Whatcha think about my specs?

Atari said:
No, 32 Bit Operating Systems can only address 4 GB of System Memory total. TOTAL.
Meaning that if you have a 1 GB graphics card, you will be left with only 3 GB of address space.
Click to expand...
Just real quick, I never saw this corrected. You're talking about onboard video. the Video ram is addressed by the GPU on AGP/PCI/e, etc... He'd still be able to address his 4GB, and additional cards in the machine will not affect that unless the software has gone rogue or something

Also, as far as unlocking "additional cores"... Dude, just buy a quad core. It's not that much more expensive, and it's way better than to risk frying your whole system to save a few bucks.

You have to realize that these CPU's all come out of the same assembly line (so to speak). They're rated at those speeds with those features for a reason. A quad core @ 2.5GHz is only that simply because it didn't have imperfections that a Dual core @ 2GHz DID have... That's why it's hit-or-miss when people go to overclock them, and you don't have uniform results down the line.

Also, 100th post.
 
machjas said:
Also, as far as unlocking "additional cores"... Dude, just buy a quad core. It's not that much more expensive, and it's way better than to risk frying your whole system to save a few bucks.

You have to realize that these CPU's all come out of the same assembly line (so to speak). They're rated at those speeds with those features for a reason. A quad core @ 2.5GHz is only that simply because it didn't have imperfections that a Dual core @ 2GHz DID have... That's why it's hit-or-miss when people go to overclock them, and you don't have uniform results down the line.
Click to expand...

He won't fry his system, trust me. He might have to reset his BIOS settings, but its highly unlikely anything worse than that will happen as long as he checks his cores for stability and keeps an eye on his temperatures.

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Phenom II Dual-Cores became so popular that AMD started using fully functioning (not binned) quad cores to meet demands. They still make a profit either way and that's why there is such a high chance of success with "unlocking" these cores.
 
machjas said:
Atari said:
No, 32 Bit Operating Systems can only address 4 GB of System Memory total. TOTAL.
Meaning that if you have a 1 GB graphics card, you will be left with only 3 GB of address space.
Click to expand...
Just real quick, I never saw this corrected. You're talking about onboard video. the Video ram is addressed by the GPU on AGP/PCI/e, etc... He'd still be able to address his 4GB, and additional cards in the machine will not affect that unless the software has gone rogue or something
Click to expand...
No, Atari is right. The operating system has to write to the card, and that 1GB comes from the 4GB.
 
I don't think the CPU is accesses dedicated video memory directly, but I'll do some googling later and check on it. If you have a reference to point me to, let me know!
 
Think logically: many gamers use the 64-bit version of whatever OS they buy. There'd be no reason for them to do this if 32-bit worked as you described.
 
That 4 gig address pool covers RAM and video memory. 32 bits just aren't enough to count any higher.

If you have 4 gigs of RAM and a 1 gig video card, and are running a 32 bit OS, you'll only have access to about 2.8 gigs of RAM. (Octal/decimal conversion.)
 
How is Win7 64-bit, compatibility wise? Because in the semi-near future, I plan on upgrading. There are a bunch of apps, games, and emulators that I want to run. I suppose I could dual-boot if it was absolutely necessary, but I want to avoid that.

Of course, I need a new hard drive and maybe a videocard first.
 
From what I've heard, it seems like many older games have problems. I can't get Fallout or Fallout 2 to run right AT ALL. They've either got fcked up colors or they screw the colors on my other programs into unusability when I mess with compatibility settings. High-res patches don't do flux. :/

Starcraft also took some work to get to run, but it works with no problems now. I wish I could change the resolution, though... seeing whatever low resolution it uses stretched into 1920 x 1080 gets kind of nauseating after a while.

Can't say Windows 7 is a whole lot better compatability-wise than Vista, though. >_>
 
First board. In fact, I would go for something better, but out of those two, first board.
 
I have an Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 Rev. 2. Works great! Only cost about $30, too, if I recall correctly. Quite valuable if you're doing overclocking or core unlocking as stock cooling won't cut it past a certain point.

Personally, though, I've been thinking of upgrading to a pre-assembled CPU water cooler that Corsair makes. Costs $80, though...
 
Sorry for bumping, but how do these sets of RAM compare to this one
G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 I was going to buy this one

Im wondering if one of these are better, and which one.

OCZ Gold 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1066 Im thinking these are a good buy, low price,good latency. But lower speed. Also some bad reviews

Two mushkins, I've heard they are a very good company.
Mushkin Enhanced Silverline 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 They have the same name, but are two different products.
Mushkin Enhanced Silverline 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3

Some GSKill ram as well.

G.SKILL NS 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3

These are all more inexpensive than my first choice, and have a better PC3 number (I actually dont know what that is).
The OCZ Gold has apparently great reviews but has a lower clock speed and is the cheapest.

The other two are slightly under the original rams price, and have a better PC3 Number. Any help here? Thanks alot. Sorry for long post.
 
Ok, I'm totally no getting the OCZ Gold, it has horrible reviews. The Gskill NS is out of stock.

Can anyone tell a difference between the two RAMs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
low cost gaming rig
Replies
13
Views
1K
davidrules345
D
Back
Top