Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Victor_S.

PC Discussion Thread - All PC related in here.

Recommended Posts

What sort of graphics card do you have? Often a graphics card with a large quantity of RAM or an SLI setup can reduce the amount of available RAM.

I thought about that, my single card has 768 MB of video ram and i have an audigy 2 soundcard, thats it.

Theres plenty of people out there with 32 bit systems that aknowledge that their systems cant use all 4 GB of RAM but they bring up numbers around 3 or atleast above 2, some also report better performance upgrading from 2 to 3 or 4 GB.. how can this be?

Perhaps they are deluded by the fact that Vista shows all the RAM installed on their systems? All i know is that task manager shows me a max of 2 and if i stress test my PC it will never use more than 2, and i mean the whole system.

I know you said not to ask, but is there any reason why you wouldnt go to 64bit Vista other than the cost of switching over?

Three reasons actually.

Cost could be one since im considering a CPU upgrade, the second would be... laziness, im a lazy bastard.

And the third and most important reason would be curiosity, i want to know smile_o.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ch_123 what are you're thoughts on Intel Speedstep and C1E in the bios. Should they be enabled or disabled for non overclocked cpu's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the third and most important reason would be curiosity, i want to know smile_o.gif .

I discovered it biggrin_o.gif .

There is a bios setting in some mobos that allows them to recognise more than (i believe) 3 GB of ram, this setting is called "memory remap.. something", without enabling this neither the bios or the OS will recognise all the installed ram (so i enabled it).

Now by enabling this a 32 bit OS it will report all the ram installed but only use 2 (for stability? ), by disabling memory remap task manager now shows me 3006 MB of physical ram (the rest is allocated for other devices such as the video card).

So this setting should only be left enabled if you have more than 3 GB of ram and use a 64 bit OS.

Now here comes the bad part, mobo manufacturers discourage the use of more than 3 GB of ram on 32 bit systems since it might create instability (oh noes crazy_o.gif ) and with the RAM prices so low i went with the flow and bought a 2x2 kit (dual channel) while a 512MB x2 kit wouldnt have been the right option to complement the 2 GB i already have... so there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I was about to suggest that you dust off your mobo manual and look for settings in the BIOS that relate to memory smile_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Three reasons actually.

Cost could be one since im considering a CPU upgrade, the second would be... laziness, im a lazy bastard.

Fair enough, and especially considering that Windows 7 is around the corner. I've tried the Beta and I must say that even the Beta is better than Vista is in its current state tounge2.gif

Universal:

I'm pretty sure that SpeedStep is often recommended to be disabled, however, this was something I read back in the Petium D days, so it could be different with more modern chips. C1E is definitely meant to be a troublemaker when overclocking, so it could be a good idea to turn it off. All said, the last Intel chip I overclocked was a Socket 478 Pentium 4, so I can't really speak from personal experience on this matter smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

Universal:

I'm pretty sure that SpeedStep is often recommended to be disabled, however, this was something I read back in the Petium D days, so it could be different with more modern chips. C1E is definitely meant to be a troublemaker when overclocking, so it could be a good idea to turn it off. All said, the last Intel chip I overclocked was a Socket 478 Pentium 4, so I can't really speak from personal experience on this matter smile_o.gif

Thanks I still found it useful. I was just asking this question because I remember back in the day on my S478 system had most of the power savings options disabled and that system has lasted years. Btw I'm looking forward to checking out the GTX 285 and 295 in January along with the Phenom II's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Well, Core 2 Quad is pretty decent. Core i7 is quite expensive at the moment (about twice the price) so if you want to save money, and need a new PC now, go for a Core 2 Quad. If you can, I'd wait 6 months or so before they become affordable. Are you building yourself or buying?

Thanks, You can say 40% buying and 60% building myself XD.

I have a good PC, and my spaces looks decent for my games (that's why i don't want to buy a new PC), except my CPU  ((my CPU: "intel ® pentium ® 4 3.40GHz" right now)), When i play games through it (like Cod 5, and arma for example) i got amazing graphics but i see my FPS around 30-45, and the lag just annoying me (don't tell me go and set your graphics to low crazy_o.gif, becuase if i do it i just feel i'm playing OFP ).

so now i just want to change my CPU, so can "core 2 quad" run my games decently?, and also can "core 2 quad" run the newest game (like 2009-2010 games), and how much it cost, and what is the best model of "core 2 quad's"(Q6600 for example?).

Thank you smile_o.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Core 2 Quad should be able to run any game for the foreseeable future (by the time it becomes obsolete, the current gen of Core i7s will probably nearly obsolete too). The best model in terms of value for money is the Q6600.

EDIT: Are you sure your motherboard can support the Q6600?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably my first post in this thread, I'm considering a CPU Upgrade, my motherboard being an Asus P5N32E-SLI, meaning Socket 775. Currently I got a Core 2 Duo E6600, at 2.4Ghz. I kinda burrowed into the options, and was wondering - I'd either go for the Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.0Ghz, or I'd go for a Core 2 Quad, which maximum supported is the Q6700, at 2.66Ghz. Since either of my two options present a compromise - the E8400 has only 2 cores, but 3.0Ghz clockspeed, 1.333Mhz FSB and only 6mb of cache, whereas the Q6700 has four cores at only 2.66Ghz, only 1.066Mhz FSB, but 2 x 4mb of cache, I was wondering which aspect was more important - higher FSB and core clockspeed although slightly less cache, or more cores with less speed and less FSB but with slightly more cache? I guess it comes down in terms of applications that exist so far that I use - I don't know of any that'd be optimised for quad-cores, my OS is XP, I refuse to go Vista, and I mostly play CPU-intensive but non-multicore-optimised games and respective software... what would be your considerations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't consider doing OC, I know I probably could but I like to use things "as-is"... stable, steady, and for as long a time as possible... smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a tough call. I'd usually say Quad Core is a better all round choice, but Dual core is going to have better benefits in the short term, but won't be as future proof. It depends on how long you keep on keep your current PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Probably my first post in this thread, I'm considering a CPU Upgrade, my motherboard being an Asus P5N32E-SLI, meaning Socket 775. Currently I got a Core 2 Duo E6600, at 2.4Ghz. I kinda burrowed into the options, and was wondering - I'd either go for the Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.0Ghz, or I'd go for a Core 2 Quad, which maximum supported is the Q6700, at 2.66Ghz.  Since either of my two options present a compromise - the E8400 has only 2 cores, but 3.0Ghz clockspeed, 1.333Mhz FSB and only 6mb of cache, whereas the Q6700 has four cores at only 2.66Ghz, only 1.066Mhz FSB, but 2 x 4mb of cache, I was wondering which aspect was more important - higher FSB and core clockspeed although slightly less cache, or more cores with less speed and less FSB but with slightly more cache? I guess it comes down in terms of applications that exist so far that I use - I don't know of any that'd be optimised for quad-cores, my OS is XP, I refuse to go Vista, and I mostly play CPU-intensive but non-multicore-optimised games and respective software... what would be your considerations?

That's a great cpu the E6600 but it's built on the older 65nm's technology. If you really want to move to a dual core I would suggest the new wolfdale's like the E8600 (if you're motherboard can support as it is a 680i SLI chipset and I remember reading the trouble they have with 45nm cpu's). Generally dual cores still outperform most quad cores in gaming (except i7's) because 'most' games still use only 2 cores but that trend is decreasing.

If you want a great quad core I would advise the Q9450 or the Q9550 (E0) stepping. There is nothing wrong with Vista I'm running it and I don't have any complaints.

http://www.asus.com/product....lmenu=1

Quote[/b] ]No I don't consider doing OC, I know I probably could but I like to use things "as-is"... stable, steady, and for as long a time as possible...

What are you afraid of ?. Unless you overvolt the cpu you wont nuke the cpu.

Quote[/b] ]

Thanks, You can say 40% buying and 60% building myself XD.

I have a good PC, and my spaces looks decent for my games (that's why i don't want to buy a new PC), except my CPU  ((my CPU: "intel ® pentium ® 4 3.40GHz" right now)), When i play games through it (like Cod 5, and arma for example) i got amazing graphics but i see my FPS around 30-45, and the lag just annoying me (don't tell me go and set your graphics to low crazy_o.gif, becuase if i do it i just feel i'm playing OFP ).

so now i just want to change my CPU, so can "core 2 quad" run my games decently?, and also can "core 2 quad" run the newest game (like 2009-2010 games), and how much it cost, and what is the best model of "core 2 quad's"(Q6600 for example?).

The best model of the Q6600 is the G0 stepping. I would recommend a better quad core such as the Q9450/Q9550(E0 stepping). I myself had a similar processor to what you had in an AGP system and I recently upgraded to a top-tier i7 965 Extreme edition build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't OC'ing reduce the life cycle of a CPU? I've never done it so I don't think I'll be willing to risk it - I know that it's less performance in that case but I'll just have to live with it I guess...

According to the ASUS website, it is compatible with the E8400... Are there troubles with 45nm CPUs on the 680 SLI chipset? crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUZZARD @ Jan. 07 2009,21:48)]Doesn't OC'ing reduce the life cycle of a CPU? I've never done it so I don't think I'll be willing to risk it - I know that it's less performance in that case but I'll just have to live with it I guess...

According to the ASUS website, it is compatible with the E8400... Are there troubles with 45nm CPUs on the 680 SLI chipset?  crazy_o.gif

Hi all,

Yes it does as it increases the speed of which it would normally function at. But don't worry, you'll be buying a new CPU before it dies from being overclocked for a prolonged period of time. If you read up on OC'in and know what your doing its perfectly safe.

Kind Regards Infamous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUZZARD @ Jan. 07 2009,22:48)]Doesn't OC'ing reduce the life cycle of a CPU? I've never done it so I don't think I'll be willing to risk it - I know that it's less performance in that case but I'll just have to live with it I guess...

According to the ASUS website, it is compatible with the E8400... Are there troubles with 45nm CPUs on the 680 SLI chipset?  crazy_o.gif

Yes it does reduce the lifecycle but that really depends on how you overclock the cpu. If you want to get a high overclock stable you often need to add more voltage to the cpu. This will reduce the cpu's life cycle. Otherwise the life cycle won't really be affected as drastically. Nvidia chipsets generally are horrible just read up on the 780i and the 790i corruption problems etc... Sure they were fixed with BIOS update's but at a later time and Nvidia refused to even admit there was any problems. I don't know about that particular motherboard but I remember from the eVGA 680i.  If you want to also upgrade you're motherboard take a look at the P45 or X48 chipset. That's what I would do I would upgrade the motherboard and the CPU and still have a relatively future-proof system (disregarding the fact there is socket 1366). I always like to think of overclocking as getting a free cpu upgrade. Take for example you have a QX9650 just brand new and then a few months later a QX9770 is released. You can overclock to the QX9770 (a .20ghz difference) for absolutely free and since the QX has an unlocked multiplier no touching fsb's or voltage will be required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the monetary issue also comes into play - if I had more cash I'd probably do a complete overhaul, but at the moment, an upgrade is all I can afford, so that'll be it I guess... And after having checked CPU comparisons I think I'll go with the E8400, it's a reasonably-priced CPU which should work with my current motherboard... Thanks for the info on the compatibility problems, Universal, I wouldn't have known of them if you hadn't told me...

thumbs-up.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ZG]BUZZARD in that case I recommend you to make sure the CPU is E0 stepping. On the Intel box it should show SLB8V that indicates that it is a E0 stepping. They generally use less power , overclock better and are a revision from C1 to E0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally I got a new PC in the pipeline, have moved, have DSL now yay.gif , sold a house, bought a new one, am right at furnishing it, have installed my first WLAN for a really big area with booster antennas and repeaters and have bought me a netbook. I love it. Anyway here´s my problem:

The netbook I have by default has the WLAN antenna deactivated.

I have to activate it manually by pressing Fn+F3 each time I start windows. This is annoying as I want to have WLAN activated automatically whenever I start windows.

My question: Is there someone out there who knows how to run the keycommands automaticallly whenever windows starts ? There is no option in windows that would activate WLAN permanently, neither is there a BIOS option to do such.

I had a look at "AutoHotkey", a program that let´s you handle keyboard or mouseinputs but I´m having problems getting the right term for the "Fn" key.

How can I simulate the "Fn+F3" keystroke and have it automatically run on windows-startup via autostart-folder ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I'm pretty sure there should be either a wlan switch on your notebook or a way to turn it on permanently. I suggest that you update your wlan card drivers as it might be a bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally I got a new PC in the pipeline, have moved, have DSL now  yay.gif , sold a house, bought a new one, am right at furnishing it, have installed my first WLAN for a really big area with booster antennas and repeaters and have bought me a netbook. I love it. Anyway here´s my problem:

The netbook I have by default has the WLAN antenna deactivated.

I have to activate it manually by pressing Fn+F3 each time I start windows. This is annoying as I want to have WLAN activated automatically whenever I start windows.

My question: Is there someone out there who knows how to run the keycommands automaticallly whenever windows starts ? There is no option in windows that would activate WLAN permanently, neither is there a BIOS option to do such.

I had a look at "AutoHotkey", a program that let´s you handle keyboard or mouseinputs but I´m having problems getting the right term for the "Fn" key.

How can I simulate the "Fn+F3" keystroke and have it automatically run on windows-startup via autostart-folder ?

What sort of netbook is it? And I assume it's running XP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Hmm, I'm pretty sure there should be either a wlan switch on your notebook or a way to turn it on permanently.

No, there´s no way to keep it activated. Already contacted the manufacturer and they said that there is neither a bios option, nor a software or driver setting that would keep it active.

The only way to activate it by now is to use the Fn+F3 keylink.

@ch_123:

It´s a One A 570 netbook with XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Yeah, the Core 2 Quad should be able to run any game for the foreseeable future (by the time it becomes obsolete, the current gen of Core i7s will probably nearly obsolete too). The best model in terms of value for money is the Q6600.

EDIT: Are you sure your motherboard can support the Q6600?

No, my motherboard can't even run core 2 duo (sorry didn't mention that with the processor), So i have to buy another motherboard with new processor, Can you tell me what is the decent motherboard for the core 2 quad?, and thanks for the infromations.

Quote[/b] ]The best model of the Q6600 is the G0 stepping. I would recommend a better quad core such as the Q9450/Q9550(E0 stepping). I myself had a similar processor to what you had in an AGP system and I recently upgraded to a top-tier i7 965 Extreme edition build.

Thanks, and same question in above please smile_o.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything with a P45, if youre looking for something affordable - a Gigabyte EP45-DS3 is a good bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if money is no object you can buy an X48 express chipset motherboard such as the Asus Rampage Formula or if you wish to switch over to the P45 express chipset you can look at the Maximus II formula. Of course those are great motherboards but if you wish to economize and save some money you can look at motherboards from ASUS/GIGABYTE or EVGA/XFX (780i/790i).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×