While we're talking computers, I'm thinking about swooping in on a deal tomorrow. Tell me what you think, bearing in mind that an AUD almost = a USD, and that I'm going to get a 5% discount on the listed price: Link
While we're talking computers, I'm thinking about swooping in on a deal tomorrow. Tell me what you think, bearing in mind that an AUD almost = a USD, and that I'm going to get a 5% discount on the listed price:Link
I'm sorry, but running vista with less than 2GB is painful. I wouldn't recommend it. If you're going to run Ubuntu though, you should be fine.
How much faster is 4 gigs of DDR2 1333 than 4 gigs of DDR 2 800...
Intel CPUs don't have the onboard memory controllers, so having memory that is the same speed as the FSB can be a big deal to get the full potential out of your processor. I've heard the new 'Skulltrail' design runs badly without the high-speed RAM.
Stick with 380W PSU and go for 8600 for cheapness
I'm not sure if you've already decided on going for an 8800, but the 8600 GT isn't that much better than a 7600 GT. So why not keep the one you have? or is your old computer APG?
I'm not sure if you've already decided on going for an 8800, but the 8600 GT isn't that much better than a 7600 GT. So why not keep the one you have? or is your old computer APG?
DDR2-800 is slower than DDR2-1600, obviously. However, that is only true if the CAS Latencies are equal. DDR2-800 with a CAS latency of 4 is pretty much just as fast as DDR2-1600 with a CAS latency of 5. FYI, lower numbers are better for latency. DDR-800 with latency 4 is much cheaper than DDR2-1600, no matter the latency. With this in mind, I have changed my memory selection, and saved some monies.
I also switched the DVD burner for an effectively equivalent one that is a little faster, a few dollars more, and, most importantly, in stock.
Ok, think about this for a minute. If you don't get the electricity directly from the power supply to the hard drive, you have to take that electricity, put it into the motherboard, then put it into the hard drive. Hard drives need a lot of power, as they have powerful motors. That's a lot of power they need. Putting that much electricity through the motherboard is just silly. It needlessly complicates things, and all that electricity is bound to interfere with other things already going on the already crowded motherboard.
Think about it some more. Let's say someone wants to put a RAID card into their PC. If you were going to have the power for the hard drive be on the data cable, that means the RAID card need to provide power to all the drives. That means that the motherboard has to provide enough power to each PCI slot to power 4+ hard drives!
Each hard drive gets one power connector from the power supply. It's the only way that makes sense.
"Hard drives take up a lot of power and need to be powered directly" would have been sufficient.
DDR2-800 is slower than DDR2-1600, obviously. However, that is only true if the CAS Latencies are equal. DDR2-800 with a CAS latency of 4 is pretty much just as fast as DDR2-1600 with a CAS latency of 5. FYI, lower numbers are better for latency. DDR-800 with latency 4 is much cheaper than DDR2-1600, no matter the latency. With this in mind, I have changed my memory selection, and saved some monies.
I also switched the DVD burner for an effectively equivalent one that is a little faster, a few dollars more, and, most importantly, in stock.
Yeah, you don't need to spend too much for low latency in RAM.
RAM bandwidth is also useful, but generally the benefit is severely limited by the FSB of the CPU anyway (an obvious exception, then, is overclocking). Hence latency all the way.
Well, I'm worried if I use 64-bit Vista I will have worse problems, such as various important applications not being 64-bit compatible.
I'm not sure what important applications you plan to run, but the only one I've found that doesn't run on 64-bit is the Cisco VPN Client, and that's just cause Cisco is lazy as far as I can tell. If you run 32-bit you're not gonna have access to .5-1 gig of your memory. All modern games will run on 64-bit, I ran it for a year and it worked great, even way back when Vista first launched.
I'm thinking about swooping in on a deal tomorrow.
Well, I bought it. It's great, Vista looks and works fine with only 1gb of RAM (but I've ordered another gig anyway - at $30, why wouldn't you), the Core 2 processor seems to work great, and the 128 Mb Nvidia 7300 means I can run Oblivion on it at a modest frame rate - not that I want to play it, mind you, I installed it to see what it was capable of running. And most importantly, the Dwarves, they run fastily. Good times.
Well, I'm worried if I use 64-bit Vista I will have worse problems, such as various important applications not being 64-bit compatible.
Found some info on that subject on msdn. Seems you can enable windows to use 4 gigs in 32bit as long as your bios recognizes all 4gigs. Most of the programs won't use all 4 anyway because they are written in 32bit windows.
I was thinking, you should have filed the construction of the beast with your camera, would have probably been interesting for people who do not know how to build their own.
Computer works. I will say more on Monday, but all you need to know is that it is criminally fast.
Thats how all Windows machines start, don't they? At any rate its an awesome rig.
Alright, as soon as the CPU is back in stock I'm going to buy.
Is it sad to feel excited that someone else is buying a new computer with tons of shinies? >.>
No, it's called living vicariously through that person. Almost like being excited that your friend just bought a new Enzo, even though you know he'll never let you drive it.
I was thinking, you should have filed the construction of the beast with your camera, would have probably been interesting for people who do not know how to build their own.
I tried, but my video skills are still low, so it sucks.
If he somehow trains the reaction and fast moving object tracking part of his brain to act independently of the strategic and obscure representation recognition parts.
Comments
DDR2-800 is slower than DDR2-1600, obviously. However, that is only true if the CAS Latencies are equal. DDR2-800 with a CAS latency of 4 is pretty much just as fast as DDR2-1600 with a CAS latency of 5. FYI, lower numbers are better for latency. DDR-800 with latency 4 is much cheaper than DDR2-1600, no matter the latency. With this in mind, I have changed my memory selection, and saved some monies.
I also switched the DVD burner for an effectively equivalent one that is a little faster, a few dollars more, and, most importantly, in stock.
RAM bandwidth is also useful, but generally the benefit is severely limited by the FSB of the CPU anyway (an obvious exception, then, is overclocking). Hence latency all the way.
I posted this link before, and I'll post it again:
http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx
However, if your hardware supports PAE (Physical Address Extension, to give you 36-bit addresses), you can still get 4GB.
I was thinking, you should have filed the construction of the beast with your camera, would have probably been interesting for people who do not know how to build their own.