Building a computer? Need advice/suggestions? Come here!

[k4is3rxkh40s]

New better/faster socket 939 single-core CPUs are too much now to be worth buying a them, so I've decided I'll just upgrade completely now. (Found a 2.6Ghz from google for almost as much as an i7 :<)

I'm thinking I might go with this combo, trying to keep similarly to this. Would it be enough to run games like Crysis/GTA 4/Saint's Row 2 well, and is it compatible with my current hard drives/optical drives/etc? Would be running at 1280 x 1024 full screen or 800x600 windowed, and I don't know what exact type, but my current mobo says it supports 2 SATA drives. Of course I still need RAM, new case, a new PSU, and probably CD/DVD drives as my current dvd drive is dead, and my cd drive is following suit.

Also, stupid question but I'm probably going to need to buy Windows/burn Ubuntu/etc after I upgrade everything with the HP locking stuff and all, correct? This computer never came with an XP install disk, just a separate partition for recovery and the like.

Current motherboard specs : here

[Warsaw]

Won't run it max, but it should run it fine. Hard to go wrong with that combo.

[Bhamid]

When you say almost as much as an i7, well...

[Warsaw]

Of course an FX is going to be mad expensive, they've been mad expensive since they were released. You can find dual core socket 939 chips for $120 if you go onto Amazon.

[Timo]

So he's going to get another HD4850 but he needs a new motherboard. Will this: http://www.pp.co.nz/products.php?pp_id=AA12516 do the trick? Or is there a better alternative?

e:I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to upgrade in the future - If he got a DDR3/AM3 motherboard, would he still be able to use his AMD2 processor and DDR2 ram until he upgrades again?

[Warsaw]

No. Only the AM2+ Phenom IIs have controllers for both DDR2 and DDR3. If he gets AM3, ha has to go DDR3 and he will need an AM3 CPU because AM3 has two less pins than AM2+ (I think it was two).

[k4is3rxkh40s]

Last question for a while, I promise

Would one notice much of a difference between a ~2.9Ghz and ~3.0Ghz dual core? If so, would it worth an $11 dollar difference?

[343guiltymc]

I already have a Logitech G5, is it worth getting the new G500?

[Darkness]

Last question for a while, I promise

Would one notice much of a difference between a ~2.9Ghz and ~3.0Ghz dual core? If so, would it worth an $11 dollar difference?

Do they have the same cache and are from the same manufacturer? If so then the 100mhz is not a big difference. You can buy the cheaper one and overclock it past the 3.0Ghz and save 11 bucks.

I also want to add to this thread by quoting a friend on how x86 and x64 relates to graphic cards

I've had to post this too many times so i thought i'd get it out in the correct forum here.


Under a 32 bit operating system (XP, vista 32) you have 4GB of address space available. Address space is different to the amount of memory in your PC.

The reason a 32 bit system can only use 3GB (or 3.25GB, or whatever number you get) of system ram is because it doesnt have enough address space left. Video cards are the most important part of a PC that uses address space.

If you had 4GB of system ram and a 1GB video card under a 32 bit operating system, each individual program could only use 3GB of that system ram (due to the video card using 1GB of address space) However there is something else most people are NOT aware of.
Under DirectX 9.0C (and lower) video card ram must be duplicated into system ram. That means if you're running on the highest settings with your new shiny 1GB video card - that 1GB of video memory must be duplicated leaving you with only 2GB left for your game.

You just went from 4GB to 2GB, only considering a single 1GB video card. Things only get worse in SLI and crossfire.

Under 64 bit you wouldnt have lost that initial 1GB of ram to the address space, so you'd have 3GB of usable ram, with 1GB used in DX9.0C games. All of a sudden those modern games which border on 1.5-2GB of ram usage are playable, without your system running like a dog.

Side note: It should be noted that DX10/10.1 do not duplicated video memory into system ram. DX10 actually helps to alleviate this issue, if your system is powerful enough to run games in DX10.

Side note 2: There is more than just video card ram that affects this. System page file uses address space, as do various parts related to the BIOS (RAID cards, sound cards with onboard ram, etc) - this is why with a 512MB video card your 32 bit OS may report 3.25GB of ram - 256MB was taken away for everything else

Example configs:
32 bit
4GB system ram
1GB video card
3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.

2GB system ram
1GB video card
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram here. If you dont lower texture settings, resolution, and AA you'll get pretty nasty stuttering as you run out of ram.

4GB system ram
2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
2GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)

64 bit
4GB system ram
1GB video card
4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.

2GB system ram
1GB video card
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram. This kind of PC is the one where people claim vista x64 has no real advantage, or slower due to 64 bit using slightly more ram than 32 bit in windows itself.

4GB system ram
2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)


Update:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

This link from microsoft has some good info, and fills a gap i'd missed.
You do not need to download the file mentioned, as this is already included in vista SP1 (and you should be on SP2 by now!)


This shows another side to this - 32 bit applications can only have 2GB total for the entire application, regardless of the amount of available ram and system-wide address space. so even if you have 4GB of ram and 3.5GB showing as available, if you've got a 1GB video card in a 32 bit OS you're in for a world of hurt.



Edit: W1zzard has queried the ram duplication, so i managed to find some more links - thanks to Xenos especially.


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/win...mory,7644.html

This article is talking about how the aero desktop was moved from DX9 (WDDM1.0) to DX10 (WDD1.1) and they directly mention how the old (DX9) system required a copy of video ram in system ram.

Taken from Here

[Warsaw]

One thing on the 32-bit memory limit: it's not 32-bit, it's specifically Windows, contrary to what everyone says. You can use more than 4GB of RAM using Linux (or even Windows Server).