 GB of memory. It's not common, but we're getting there.



Source


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well actually my roommate has 64 bit and everything he uses is compatible on it.



That's not really a glowing endorsement. A lot of drivers just fail to run on 64-bit hardware. Repeat after me, Newf, correlation does not imply causation.



> Source



If you actually understood hardware and architecture... oh wait.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

I'm sorry but I have yet to see anything at all not run on 64-bit, though I've heard of a few things not running no average consumer is going to be using them. It's mostly older stuff or unimportant things, the benefits of x64 exceed the negatives by a long shot.

Anything you have to say nobody here should be listening too for advice, you haven't posted a single thing helpful that I've ever seen.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> But 64 bit gives you a big performance jump with your computer just because it's allowing full use of hardware, not just ram.


what on earth is this supposed to mean?  "full use of hardware"?  does my hardware detect the OS I'm using and underclock if it's not 64-bit?



NewfDraggie said:


> Source


ffffffff jeff atwood is not a "source"


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

Uh, wow...

So, you're saying that a 64bit cpu is being used fully in a 32bit os?

Go back to your p1, old timer.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

Post number 444. Go me.



> Q6600 or the  Q8200 Intel Core Two Quad
> Nvidia 8800GT 512MB 650MHz
> [insert decent mobo here]
> 640GB Seagate HDD
> ...


I'd actually recommend the Auzentech X-Fi Prelude over the X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro. It has all the benefits (XRAM, the X-Fi chip, etc), and also has higher quality outputs, digital outputs, and generally is better overall. The only thing it doesn't come with is the gameport, which doesn't work on Windows Vista, anyway. The only problem is that it's about $40-$50 more.

I'd also recommend using the 64-bit edition of Windows Vista Home Premium, unless you're looking to use Remote Desktop (which can be hacked into Home Premium) or to join a corporate domain.

As for the motherboard, I'd recommend the ASUS P5Q-SE Plus. It's got a ton of neat features, has all solid capacitors (meaning chances are it won't blow up), it's got ExpressGate (which lets you boot up in 5 seconds to an OS that lets you browse the internet quickly, get on Skype, etc), and it's got a ton of power-saving features. And it's $99.99 at Newegg. Great deal.

Oh, and this is going to be sweet. Silly jaded programmers.



> what on earth is this supposed to mean? "full use of hardware"? does my hardware detect the OS I'm using and underclock if it's not 64-bit?


Simple. Your 64-bit CPU is stuck doing 32-bit instructions on a 32-bit OS. That's hardly taking full advantage of your CPU's capabilities. Even if most of the applications you use are 32-bit, having the kernel and file manager running 64-bit makes things smoother.



> That's not really a glowing endorsement. A lot of drivers just fail to run on 64-bit hardware. Repeat after me, Newf, correlation does not imply causation.


Examples, please. None of the hardware that Hyena is using will have problems on 64-bit Windows, and those drivers that aren't digitally signed (like for example the driver for my Hori Flightstick 2) can be loaded by making an adjustment to the bootup config (which is very easy to do with the help of freely-available applications for precisely that task). Stop blowing hot air from half a decade ago.

I have not seen ANYTHING that refuses to run on 64-bit Windows that isn't a 16-bit Win3.1 or DOS app. Even old Windows 95 games and apps run very happily on it, and I have no idea why everyone is stuck on the idea that it's not compatible with anything. These things were a problem with 64-bit Windows XP, but no longer with 64-bit Vista. Hardware vendors, in order to get WHQL verified, MUST supply 32-bit AND 64-bit drivers for Windows Vista, and what's more, 32-bit programs JustWork(TM). If you can provide five examples of reasonably popular (read: Not obscure enough that nobody's heard of them) 32-bit applications that fail to run on Windows Vista 64-bit that I can verify, I will agree with you. Other than that, stop talking about things that you don't know anything about.

The reason to go 64-bit is simple: You get access to more system memory, you can use native 64-bit applications, which execute faster, and games get access to the full limits of your hardware (Far Cry, for example, had a huge benefit when run on 64-bit hardware). While there aren't many games out there now that will take advantage of it, there aren't many games that will take advantage of quad cores, either. The point is, the capability is there, and the applications that do run 64-bit will run nicely. There is no downside to running 64-bit, unless you're stuck with old Windows 3.1/DOS apps, which you can emulate, anyway.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

That's what I said...Only with more words, and foxness. <..<
Well, at least I was giving the right ideas, just not really explaining it fully. =P


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Oh, and this is going to be sweet. Silly jaded programmers.
> 
> Simple. Your 64-bit CPU is stuck doing 32-bit instructions on a 32-bit OS. That's hardly taking full advantage of your CPU's capabilities. Even if most of the applications you use are 32-bit, having the kernel and file manager running 64-bit makes things smoother.



Effectively throwing away half of your cache with pointers that are twice as long is sure great for performance, isn't it?

"the kernel and file manager" don't care about how many bits are in a word or address, save that you can directly access a larger amount of space with a longer one.

The only real benefit the 64-bit instructions have is that your programs finally have a real number of registers. Congratulations, Intel, you've caught up to the 68000.



> Examples, please. None of the hardware that Hyena is using will have problems on 64-bit Windows



Searching google gives plenty of results for people who can't find 64-bit drivers for their scanners, their webcams, their tablets, their printers. Sure, newer stuff probably has a driver, but try telling someone "go buy a new $x, you can't fix your old one."



> Stop talking about things that you don't know anything about.


You first.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Simple. Your 64-bit CPU is stuck doing 32-bit instructions on a 32-bit OS. That's hardly taking full advantage of your CPU's capabilities. Even if most of the applications you use are 32-bit, having the kernel and file manager running 64-bit makes things smoother.


This post does not actually contain any information.  I am not a hardware geek, so feel free to actually enlighten me, but this does not do it.

*Why* are things "smoother" when the kernel and file manager run 64-bit?  If they only need 32-bit addresses and don't otherwise need 64-bit integers, _what is this huge performance benefit of a 64-bit OS_?

This is like saying that I'm not taking "full advantage" of this <textarea> if I don't completely fill it.  If I don't _need_ to, what does it matter?  Address size has no direct correspondence to speed as far as I am aware.


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

You know, I just realized something. I'd feel a lot better about listening to you and a lot worse about being a condescending prick if you  used your computers to do actual work. But you all seem to be so fixated upon games and their performance that you make statements like "ugh jaded programmers". Sure, let's call the people who actually know the how and why "jaded".

The _only_ reason you're seeing performance benefits at all in 64-bit mode is because 64-bit x86 finally has a useful amount of registers. It is not due to the larger words, and in fact that would cause a slowdown if they didn't increase the number of registers.

oops i must be wasting those 5 gigs of RAM in our main NFS server....

```
@userhost:~ $ uname -a 
Linux userhost 2.6.9-78.0.5.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Sep 24 05:41:12 EDT 2008 [b]i686[/b] i686 i386 GNU/Linux
@userhost:~ $ free -m 
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          [b]8054[/b]       6615       1438          0        506       5666
-/+ buffers/cache:        442       7611
Swap:        12001          0      12001
```


----------



## net-cat (Nov 10, 2008)

Ah, the joys of 64-bit driver searching. It's not difficult, as long as you know to look for Windows Server 2003 x64 drivers. Of course, good luck finding Windows Server 2003 drivers for, say, your scanner. Or your multi-function printer. Or your non-generic gamepad. Or your USB-to-Serial adapter.

Yes, I'll grant that x64 drivers are more plentiful than they were when XP x64 came out. But they are hardly ubiquitous.

EDIT: And yes. x86 has a lulz-tastically small amount of registers.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

Pi said:


> You know, I just realized something. I'd feel a lot better about listening to you and a lot worse about being a condescending prick if you  used your computers to do actual work. But you all seem to be so fixated upon games and their performance that you make statements like "ugh jaded programmers". Sure, let's call the people who actually know the how and why "jaded".


I'd be content if they just stopped assuming they knew how anything works just because they followed online tutorials on how to arrange their hardware to get another frame per second out of the latest tech demo masquerading as a pro game.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

> Searching google gives plenty of results for people who can't find 64-bit drivers for their scanners, their webcams, their tablets, their printers. Sure, newer stuff probably has a driver, but try telling someone "go buy a new $x, you can't fix your old one."


64-bit Vista and Vista in general is meant mostly for new machines, not software upgrades - And in this case, you might as well call it a new machine. If your 2001 printer doesn't work any more, tough. _Most_ printers/scanners/tablets have 64-bit XP drivers (which should work fine) if they were made since 2003, so that's not an issue. Webcams? Well, sure, but a webcam that old can't have very good quality in comparison to something newer. Give it to your cousin and buy a new one. Most of the things you're looking at are end of life hardware that's no longer supported by the manufacturer, in which case it's time for an upgrade anyway. People are too attached to their old toys; Heaven forbid your Deskjet 610c doesn't work with Vista 64.



> Why are things "smoother" when the kernel and file manager run 64-bit? If they only need 32-bit addresses and don't otherwise need 64-bit integers, what is this huge performance benefit of a 64-bit OS?


Well, just like you're not a hardware geek, I'm not a programmer, so I can't explain the specifics of that, but in every instance I've seen of 64-bit Windows (on high and low-end hardware), performance on the system level, including Explorer, has felt significantly faster than with the same hardware on 32-bit Windows. While it may not universally be the case, this benchmark shows that performance is higher in several cases and overall, even on older hardware (Sempron 2800+). Performance may be slightly higher or slower depending on the task, though I've always noted an increase in responsiveness in 64-bit vs 32-bit. From my understanding, there are extra registers that become available in 64-bit, which can increase system performance as well.

Here's another benchmark to take a look at. Note that later in the article, some surprising results come from the 64-bit OS (for the worse), but the general trend is that it's slightly faster overall, and this is with 32-bit apps.

Here's another one.





> Address size has no direct correspondence to speed as far as I am aware.


Perhaps not, but you do get many other benefits alongside the performance gains in applications that support it (Far Cry, as cited earlier, has a huge benefit to using 64-bit Windows), not to mention that address size isn't the only difference between the 64-bit and 32-bit architecture (as I said just now, there are more registers that can be used at once, more instruction sets, etc). You also get things like virtualization, enhanced DEP, "Secure" Internet Explorer (sandboxed, from what I gather, and for what it's worth), Kernel Patch Protection, and so on. Signed drivers tend to be more stable, as well.

EDIT:



> I'd feel a lot better about listening to you and a lot worse about being a condescending prick if you used your computers to do actual work.


Oh, yes, I do use my computer for work, thanks for noticing. The point behind performance is to get the best value for your money - Something you don't seem to understand. The whole point of having a quad core processor is to do more things faster, and the whole point in having a higher clock speed, more registers, a larger cache, or anything of that nature is because of performance. That's the name of the game, and if you weren't living in the 90's, you might understand that.

It's totally possible to run on a 486 with 32MB of RAM running Windows 95 if all you're doing is word processing, _programming_, checking your e-mail, and web browsing. In fact, I'd recommend it. But if you're playing games, then fuck, you need performance. That's the whole fucking point. And guess what Hyena is doing? _Playing games_. That's the whole goddamned reason for asking for advice here.

_You have missed the point *entirely*_.



> I'd be content if they just stopped assuming they knew how anything works just because they followed online tutorials on how to arrange their hardware to get another frame per second out of the latest tech demo masquerading as a pro game.


Though you're an asshole, I'm less annoyed by that. I do know how things work, though I'm not a programmer or a hardware engineer. I'm a computer technician, so I work with what I'm given, not what I make myself. I'll put together a computer from parts in under an hour and have it running well. That's the point.

_That's the *point*_.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

Oh and just to remind everybody the main reason the OP wants this, *is for gaming*. So, commenting that gaming doesn't matter is just going by your views, not helping the OP at all....

I think he got it figured out anyway, if he is still following along I hope he just makes the right choices and is satisfied in the end.


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> 64-bit Vista and Vista in general is meant mostly for new machines, not software upgrades - And in this case, you might as well call it a new machine. If your 2001 printer doesn't work any more, tough. _Most_ printers/scanners/tablets have 64-bit XP drivers (which should work fine) if they were made since 2003, so that's not an issue. Webcams? Well, sure, but a webcam that old can't have very good quality in comparison to something newer. Give it to your cousin and buy a new one. Most of the things you're looking at are end of life hardware that's no longer supported by the manufacturer, in which case it's time for an upgrade anyway. People are too attached to their old toys; Heaven forbid your Deskjet 610c doesn't work with Vista 64.



If it works, why throw it away? Seems wasteful to me.



> Well, just like you're not a hardware geek, I'm not a programmer,



So what was that about talking about things you don't understand?



> Performance may be slightly higher or slower depending on the task, though I've always noted an increase in responsiveness in 64-bit vs 32-bit. From my understanding, there are extra registers that become available in 64-bit, which can increase system performance as well.



I've always noticed an increase in responsiveness when my monitor brightness is turned all the way up.

And yeah, the number of useful registers goes up. I said that already. However, if 32-bit mode got those registers, you'd probably see even better performance, because x86 has a pathetic number of registers compared to every other architecture out there. It has _nothing_ to do with 64-bit mode, and 64-bit mode would actually slow things down because, as I said above, you stuff the cache with pointers twice as large, not to mention you have to manipulate pointers twice as large. Larger things take more time to deal with.



> Perhaps not, but you do get many other benefits alongside the performance gains in applications that support it (Far Cry, as cited earlier, has a huge benefit to using 64-bit Windows), not to mention that address size isn't the only difference between the 64-bit and 32-bit architecture (as I said just now, there are more registers that can be used at once, more instruction sets, etc). You also get things like virtualization, enhanced DEP, "Secure" Internet Explorer (sandboxed, from what I gather, and for what it's worth), Kernel Patch Protection, and so on. Signed drivers tend to be more stable, as well.



Far Cry. Wow. That's sure a good reason to upgrade to 64-bit Windows. I don't even know what the fuck it IS other than some game.

Recent enough 32-bit machines have virtualization, and DEP.

The only thing that is going to really get a performance benefit out of 64-bit words are things that use 64-bit values. Since Windows uses quite possibly the worst model for 64-bit, (LLP64), that's only applicable to programs which have been recompiled and modified to use "long long int" instead of "long int".

I challenge you to provide a source, or even reasoning WHY "signed drivers" and "64-bit" implies "more stable".



> more instruction sets


Patent bullshit, which is amusing coming after


> Stop talking about things that you don't know anything about.








			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> Oh, yes, I do use my computer for work, thanks for noticing. The point behind performance is to get the best value for your money - Something you don't seem to understand. The whole point of having a quad core processor is to do more things faster, and the whole point in having a higher clock speed, more registers, a larger cache, or anything of that nature is because of performance. That's the name of the game, and if you weren't living in the 90's, you might understand that.



Speaking as a programmer, nobody knows what to DO with multicore processors. Threading, locking, and concurrency is a Hard Problem, along with memory and bus contention. There is no practical benefit to anything other than a 2-core system for 99% of users. Programs burn through CPU cycles while doing a whole lot of fucking nothing these days. There's a race for clock speed, and *clock speed isn't the issue at all!*



> It's totally possible to run on a 486 with 32MB of RAM running Windows 95 if all you're doing is word processing, _programming_, checking your e-mail, and web browsing.



But I'm not. I'm doing cross-compiles of entire operating systems. When I patch the kernel or rebuild the entire userland, I don't want to do it on the target machine, which is a 400mhz G4 with 384 megs of ram, or the p166 with 64. 

"Windows 95" ... "In fact, I'd recommend it."

ahahahahahahaha



> But if you're playing games, then fuck, you need performance. That's the whole fucking point. And guess what Hyena is doing? _Playing games_. That's the whole goddamned reason for asking for advice here.
> 
> _You have missed the point *entirely*_.



Arguing that 64-bit is the reason for performance benefit in anything other than Far Cry is stupid and wrong.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

> If it works, why throw it away? Seems wasteful to me.


Give it to someone else. I mean, fuck, why are you sitting on your 8088?



> So what was that about talking about things you don't understand?


Exactly. I don't understand programming. That doesn't mean I don't understand computers - I think the inverse is true for you.



> I've always noticed an increase in responsiveness when my monitor brightness is turned all the way up.


Hit the benchmarks, dumbass.



> Far Cry. Wow. That's sure a good reason to upgrade to 64-bit Windows. I don't even know what the fuck it IS other than some game.


That's why you shouldn't be posting in this thread.



> Recent enough 32-bit machines have virtualization, and DEP.


DEP is software-based on 32-bit machines, whereas 64-bit machines have hardware-driven DEP, which provides higher security and higher performance for DEP. That lost you some points.



> I challenge you to provide a source, or even reasoning WHY "signed drivers" and "64-bit" implies "more stable".


Simple. Because 64-bit Vista requires signed drivers by default, hence, more stable drivers. Durr.



> Patent bullshit, which is (words)


So you're telling me that SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4, as well as 3DNow, MMX, and every other instruction set, ever, is patent bullshit? Go back to your 486.

Again, I repeat: *You have missed the point of this thread.*

EDIT:



> Speaking as a programmer, nobody knows what to DO with multicore processors. Threading, locking, and concurrency is a Hard Problem, along with memory and bus contention. There is no practical benefit to anything other than a 2-core system for 99% of users. Programs burn through CPU cycles while doing a whole lot of fucking nothing these days. There's a race for clock speed, and clock speed isn't the issue at all!


Fine. Play DiRT on your 486 and see what happens. Programs burn cycles, yes, but the cycles they use for useful things happen faster on a faster clock than on a slower clock of the same CPU. Games don't burn cycles, typically; There's lots going on, but if you weren't so busy programming a new version of Notepad, you might understand that.



> But I'm not. I'm doing cross-compiles of entire operating systems. When I patch the kernel or rebuild the entire userland, I don't want to do it on the target machine, which is a 400mhz G4 with 384 megs of ram, or the p166 with 64.


I'm happy for you, but he's not doing any of that shit.



> "Windows 95" ... "In fact, I'd recommend it."
> 
> ahahahahahahaha


Windows 95 is pretty solid. It served me well for a number of years, and it's blazing fast on a P166.



> Arguing that 64-bit is the reason for performance benefit in anything other than Far Cry is stupid and wrong.


You know what? No. You're wrong. Check the benchmarks, try it out yourself. Take your head out of your stupid ass and look around a bit and read what I'm saying. At this point, you're doing nothing but bury yourself in your own ignorance, and honestly, you don't know what you're talking about in the computer world any further than what you can do in Vi. You have no concept of the hardware, no concept of modern software, and no concept of any use of a computer other than what you do in your own world. So either learn a bit about what's going on in this thread, or go bury your head in the sand somewhere, because you're not making any headway with me, and you're only making yourself seem like a self-indulgent, arrogant prick who will talk at length about subjects he has no comprehension of.


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Give it to someone else. I mean, fuck, why are you sitting on your 8088?


 I gave the 8088 to someone else.



> Exactly. I don't understand programming. That doesn't mean I don't understand computers - I think the inverse is true for you.



what does that even mean.



> Hit the benchmarks, dumbass.


Leaning entirely on benchmarks is useless dickwaving, you glistening cocktrap.


> That's why you shouldn't be posting in this thread.


Because I use my computer to do real work?



> DEP is software-based on 32-bit machines, whereas 64-bit machines have hardware-driven DEP, which provides higher security and higher performance for DEP. That lost you some points.


Later revisions of the 32-bit x86 hardware does have hardware NX.

Simple. Because 64-bit Vista requires signed drivers by default, hence, more stable drivers. Durr.
[/quote]
that's not a fucking direct consequence of 64-bit mode. You lose.



> So you're telling me that SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4, as well as 3DNow, MMX, and every other instruction set, ever, is patent bullshit? Go back to your 486.
> 
> Again, I repeat: *You have missed the point of this thread.*


the 32-bit CPUs have those instructions. They're not "new instruction sets", they're "extensions to the x86 instruction set". Use the proper nomenclature.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> That's the name of the game, and if you weren't living in the 90's, you might understand that.


You seem to have "asking people to quality their assertions" confused with something else.  I cannot figure out where this "living in the 90s" thing aimed at Pi and myself is coming from; we're stone agers if we don't jack off to the latest overpriced crap nvidia churns out?



Runefox said:


> In fact, I'd recommend it. But if you're playing games, then fuck, you need performance. That's the whole fucking point.


Hi!  I play games.

Why is that the whole fucking point, exactly?  Why do I need to rub my dick on benchmarks trying to squeeze every last frame out of techdemogaems, but the same doesn't apply to any other task?  What makes you think that mindless entertainment is the only thing in the world that people want to run faster?



Runefox said:


> And guess what Hyena is doing? _Playing games_. That's the whole goddamned reason for asking for advice here.


I don't remember ever talking to the OP.



Runefox said:


> Though you're an asshole


It was directed more at Newf, who is far more egregious an offender and who I was replying to in the first place.

This entire culture of buying whatever parts did slightly better on someone's chart and then being a smug dickhole about it gets on my nerves.  :3  I replied to Newf in the first place because he was making vague claims about the mechanics of something.  It's fine to say "this does better in benchmarks", but no, we have to explain how the code achieves optimal synergy when the memory addressing schematic has double the reference quadrants to work with.



Runefox said:


> I do know how things work


You linked me benchmarks and gave me anecdotes.



Runefox said:


> _That's the *point*_.


The point of what..?


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Fine. Play DiRT on your 486 and see what happens. Programs burn cycles, yes, but the cycles they use for useful things happen faster on a faster clock than on a slower clock of the same CPU. Games don't burn cycles, typically; There's lots going on, but if you weren't so busy programming a new version of Notepad, you might understand that.


You don't really have a concept of what I do.


> You know what? No. You're wrong. Check the benchwords


Repeat after me: benchmarks are dickwaving.



> So either learn a bit about what's going on in this thread, or go bury your head in the sand somewhere, because you're not making any headway with me, and you're only making yourself seem like a self-indulgent, arrogant prick who will talk at length about subjects he has no comprehension of.


bhbahhahahaaahahahahahahahahahaahh


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

> Far Cry. Wow. That's sure a good reason to upgrade to 64-bit Windows. I don't even know what the fuck it IS other than some game.



Then why are you here?
Why are you arguing with people actually attempting to assist the OP with what he wants, not what you think is best for YOU. And the only reason it's best for you is either because you're unable to let go of garbage. Or, you're just afraid of change, even if it is better, your excuse being you don't need it, when any performance is always wanted if it's at no extra cost.

You don't have somebody give you a cash tip, and you say you don't need it and decline it. Seriously....

Lets see what the OP wanted.



> I'm having a really hard time playing quite a few games, HL2, Oblivion and Bioshock, More specifically I'm having issues with a game called "Dirt" its a rally racing game that is really awesome...
> 
> ANYWAY. My question is, being tight on cash, I really don't want to spend a whole ton of money into this computer. I figure get it bearable and leave it alone, then upgrade when stuff gets cheaper, or blow all the cash I've been saving up (for things other than computer nonsense) and get a top of the line system.



Hmm...so, from your view games don't matter. Fine, create your own thread and argue with the OP that. It's something I'm sure you will enjoy; hearing yourself talk and actually having somebody agree.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> You know what? No. You're wrong. Check the benchmarks, try it out yourself.


You don't seem to understand.

*I don't give half a fuck about benchmarks.*

I am a _geek_.  I like to know _how and why things work_, not what the Internet thinks I should use or do.  I like to know _reasons_.  I don't care about a fucking chart someone put together in Excel last night; they are pointless except as a starting point for figuring out _why_ this or that is better or worse, and the more general in scope they get, the less useful they are.  I entered this thread asking about _why_ something would be better, but all you want to do is assert to me that it _is_ better.



Runefox said:


> At this point, you're doing nothing but bury yourself in your own ignorance, and honestly, you don't know what you're talking about in the computer world any further than what you can do in Vi. You have no concept of the hardware, no concept of modern software, and no concept of any use of a computer other than what you do in your own world.


I am bewildered that you continually insult Pi's knowledge without qualifying such or making a comparatively impressive demonstration of your own.



NewfDraggie said:


> Then why are you here?


Whoa welcome to forums!


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

Eevee said:


> I am bewildered that you continually insult Pi's knowledge without qualifying such or making a comparatively impressive demonstration of your own.



It's pretty self-indulgent and arrogant of him, isn't it?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

So, you want to know how something is working, rather than how it performs?

Like, you have the ability to test everything before you purchase it, or at least show how it compares to other products of similar nature and price....wait...you mean benchmarks?

The only time benchmarks don't mean anything is when you're wrong. You will use them to back up what you're saying, but the second somebody else uses them "Benchmarks are dickwaving". 

I'd rather know that the 4870 gets 5 frames less in performance to the GTX280, but also costs less. Rather than buying one hoping it's what I wanted because the specs are better....

I don't see how you could possibly be serious...


----------



## WarMocK (Nov 10, 2008)

Hmmm ....
Considering that the AMD would be a temporary fix for a year or so - would it be THAT bad? 
Doing a minor investment to catch up with the development on the game market would be appropriate (imho) since it would buy you another year to save more money for a better system (Quad Core, two video cards running in SLI/CrossFire mode, a real sound card instead of this onboard crap, a good dose of RAM and a bigger harddrive). And you can still sell your old system to someone else to get your investments back (I'd say even your current system is worth more than just 40 Dollars ;-)).


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

> what does that even mean.


Ah, run out of words, I see. It means you can't adequately advise anyone in terms of purchase advice for a computer in the modern world, because you're so out of touch with what people use computers for nowadays that your head isn't screwed on right anymore. More or less.



> Leaning entirely on benchmarks is useless dickwaving, you glistening cocktrap.


Thanks for the flame. Benchmarks are extremely useful, actually, when you're looking for what to buy in a new computer, especially for gaming. If you can't understand that, then please, go back to your Vi console and stop talking. The stupid is oozing out your ears.



> that's not a fucking direct consequence of 64-bit mode. You lose.


It's not, no, but it's a direct consequence of using 64-bit Windows, which is the point here. You lose.



> Later revisions of the 32-bit x86 hardware does have hardware NX.


Yes, and they also had 64-bit extensions. And Windows won't use any of that unless it's running the 64-bit kernel. You lose.



> the 32-bit CPUs have those instructions. They're not "new instruction sets", they're "extensions to the x86 instruction set". Use the proper nomenclature.


Show me a 32-bit CPU with SSE4 and I'll give you a cookie. Or not.



> the 32-bit CPUs have those instructions. They're not "new instruction sets", they're "extensions to the x86 instruction set". Use the proper nomenclature.


Thanks, grammar nazi. I wasn't really aware that I was talking about x86 or x86-64 specifically. I always thought this topic was about SPARC or something. Again, thanks for the correction, Captain Obvious.



> Hi! I play games.


Solitaire doesn't count, and nor do consoles.



> You seem to have "asking people to quality their assertions" confused with something else. I cannot figure out where this "living in the 90s" thing aimed at Pi and myself is coming from; we're stone agers if we don't jack off to the latest overpriced crap nvidia churns out?


No, you're stone-agers because you (or at least, Pi) haven't had a new piece of hardware in over a decade and can't understand anyone who has.



> Why is that the whole fucking point, exactly? Why do I need to rub my dick on benchmarks trying to squeeze every last frame out of techdemogaems, but the same doesn't apply to any other task? What makes you think that mindless entertainment is the only thing in the world that people want to run faster?


Because that's what he wanted to run faster in the beginning of the thread? Because performance in games and the system as a whole tend to go hand in hand? Because you rub your dick to trying to sound like you know what you're talking about when telling someone they're wrong for recommending something that might give them higher performance based on their use of a computer, because you can't understand why they'd need it, despite the fact that there is no extra cost involved nor problem in doing so? Yeah, that sums up the point well, I think.



> This entire culture of buying whatever parts did slightly better on someone's chart and then being a smug dickhole about it gets on my nerves. :3 I replied to Newf in the first place because he was making vague claims about the mechanics of something. It's fine to say "this does better in benchmarks", but no, we have to explain how the code achieves optimal synergy when the memory addressing schematic has double the reference quadrants to work with.


No, you're going too far into it. He's not fucking around with code like you guys are. He's doing _exactly what you're talking about with the benchmarks_, trying to get more performance in games. He's not posting to ask what kind of computer will best compile the latest nightly release of Firefox, or his kernel, or anything else like that - He's asking about what the best value for the dollar is in terms of performance. And that's what I gave him. Benchmarks are extremely useful for this - Your technical info about code synergy has no bearing on that. Why are you even here?



> You linked me benchmarks and gave me anecdotes.


Which in this case has more value than the technical details of x86-64 and Windows Vista 64's kernel innards.



> The point of what..?


You should know by now. Stop playing dumb. Either wake up and realize that he's not asking for your outdated, supertechnical advice, or stop posting. Simple.



> You don't really have a concept of what I do.


No, and I don't really care, either. I'm not talking about what you do. This topic isn't about you or anything related to you. It's about hardware advice for someone looking to play DiRT and newer games. How many times must I remind you of that?



> Repeat after me: benchmarks are dickwaving.


No. Benchmarks are useful when weighing which piece of hardware to buy over another. When you're looking to buy a new computer, benchmarks are good. Why would anyone want to pay more for something slower? That's the point of a benchmark. What you're doing is more dickwaving than a benchmark ever will be.



> bhbahhahahaaahahahahahahahahahaahh


You lose. I refuse to comment any further on anything you have to say. You're not mature enough.



> Eevee: words


This isn't about you. It was never about you. You like to know how things tick? Fine. So do I. But you know what? Hyena probably doesn't give a rat's ass. He wants to know what to buy to build his computer. He wants to know what might give him better performance for his money. You're not helping him with that. You're not doing anything like that.

All you and Pi have done in this thread have whipped out your wrinkled, greasy cocks and waved them around in everyone's faces, shoving them in each other's faces in a desperate attempt to reinforce your knowledge of the intricacies of computers and programming, when in reality all you're doing is masturbating with each other. Get over yourself - This topic isn't about you, and benchmarks are useful whether you like them or not, whether you understand why or not, and whether you really need a faster computer or not.

_For the last time, this thread is not about you, programming, your dick, or your mother. It is about a person seeking advice as to what kind of computer he or she should end up with. It is about gaining the highest performance for the dollar._ If you can't handle that, whether you think you're right or wrong, then you shouldn't be posting in this thread, no matter who you are.

You guys aren't worth my time. This is my final post here in this thread, and I hope you haven't fucked up Hyena's plans, because you certainly haven't helped.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> So, you want to know how something is working, rather than how it performs?
> 
> Like, you have the ability to test everything before you purchase it, or at least show how it compares to other products of similar nature and price....


how are these sentences related


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> a whole lot of words



thank you for your massive missive of rage, it warms my heart to imagine you redfaced and screaming behind your screen. You have truly proven yourself to be the better, more-educated and rational man.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

I would like to say that I wish to see all of these stupid posts deleted, my own included. This has nothing to do with the thread, and it's not fair to Hyena that this pissing contest happened in his thread.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

Pi said:
			
		

> thank you for your massive missive of rage, it warms my heart to imagine you redfaced and screaming behind your screen. You have truly proven yourself to be the better, more-educated and rational man.



Runefox wins. You're both a Troll for going *way offtopic* and way to immature to have a discussion or argument, even in the appropriate topic.

At least a few people were staying ontopic (Directed @WarMocK) But it's gone too far now, hopefully OP has what he ask and came here for.

Eevee, I would think you would know you don't walk into a computer store where somebody is asking questions, being answered and given reasoning behind getting this system (benchmarks, stats, gaming frames-per-second, and etc) then suddenly burst out your opinion. That they should just take this old obsolete junk heap home and just do what you do with it.... You'd actually be removed from the store around here.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Solitaire doesn't count, and nor do consoles.


Okay hurr I play 3D games _on my computer_.



Runefox said:


> Because that's what he wanted to run faster in the beginning of the thread? Because performance in games and the system as a whole tend to go hand in hand?


You weren't talking about the OP in that little rant; you were talking about running non-game apps in general, and said it's fine to do them on old hardware.  (You'd recommend compilation on a 486 under win95?  Ick.)  This answer is a complete non sequitur, as most of yours seem to be.



Runefox said:


> Because you rub your dick to trying to sound like you know what you're talking about when telling someone they're wrong
> 
> Either wake up and realize that he's not asking for your outdated, supertechnical advice


I don't recall ever giving the OP advice one way or another.  I don't even know who the OP is.

I'm feeling really unappreciated here.  Could you at least try to find some angry ranting with _some_ grounding in reality?



Runefox said:


> Why are you even here?


Oh gosh.  Someone on a forum made a statement I found questionable and I asked about it.  How dare I.



Runefox said:


> No, and I don't really care, either. I'm not talking about what you do. This topic isn't about you or anything related to you. It's about hardware advice for someone looking to play DiRT and newer games. How many times must I remind you of that?


I don't know why you think I care what the thread was originally about.  Welcome to human discourse.  If someone else has advice for the OP, e is free to chime in anytime.



Runefox said:


> this thread this thread blah blah blah


oh


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

Alright, I'm going to throw some things out here maybe to clarify some of the stuff that's going on? 

I have a copy and COA of Windows Vist Home Premium 32bit from my emachines. 

I also have Windows Vista Business 32bit as well as 64bit. I also have Windows XP Professional. 

I ALSO have a copy of Windows Vista Enterprise 64bit and Ultimate 64bit. 

All of my copies of Windows are legitimate real copies, not pirated stuff. 


NOW I would like to say on the hardware level, the reason this system is only costing me $380 something is because I already have my 8800GT, I already have the sound card in my computer. all this stuff is just on a not so fast CPU and kinda crappy board. If I had to buy the sound card and video card the total would be somewhere around $690 I believe.


Now, as far as 64bit is concerned. I have a workstation that I use 64bit Windows Buisness as well as 32bit Windows Business and Windows XP Pro (triple boot) 

The workstation is: 

AMD Sempron 2800+ Socket 754 x86-64 processor
2GB DDR 400 RAM
Nvidia Quadro FX3000 256MB
3X 80GB Western Digital Hard Drives

Honestly, 64 bit windows from what I can see on this system seems a lot more responsive, things are slightly faster, not terribly noticeable if you're coming from 32bit windows VISTA. If you are coming from XP Professional however, 64bit Vista is insanely fast, and a lot more productive as well. With the programs I use, I have to prefer Vista over XP anymore because of Vista's ram management. 

I haven't yet found many things to be terribly incompatible. for things like my mobo and my onboard audio and things like that, Windows Update already had drivers ready for me and such on 64bit so there wasn't really any issues. if there is something that generally gets mad at me in Vista, you can just run it in Windows XP Compatibility Mode.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

OK, in that case, I'd recommend you use the Ultimate 64-bit DVD and enter the COA for Vista Home Premium into it. It will automatically install Home Premium 64-bit (actually, any Vista disc will install any version of Vista, given the right COA).

Again, the motherboard I'd recommend for the Intel chip would be the ASUS P5Q-SE Plus.


----------



## WarMocK (Nov 10, 2008)

Like I said, you should probably stick to your old system for a while and buy the AMD. You won't be able to play the newest stuff with maxed details (one 8800GT isn't enough, and you'd need some more RAM), but it should serve you for another year. And a lot can happen in that time when it comes down to hardware development. ^^

As for the OS: stick to Runefox's advice, can't tell if he's right or wrong since I personally don't use Vista.


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 10, 2008)

Hyena said:


> Alrighty, so I have made a choice of what I'm going to do here.
> 
> I'm actually going to stop playing Dirt, I'm going to save up just a tiny bit more (going to sell off some spare towers I have laying around too) and I'm going to build the quad core system now.
> 
> ...



Whatever you do, you really need to get a good PSU for this system.  Do not use a no-name that came out of an e-machines, no matter what the wattage is.  Quads in particular need a lot of power on the 12V rails.  An old crappy PSU could give you errors at best and a roasted system at worst.

Just FYI, for most applications (like games) a higher clocked dual-core like an E8400 will be faster than a lower clocked quad.

IMHO, ditch the X-fi and the Creative bloatware.  Onboard sound is better than it used to be, and you can add it later if you want.


----------



## Pi (Nov 10, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> As for the OS: stick to Runefox's advice, can't tell if he's right or wrong since I personally don't use Vista.



what


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

> IMHO, ditch the X-fi and the Creative bloatware. Onboard sound is better than it used to be, and you can add it later if you want.


The X-Fi should increase game performance for those that support it (via OpenAL under Vista), and in addition should provide higher quality output regardless of the onboard sound. The Creative apps won't put a dent in 4GB of RAM - I should know. 

Edit: That "HOT, HOT, HOT!" is interesting. I wonder what that is.
Edit2: It's gone now. I think someone in admin position is having fun.
Edit3: ... OK. That's just silly. I had no idea that was the case.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> OK, in that case, I'd recommend you use the Ultimate 64-bit DVD and enter the COA for Vista Home Premium into it. It will automatically install Home Premium 64-bit (actually, any Vista disc will install any version of Vista, given the right COA).
> 
> Again, the motherboard I'd recommend for the Intel chip would be the ASUS P5Q-SE Plus.



Why would you recommend Vista Home over Vista Business? Just curious.  Or I guess why Home Premium over Ultimate/Buisness.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

Well, Ultimate would be best, but Home Premium will give you the Media Centre, Vista Aero, and pretty much the basic Vista system. Business/Enterprise only really add Remote Desktop (RDP), which can be added anyway, BitLocker, and Domain support. I'm pretty sure there might be one or two other things, but really, for most use, Home Premium is good. That's what I'm using, myself, and with the RDP patch, it works great for what I use it for.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> Whatever you do, you really need to get a good PSU for this system.  Do not use a no-name that came out of an e-machines, no matter what the wattage is.  Quads in particular need a lot of power on the 12V rails.  An old crappy PSU could give you errors at best and a roasted system at worst.
> 
> Just FYI, for most applications (like games) a higher clocked dual-core like an E8400 will be faster than a lower clocked quad.
> 
> IMHO, ditch the X-fi and the Creative bloatware.  Onboard sound is better than it used to be, and you can add it later if you want.



ohh hell yea, I never use stock power supplies (the one that came with the emachines is actually pretty decent though, its a delta electronics.) BUT I'm using an Apriva 500W right now, its a really great quality PSU for what I paid for it, getting the quad system will require an upgrade anyways. I was going to get a Decent 750W if my 500W wouldn't run it. for a short time. 

the onboard sound is FAR from better. Realtek HD Audio... hell no. not better than my card at all.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Well, Ultimate would be best, but Home Premium will give you the Media Centre, Vista Aero, and pretty much the basic Vista system. Business/Enterprise only really add Remote Desktop (RDP), which can be added anyway, BitLocker, and Domain support. I'm pretty sure there might be one or two other things, but really, for most use, Home Premium is good. That's what I'm using, myself, and with the RDP patch, it works great for what I use it for.



Buisness does have aero. I dont really like Windows media center. I'm currently on Windows Vista Home Premium and I rarely use media center. The only thing Buisness lacks is Windows DVD maker, which I will miss. But Avid should have something that would work better anyways. 

I would like to use the remote desktop access since my workstation is on it, just saves me constantly plugging in and wearing out USB ports with my flashdrives. 

I really would have no idea of how to hack in remote desktop thingy into home premium. 

If I installed Ultimate, wouldn't I just get everything?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2008)

Well, yeah, you would. If you needed everything, but in that case, why bother with business?


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Well, yeah, you would. If you needed everything, but in that case, why bother with business?



I've found Business uses way less ram than most, and the thing that watches what programs you use and automatically loads them into ram doesn't do it for like Firefox and stuff. on start up my Vista business is using like 450MB average. then when doing simple things like IM, internet browsing and stuff it uses around 750MB. 

However right now, I've got Windows messenger, Yahoo messenger with 1IM window, AIM with 2IM windows, and Firefox with 3 tabs on it open and my Windows Vista Home Premium is at 1.3GB of ram being used (55%)

Not that I'm a real ram whore or anything like that, but I don't really see much of the point of it using 1.3GB right now when I haven't even been gaming or anything lately. I've only got 58 process running, which is very very low for most Vista computers I've seen.

I guess I'll just do Ultimate, I'll get everything then anyways and wont have to hack it. I've never even opened the box for Ultimate, so new computer, new OS I guess?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

Pidgen baby. Best thing for IM's. I use Skype for any voice/video anyway.

But yea, just go with what you feel works really, I just simply suggest any Vista 64-bit OS.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Pidgen baby. Best thing for IM's. I use Skype for any voice/video anyway.
> 
> But yea, just go with what you feel works really, I just simply suggest any Vista 64-bit OS.



I tried using Pidgen and I came to REALLY hate it. its a wonderful program if you're on Ubuntu, but I got so many horrid errors constantly with Pidgin. Sounds would stop working, buddy list would go blank, it would drop contacts, sounds would start boosting themselves, sometimes it would freak out on XP and crash XP, random times it would just sit there using 100% of the CPU. my display image, whomever used my computer on pidgin would have that icon no matter what. 

Pidgin is very poorly designed, its great on linux... horrible for PC/MAC


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 10, 2008)

really? I switched there a month ago or more and the only issues I've had were not paying attention and looking for things that were in the plugins part, after I found it all it's been the best IM client I've used. AIM, YIM, MSN, and IRC. 

It might be because either Vista where you had it on XP, or patched.


----------



## Roland (Nov 10, 2008)

Hyena said:


> Pidgin is very poorly designed, its great on linux... horrible for PC/MAC



Well... Yeah, that's what it was designed for. 

Also, I have a few friends that love Pidgin to death and use it on their Windows machines.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 10, 2008)

Hyena said:


> I tried using Pidgen and I came to REALLY hate it. its a wonderful program if you're on Ubuntu, but I got so many horrid errors constantly with Pidgin. Sounds would stop working, buddy list would go blank, it would drop contacts, sounds would start boosting themselves, sometimes it would freak out on XP and crash XP, random times it would just sit there using 100% of the CPU. my display image, whomever used my computer on pidgin would have that icon no matter what.
> 
> Pidgin is very poorly designed, its great on linux... horrible for PC/MAC


If you want to try Pidgin, don't switch between Pidgin and the "real" client. It only causes headaches when you do that.

As for the Mac and Windows ports of it, the Windows port has gotten bearable. This is mainly a product of the fact that the Windows port of GTK is getting bearable. The Mac port is shit. Try Adium X, which is based on libpurple. If you really want to get daring, try finch, which is a curses (console) based version.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 10, 2008)

net-cat said:


> If you want to try Pidgin, don't switch between Pidgin and the "real" client. It only causes headaches when you do that.
> 
> As for the Mac and Windows ports of it, the Windows port has gotten bearable. This is mainly a product of the fact that the Windows port of GTK is getting bearable. The Mac port is shit. Try Adium X, which is based on libpurple. If you really want to get daring, try finch, which is a curses (console) based version.




Naw, I used to use Pidgin, I hate all the all in ones except for Adium for mac and Jivetalk (bee jive IM) for my blackberry. of course... none of those work on Windows  I really don't mind just using the real messengers.


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 10, 2008)

Hyena said:


> the onboard sound is FAR from better. Realtek HD Audio... hell no. not better than my card at all.



I didn't claim that onboard audio was good, just better than it used to be. 

I think I was remembering all the trouble the first generation X-Fi's had--bad drivers, glitches with 4GB, glitches with Nforce...  I've heard they are better now, but for a long time the short answer to anyone considering an X-Fi was: don't!


----------



## Tilt (Nov 11, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I'd recommend ASUS almost exclusively; Gigabyte's all-solid capacitor boards are extremely good, but I would be wary of their standard electrolyte-based boards. Look for the "Ultra Durable All-Solid Capacitor Design" icon if you're looking into Gigabyte boards. Abit have been traditionally great, but I haven't seen anything new from them in ages. They don't seem to have the market penetration up here in Canada (or maybe just Newfoundland) that they used to enjoy.



Are we looking at this from a price point view? Because if we are, and price isn't so much an issue I would recommend SuperMicro over Asus simply because they just make good boards. Asus has some neat hot-rodding options and its prices are acceptable, and in the past, they have made one or two really problem-free awesome boards, like the  p4p800-e, but Supermicro boards are rock-solid performers all around. Its what professionals use. These are server/workstation grade boards, which means they are stable under stress.

As for processors,raw power per core vs number of cores available is your magic number. Yes, you can get a Quad AMD or Intel for cheap, but because of diminishing returns, the only real performance jumps you get will still be in the same areas,Rendering,Encoding, and in some cases,physics. If you were building a Video Editing/Music production/Graphics production/3D Workstation, I would say go for it, but this looks like a gaming build.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 11, 2008)

net-cat said:


> As for the Mac and Windows ports of it, the Windows port has gotten bearable.  This is mainly a product of the fact that the Windows port of GTK is getting bearable.


Whoa what it's been great on Windows ever since gaim 2 beta.  Before that it was a bit of a pain but still fairly solid, and I don't know that the interface problems were really GTK's fault (e.g. GIMP and X-Chat using the same GTK were just fine).

I don't know what the hell Hyena did to incur its wrath, but Pidgin's rarely done me wrong on either Windows on Linux.



net-cat said:


> The Mac port is shit.


.......people use Pidgin on Macs?


----------

