what system (computer) do you have

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ok basically this thread for everyone to sport their systems on which they r main (runs sh3 most) and/or gaming.

optional: u can post links of the hardware from sales sites if its new.

rules

1.CPU name, Model(64 X2, opteron, C2D, P4 etcc), speed
2.Brand(say OEM if u dont know, OCZ, corsair),Memory (amount)
3.Video card Brand (ati,nivida), Model(8800, etc..), memory size and form (256 DDR3, 512 DDR2, 128DDR)


ill start it off:arrgh!::arrgh!:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

1. AMD 64 FX QuadFX, FX-72(*2), 2.8ghz

2. Corsair, 2GB Dual channel High speed

3. Nvidia, Geforce 8800 GTX(*2 SLI), 1536mb DDR3 RAM total

optional: links for all the hardware i own courtesy of pccanada
in order

1. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5851
2. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5133
3. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5814

:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

update*

i have a enermax Galaxy 1000 watt PSU, 4 HDD each is a western digital Raptor 10,000 rpm 150gb HD

2 WD raptors 150gb 10krpm in RAID 0 , other 2 in RAID 1

[AG124]

1.P4 3.0 Ghz
2. Clone (No particular Brand
3. ATI 9600 (TV Capture Card), 128 MB (Need to upgrade here)

Plus:
RAM - 1.5 GB, DDR1, 400 Mhz
ASUS DVD-RW (DVD-RW Speed 16x - don't remember the other speeds).
LG CD-RW (52x24x52x)
3.5" and 5.25" Floppies
120 GB and 200 GB HDDs.

I also have an old 2.4 Ghz system I don;t use anymore, this crappy laptop I'm using right now, a Pentium MMX 233Mhx system that might make a good doorstop, and an assortment of older parts.

[Zantham]

My system I just sold 2 weeks ago:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz, overclocked to 3.2GHz (355MHz FSB)
Asus Striker Extreme
2x1024 Mushkin XP2-6400 (DDR2-800) 4-4-3-10 Oc'd to 4-3-3-8 DDR2-950
XFX GeForce 7950GT PCI-E XXX 512MB DDR2 passive cooled, factory overclocked to 610MHz core/1600MHz memory
2x74GB Western Digital Raptors 10K rpm striped RAID
Various other goodies and tweaks....

Laptop I now have to use since I sold my desktop (2.5 years old now):
Intel Pentium 660 (3.6GHz)
Intel 915 chipset
3GB DDR2-533 (1GB configured as RAM drive to load games faster)
GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB
2x60GB SATA hard drives striped RAID

[Bort]

The system I have hasn't met a game that it can't run on high or medium-high settings. Even though it might not be the best, it seems to work fine.

1. P4 3.2 Ghz
2. 1GB OEM DDR2
3. ATi X1800XT 512MB

I'm pretty sure the video card is the workhorse of this system.

I also have a Dell Inspiron 1150 laptop which I use for most things aside from gaming.

1. P4 2.8 Ghz
2. 512MB RAM
3. Intel 32MB Graphics Control--Oh Yeah. :-j

[Seth8530]

:nope:here goes me.



7900gtx 512mb (Subperb overclocker at great temps)

2 gig ram pc 3200

2.2ghz amd 370064bit ( kinds sad with my card)

320gb baracude drive 16mb cache

generic cd/dvd drives( from my old e-machine)

no floppy drive

550wat tru-power 2.2 antec ( out of commsission so my whole system is USELESS!!!! :nope: ) (sorry)

[RickC Sniper]

Elite Hunter that is quite a rig you have. Your two video cards are worth more than my whole system, including monitor. :o

[elite_hunter_sh3]

keep in mind thats CAD $$ and also kudos to my dad whos obessed with Big tvs loud home theaters and crazy computers, since i made his triple monitor computer server (2 opterons) he gave me around 6000$ to spend on a comp, i spend around 3-4 ish the rest i put for unviersity tuition :arrgh!::arrgh!::up::know:

my system gets 450 fps :o:o:o:o In a harbour:rock::rock::rock: and im set for dx 10

also specs UPDATED ON MY COMP!!

[JSLTIGER]

See below.

[Onkel Neal]

1.Pentium 2.4 Ghz, 4 and 1/2 years old!
2.Gateway, with 1GB RAM
3.MSI nVidia 6600GT with 128MB RAM, and missing the little fan (it fell off :()
Sony DRU 710 DVD+RW and LG GSA DVD+RW

KDS 17" monitor bought 6 years ago from Wal-mart :doh:

A dated rig, but it still works! :ping:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

people are asking about DC support lol what about me?? i got 4 cores (quad core FX)
to worry about, windows xp starts up in around 5-8 seconds for me cuz of 10k rpm hdd and cuz i defrag ever 2 hrs lol

[LoBlo]

KDS 17" monitor bought 6 years ago from Wal-mart :doh:

heh. The old "monitor that takes up the entire desk" monitors... how I *don't* miss them. :p

*huges his flatscreen* :)

[RickC Sniper]

keep in mind thats CAD $$ and also kudos to my dad whos obessed with Big tvs loud home theaters and crazy computers, since i made his triple monitor computer server (2 opterons) he gave me around 6000$ to spend on a comp, i spend around 3-4 ish the rest i put for unviersity tuition :arrgh!::arrgh!::up::know:

Dad deserves a big hug from you. I am in no way dissing your rig. It is a monster and I would love to steal, er, get one like that.

A question for you: Does that rig heat an average sized room? Considering how much heat my modest pc puts out I think yours would cause me to have to open windows. :p

[elite_hunter_sh3]

nope doenst heat it because its in a thermaltake Armour server tower aluminum case and it has quite a few 120mm fans, in fact rarely does it heat up the room because

1. the coolers on cpu's are 4 headpipe copper coolers with big 92mm fans that have variable rpm 1200-3200rpm(temp variable)
2. and since theres such a huge volume of air flowing throught the case rarely does it heat up, in fact when i put my hand on the back of the exhaust 120mm fan it sometime actually feels colder lol.

edit* very quiet, but when it comes to High resoulution BF2, BF2142, and COD2, half life 2 etc.. on MAX graphucs possible on highest resoulution possible the graphics cards tend to be a bitch and the fan is like a dam jet turbine, my cpus LMAO dont even try during games cuz all the cpu load is spread over 4 cores, and theres like 10 % usage lol

[bookworm_020]

Dell GX270

P4 3.0 Ghz with 768MB of OEM DDR Ram ( will be upgraded to 2.5 GB soon)

Nvidia Ge Force 6200 256MB Graphics Card

19' CRT Dell Monitor

It's a second hand business computer. I added a graphics card and some more memory to give it some grunt. It should last me a year or two before I get a new one.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

good luck trying to steal my comp, im 6'7 17 210lbs and a basketball player, kickboxer and my dads 7 feet at 280ish lbs and was a heavyweight kickboxer/boxer/mma fighter plus he was in special forces in yugoslav army in 70's, 80's so he knows how to kill :arrgh!: plus hes teaching me his moves from the army:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!::rock:

[CCIP]

Very modest


1. Intel Pentium 4, 3.06GHz (Dual-core)
2. OEM 2048Mb DDR Ram (Dual-channel)
3. BFG GeForce 6800OC, 128MB DDR

Otherwise - 80GB HD plus a 120GB external; a small 15" monitor; a Sound Blaster XFi sound card and a pair of Creative speakers, as well as Sennheiser HD515 monitors... what else? :hmm:

[Onkel Neal]

good luck trying to steal my comp, im 6'7 17 210lbs and a basketball player, kickboxer and my dads 7 feet at 280ish lbs and was a heavyweight kickboxer/boxer/mma fighter plus he was in special forces in yugoslav army in 70's, 80's so he knows how to kill :arrgh!: plus hes teaching me his moves from the army:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!::rock:

Holy cow! I know who to hire when I need a bodyguard now. :yep:

[fatty]

good luck trying to steal my comp, im 6'7 17 210lbs and a basketball player, kickboxer and my dads 7 feet at 280ish lbs and was a heavyweight kickboxer/boxer/mma fighter plus he was in special forces in yugoslav army in 70's, 80's so he knows how to kill plus hes teaching me his moves from the army

Oh yeah? Well, my dad's 10 feet tall at 500ish pounds and was a viking plus he singlehandedly liberated Kuwait in '91. He could definitely beat up your dad ;)

[flintlock]

My aging, but ever faithful mule:

- AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2GHz)
- Asus A8V Deluxe (Socket 939)
- 2GB OCZ PC3200 DDR
- Sapphire X1950 Pro 512MB GDDR3
- Sound Blaster X-Fi
- Enermax 620W PSU
- LG 20" widescreen
- Antec SOHO enclosure
- WinXP Pro SP2


Edit: Well, I was planning on building a completely new system this weekend, but decided to wait. With AMD's upcoming R600s, Intel's new 1333MHz FSB CPUs and price drop, as well as possible DDR3, I'd rather wait a few months and let the dust settle. With that in mind, I replaced my X800 XT graphics card with a new X1950 Pro 512MB to hold me over for a few more months.

[azn_132]

My hella old a$$ comps:

AMD Athlon 1200+
256 RAM (I took the RAM from this comp so I can use it for my other comp)
ATI RAdeon 9200 series
128MB video memory
30GB HD
1.25 GHz

and the comp Im usein before I get a new comp this month:

AMD Athlon 1900+
used to be 256MB now 512 RAM
ATI Radeon 9200 series
128 memory
40GB HD
1.47GHz

Used to use those big bulkly 17" screen monitor now I use a Flat screen 17" monitor.

[AJ!]

Geforce 2 in superglue SLI

4 ram sticks soldered to the motherboard to give 12 mb of ram

and the processor is a old toaster.... good thing is i get breakfast when the comp overheats :rotfl:

Na still using my old alienware

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 4MB Cache 1066MHz FSB
4GB DDR2 PC-6400 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 x 1024MB
Dual 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 7950 GT - SLI Enabled
AGEIA PhysX™ Physics Processing Unit
Single Drive Configuration - 250 GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7,200 rpm with 8MB Cache
24" Dell UltraSharp Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor with HDCP
AlienAdrenaline: Video Performance
Alienware® AlienIce™ 3.0 Video Cooling + AlienFX™ System Lighting + Alienware® High-Performance Liquid Cooling

(Dont ask me what half that stuff means... i just copied it from a email i got from em) :-?

[Boris]

Athlon 64 X2 4800
2gb Kingston DDR 3200
ATI Radeon X1950XT 256
22" Acer widescreen

And I have to list my Hard drives...

Internal:
2x 320gb IDE, 320gb SATA, 500gb SATA

External:
80gb IDE, 200gb SATA

1.7tb total

[Dowly]

I just love these threads! There´s always someone wanting to show off with some über machine, then a computer wizz comes and points out that there´s not a PC like that. :rotfl:

Anyways, my humble workhorse:

AMD Athlon 64 +3500
Asus A8N-SLI SE
2 x HD ~400GB total
2gb RAM
Geforce 7800GTX 256mb
17'' Fujitsu Siemens LCD

[Konovalov]

It's in my sig but to stick to the format requested here goes:

1. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ stock speed 2.4Ghz (intend to overclock to over 3Ghz)
2. 2 X 1 GB Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4D DOMINATOR @ 4-4-4-12
3. XFX 7900GS 256MB Dual PCI-E modded with Zalman VF900-Cu LED HSF

As mentioned earlier my full spec is in my sig. I intend to overclock this system in the future when the need arises. I built this system from scratch with overclocking and low noise levels in mind. All in all I am very happy that I built exactly what I needed at a very good price of under GBP £1000.00.

It has been running now for just under two months with only one problem being that the Seagate hard drive has started to make quite a racket and is probably going to fail some time soon. I do have an external 400gb backup hard drive so in the case of hard drive failure I am covered. :smug: Still it is a bummer if the hard drive does die but I guess it is just luck of the draw with this component at times. :damn:

[Konovalov]

keep in mind thats CAD $$ and also kudos to my dad whos obessed with Big tvs loud home theaters and crazy computers, since i made his triple monitor computer server (2 opterons) he gave me around 6000$ to spend on a comp, i spend around 3-4 ish the rest i put for unviersity tuition :arrgh!::arrgh!::up::know:

my system gets 450 fps :o:o:o In a harbour:rock::rock::rock: and im set for dx 10

also specs UPDATED ON MY COMP!!

Wait until you get married and then you will find it a very hard task convincing your other half why it is such a great idea forking out $3500 to $5000 on a computer that in 6 months time has halved in value.

Seriously that is one ridiculously powerful system. :rock: Couple of questions for you. Why did you go down the AMD route considering Intel right now have a major advantage over AMD? Secondly did you build this system yourself or was it built for you? I would love to see some photos of your system. :|\\

[elite_hunter_sh3]

amd has always been better in performance like i said earlier C2D will be th pcu from intel for the next few years. Intel is known to release something good and wait 3-4 years and release something new again, this is bad cuz comp tech is advancing every 1-2 years, AMD released K8 (amd 64) which murked the pentium 4, now intel released C2D to counter the K8 and they wont release something major aenytime soon , while AMD has already planned to release a quad core even faster then the intel quad core, this summer!!, after the C2D hype is over(c2d is a small bump) amd is releasing K10 series which is better and even faster then their AM2 and C2D. so in terms of gaming and server computers AMD's athlon X2 and FX for gaming and for gaming and server their opteron series beat the xeon and c2d

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ive built this system my self from carrying the heavy ass case, to screwing in the motherboard, to the fans screwed in, to the cpu socket installation (was a bitch cuz of sensitive pins,) graphics card installation (those cards are tooo damm big)


basically from empty case to fully loaded with lights and etc.

cameras in for warranty fix something about internal lens orsomething idk the pics will be up soon :arrgh!:

[Konovalov]

so in terms of gaming and server computers AMD's athlon X2 and FX for gaming and for gaming and server their opteron series beat the xeon and c2d

Can you back up that claim with data please? I don't hear too many people if any claiming that the AMD Athlon X2 line and FX CPU's beat the Intel Core 2 Duo as you claim. Please point me to where such a claim is corroborated? :-?

[Wim Libaers]

P4 3GHz (Northwood)
1 GB RAM (2x512)
Geforce 5700 256MB
(about 4 years old I guess)

The monitor is a Philips 107MP (17" CRT), about 7 years old I think. I'm considering an upgrade, but it becomes hard to find good CRT monitors, and affordable LCDs don't seem to match the image quality of that old thing.


It can still run Doom 3 at high at 800x600. The new Supreme Commander demo is a bit much for it, though.

More than enough power for Dangerous Waters.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

whoops lol error there, wut im saying is that AMD's FX and 64,X2 line beat the P4 but since C2D uses a miniature version of amds architecture amd will lose in benchmarking BUT, since amd always releases something better after Intel, AMD releases something better then Intel waits a few years to release a cpu that had effect on market like the pentium 4, while AMD releases big increments in their cpu technonolgy every 2 years, thats y now theres a shortage of Opterons for socket 939 and AM2, so basically if both companies started at same point at the rate they r going amd would have been generations ahead of intel, only reason intel is considred "top dog" is because of advertising and its releationship wit microsoft.

fyi error i wrote, C2D DOES BEAT the 939 and AM2 but thing is amd is releasing new designs this summer which will beat intels for the next few years. thats y i stick with amd,

[JSLTIGER]

whoops lol error there, wut im saying is that AMD's FX and 64,X2 line beat the P4 but since C2D uses a miniature version of amds architecture amd will lose in benchmarking BUT, since amd always releases something better after Intel, AMD releases something better then Intel waits a few years to release a cpu that had effect on market like the pentium 4, while AMD releases big increments in their cpu technonolgy every 2 years, thats y now theres a shortage of Opterons for socket 939 and AM2, so basically if both companies started at same point at the rate they r going amd would have been generations ahead of intel, only reason intel is considred "top dog" is because of advertising and its releationship wit microsoft.

fyi error i wrote, C2D DOES BEAT the 939 and AM2 but thing is amd is releasing new designs this summer which will beat intels for the next few years. thats y i stick with amd,

The K8L design MAY beat the Core 2 Duo/Quad. There is no guarantee as of this point, as no chips have yet been produced. Right now, Intel and the Core 2 Duo/Quad are the undisputed kings of processing power. K8L may change this, especially as AMD's 65nm process goes to work (as AMD's reliance on the current 90nm fabrication is one of the things holding it and the K8 back). However, the fact that Intel is working to release the 45nm Penryn chip ASAP may allow C2D and C2Q to continue to produce higher performance than AMD's products, including the 65nm K8L.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

heres a pic THIS NOT MY SYSTEM, this is just a pic to give a general idea of wut my system will look like but i can tell u the cables are messier,

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5885/testsystemee3.jpg

[Konovalov]

whoops lol error there, wut im saying is that AMD's FX and 64,X2 line beat the P4 but since C2D uses a miniature version of amds architecture amd will lose in benchmarking BUT, since amd always releases something better after Intel, AMD releases something better then Intel waits a few years to release a cpu that had effect on market like the pentium 4, while AMD releases big increments in their cpu technonolgy every 2 years, thats y now theres a shortage of Opterons for socket 939 and AM2, so basically if both companies started at same point at the rate they r going amd would have been generations ahead of intel, only reason intel is considred "top dog" is because of advertising and its releationship wit microsoft.

fyi error i wrote, C2D DOES BEAT the 939 and AM2 but thing is amd is releasing new designs this summer which will beat intels for the next few years. thats y i stick with amd,

The K8L design MAY beat the Core 2 Duo/Quad. There is no guarantee as of this point, as no chips have yet been produced. Right now, Intel and the Core 2 Duo/Quad are the undisputed kings of processing power. K8L may change this, especially as AMD's 65nm process goes to work (as AMD's reliance on the current 90nm fabrication is one of the things holding it and the K8 back). However, the fact that Intel is working to release the 45nm Penryn chip ASAP may allow C2D and C2Q to continue to produce higher performance than AMD's products, including the 65nm K8L.

All of which should be good news for the consumer as both Intel and AMD continue to push one another. For too long AMD blew Intel away. Finally Intel have raised the bar and hopefully AMD will respond. Qite frankly I don't care for favouring Intel over AMD or AMD over Intel. I just go for the best price/performance CPU that I can get my hands on. :up:

[JSLTIGER]

whoops lol error there, wut im saying is that AMD's FX and 64,X2 line beat the P4 but since C2D uses a miniature version of amds architecture amd will lose in benchmarking BUT, since amd always releases something better after Intel, AMD releases something better then Intel waits a few years to release a cpu that had effect on market like the pentium 4, while AMD releases big increments in their cpu technonolgy every 2 years, thats y now theres a shortage of Opterons for socket 939 and AM2, so basically if both companies started at same point at the rate they r going amd would have been generations ahead of intel, only reason intel is considred "top dog" is because of advertising and its releationship wit microsoft.

fyi error i wrote, C2D DOES BEAT the 939 and AM2 but thing is amd is releasing new designs this summer which will beat intels for the next few years. thats y i stick with amd,
The K8L design MAY beat the Core 2 Duo/Quad. There is no guarantee as of this point, as no chips have yet been produced. Right now, Intel and the Core 2 Duo/Quad are the undisputed kings of processing power. K8L may change this, especially as AMD's 65nm process goes to work (as AMD's reliance on the current 90nm fabrication is one of the things holding it and the K8 back). However, the fact that Intel is working to release the 45nm Penryn chip ASAP may allow C2D and C2Q to continue to produce higher performance than AMD's products, including the 65nm K8L.
All of which should be good news for the consumer as both Intel and AMD continue to push one another. For too long AMD blew Intel away. Finally Intel have raised the bar and hopefully AMD will respond. Qite frankly I don't care for favouring Intel over AMD or AMD over Intel. I just go for the best price/performance CPU that I can get my hands on. :up:

Agreed...that's one of the reasons I'm defending Intel at the moment...I'm certainly no fanboy, both my systems are AMD based...but if I were to buy a system today, it'd be Intel powered.

@elite_hunter_sh3

Check your PM box.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

i checked thnx for answer, lol a friend showed me his laptop and he gave me a windowx xp-vista winrar file but his start menu etc.. its all good lol it even looks like it has aero glass on it. thnx for reply

[AVGWarhawk]

Commador 64:up:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

old school!!!!:rock: :rock: ur c64 murkes my quad fx by -999999999.12344%

[JSLTIGER]

Umm...I have a C64 emulator...

[AVGWarhawk]

Commador 64:up:

All joking aside, I have:

AMD 3200+
Some sort of Nvida motherboard
1 Gig RAM
Gforce 6200 OC 256mb videocard
It has two spinny things for CD-ROM and DVD-ROM. These are cool because a drawer slides out and you put the disc in. Then it slides back in.
For cooling it sits in my basement where it is 70 degrees all the time. There are 3 little fans that pull in the cool air and all the dust in my basement.

She is a Yugo of computers but she is my Yugo. She will just have to hold the line for a while!

[Sulikate]

Athlon 64 3000+ :)
1.5 RAM DDR :)
GeForce 7600GS 256MB :)
HD 80GB Samsung :-?

:arrgh!:

[geetrue]

heres a pic THIS NOT MY SYSTEM, this is just a pic to give a general idea of wut my system will look like but i can tell u the cables are messier,

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5885/testsystemee3.jpg

That's a nice system elite_hunter_sh3 Could I interest you in the latest video card?

Here’s a new video card for you
BFG nVidia GeForce
8800GTX Water Cooled
Edition 768MB

2D VI/HD CP PCI-Express
Video card

Price: $808.55

Requirements: Internal or External PC Water Cooling System; 2x 6pin PCI-Express supplementary power connectors; A 450W PCI Express-compliant system




Mfr Part Number: BFGR88768GTXWCE
Chipset: GeForce 8800 GTX
Engine Clock: 575 MHz
Video Memory: 768MB GDDR3
Memory Clock: 1.8 GHz
Memory Interface: 384-bit
Memory Bandwidth: 86.4 GB/sec
Bus: PCI-Express x16
RAMDAC: 400 MHz
Stream Processors: 128
Max. Resolution: 2560 x 1600
Connectors: Dual DVI (Support Dual VGA), TV-out (HDTV ready)
Thermal: Fanless
Support nVidia SLI Technology
Support HDCP - High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection
Support Microsoft DirectX 10.0, Shader Model 4.0 and OpenGL 2.0
power supply with a combined 12V current rating of 30A or more
Package: Retail




For only $200 more you could buy my whole rig


CPU P-4 3.00 GHz stock cooling
Chipset Intel 915
Mother Board MSI 915P
RAM 2 Sticks 512MB = 1GB DDR 400

HDD Seagate 320 GB sata II
Video Ati Sapphire X1600 Pro Pci-e
Sound Creative Sound Blaster
CD/DVD Pioneer DVD 105s
Modem Creative 56k 92v
Case 350W P/S 3 fans

[elite_hunter_sh3]

lol thnx but no thankx , got 2 already and i hate water cooling its complicated huge risks and heavy maintenenace for minimal temperature drop, since its under consant pressure u have to check the dam connections every time u want to turn it on, u have to replace liquid every 3 weeks to keep it from being contaminated and eating away rubber. too much risks lol ill stick with my 2 800 gtx OC stock overclocked by BFG in SLI:arrgh!::arrgh!:

[flintlock]

I don't care for favouring Intel over AMD or AMD over Intel. I just go for the best price/performance CPU that I can get my hands on. I bear no allegiance to either manufacturer either. Like you, and I suspect most, my money goes to whomever delivers the most attractive price/performance ratio when I'm in the market for a processor. Long ago it used to be Intel, then for the longest time it was AMD, and now my next system will house an Intel again. :up:

I'm just waiting to see what ATI delivers with respect to their upcoming DX10 solution, the R600. As good as NVIDIA's 8800 GTX looks, the R600 looks even more promising.

[Zantham]

I'm a fan of whoever's on top :p . Right now Intel's 2.66GHz QX6700 beats out AMD's 3.0GHz FX74, and uses just over half the wattage to do it. Intel's quadcore is far more overclockable than the FX cpus are. Intel went to 65nm design a full year before AMD did...and now that AMD is finally releasing 65nm chips (not in the FX-74 mind you) Intel has already begun on 45nm process.....
I think its funny how AMD, who bought out ATI, has to run their quadcores on nVidia chipset (680a) for now.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the turtle always wins the race and the rabbit loses. just you wait amd is a force not to be reckoned with:up:

[JSLTIGER]

Scratch this...I re-read what I was posting about, and I'm wrong...

[flintlock]

just you wait amd is a force not to be reckoned with Not to be reckoned with, huh?

This implies the opposite of what I'm sure you meant. ;)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

amd and intel are probably the best thing that has happened to computers. AMD has always been popular for gamers because of amd's FX and 64 and X2 core designed to handle more gaming types of calculations, while intel has been popular for everything else esp video coding and editing etc.. but enyways lol ive had intel and i prefer amd

:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

[JSLTIGER]

amd and intel are probably the best thing that has happened to computers. AMD has always been popular for gamers because of amd's FX and 64 and X2 core designed to handle more gaming types of calculations, while intel has been popular for everything else esp video coding and editing etc.. but enyways lol ive had intel and i prefer amd

:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:
I think that the thing that most of us are trying to point out is that statements like the above don't make sense. While AMD was the king of gaming, Intel currently takes home the gold in almost every category, including gaming. Furthermore, FX is a relatively new invention, only coming into use with the introduction of the K8 (aka Athlon 64) chip, therefore not "always" being the reason for AMD's popularity with gamers. The initial root of that segment of the market probably has to do with the late 1980s and early 1990s AMD copies of Intel x86 chips offering identical performance and lower costs. Whatever experience you may have had with Intel is effectively null and void, as you've never owned a C2D or C2Q. Remember that these chips are vastly different from the P4s most people have grown accustomed to since 2003. While the fact that you prefer AMD is not in dispute, the claims of AMD's superiority, while they may have been true in the past, are, at the moment, completely unjustified and false.

[Konovalov]

@ JSLTIGER: :yep: Exactly.

[SUBMAN1]

1. AMD 64 FX QuadFX, FX-72(*2), 2.8ghz

2. Corsair, 2GB Dual channel High speed

3. Nvidia, Geforce 8800 GTX(*2 SLI), 1536mb DDR3 RAM total

optional: links for all the hardware i own courtesy of pccanada
in order

1. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5851
2. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5133
3. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5814

:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

update*

i have a enermax Galaxy 1000 watt PSU, 4 HDD each is a western digital Raptor 10,000 rpm 150gb HD

2 WD raptors 150gb 10krpm in RAID 0 , other 2 in RAID 1

If you were going with a new system, why didn't you go Intel? Quad core is nice, but only if you have an app programmed for it. Most stuff doesn't even use dual core yet!

It sounds like a good system though. I'm getting close to an upgrade - x1900 XTX w/ 4400 X2, etc. is getting a little slow. I'm thinking about going Intel this time around since I need compression processing speed. My 4400 takes too long to do an AVI, and properly compressing with CCE for mpg still takes over an hour or two depending on film length. AVISynth is single thread only regardless if CCE is multithreaded - which means I get about 75% CPU utilization on the dual core. HD speed also needs to rise since that is another area that I am bogging on - demuxing an mpg, even using RAID 0 perpendicular drives that are 30 mb/sec (110 mb/sec sustained) faster than my older RAID 0, still takes forever.

As you can see, the cogs are turning for my next upgrade.

-S

[Zantham]

1. AMD 64 FX QuadFX, FX-72(*2), 2.8ghz

2. Corsair, 2GB Dual channel High speed

3. Nvidia, Geforce 8800 GTX(*2 SLI), 1536mb DDR3 RAM total

optional: links for all the hardware i own courtesy of pccanada
in order

1. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5851
2. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5133
3. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5814

:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

update*

i have a enermax Galaxy 1000 watt PSU, 4 HDD each is a western digital Raptor 10,000 rpm 150gb HD

2 WD raptors 150gb 10krpm in RAID 0 , other 2 in RAID 1

If you were going with a new system, why didn't you go Intel? Quad core is nice, but only if you have an app programmed for it. Most stuff doesn't even use dual core yet!

It sounds like a good system though. I'm getting close to an upgrade - x1900 XTX w/ 4400 X2, etc. is getting a little slow. I'm thinking about going Intel this time around since I need compression processing speed. My 4400 takes too long to do an AVI, and properly compressing with CCE for mpg still takes over an hour or two depending on film length. AVISynth is single thread only regardless if CCE is multithreaded - which means I get about 75% CPU utilization on the dual core. HD speed also needs to rise since that is another area that I am bogging on - demuxing an mpg, even using RAID 0 perpendicular drives that are 30 mb/sec (110 mb/sec sustained) faster than my older RAID 0, still takes forever.

As you can see, the cogs are turning for my next upgrade.

-S
Well if I'm not mistaken, the jump from 1066 FSB to 1333 is coming soon (this summer?), and with it is coming DDR3, and a new faster PCI-E spec.....
Does it ever end?:)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better :D ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here:smug: )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

[SUBMAN1]

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better :D ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here:smug: )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

It doesn't matter how they do it - single die or multi die, but AMD is still running a lot hotter at this point. And its Quad Core still falls well behind Intels dual core offerings as well. The end performance is all that matters at the end of the day. If you feel like generating more system heat, you could always overclock the Intel offerings as well! For my work though, I'd definitely have to go the Intel road this time around (I haven't bought Intel since PIII either) since AMD has some catching up to do at this point.

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image9.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image20.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image22.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image10.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image11.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image12.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image15.gif

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/image16.gif

[Zantham]

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better :D ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here:smug: )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

Both current AMD and Intel quad cores are essentially two dual cores linked together to make a 'transitional' quad core. Both upcoming revisions for Intel (Yorkfield) and AMD will be native quad core cpu's. Both are scheduled for release in Q3 2007. Both are hinting at a possible earlier release. Both again bring more focus to power management (AMD switching to 65nm process, as well as having unlinked core processing speeds (DICE); Intel running on a 45nm process and on an architecture that already is superior powerwise to AMD's). Which will be faster, especially for gaming? Nobody knows, there are arguments back and forth all over the web, and until the chips are actually released and benchmarked on their respective platforms...who can say for certain which will be faster.

[Godalmighty83]

current-

3.2ghz p4
2gb ram
120gb hdd
x1800

a 8800gts should be here tomorrow :D

i know the old p4 is a bottleneck so hopefully soon i will get of a e6600 for it. the new intel c2d's are awesome but in order to get the best out of it i would new a new mobo and faster 6400 ram.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better :D ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here:smug: )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

Both current AMD and Intel quad cores are essentially two dual cores linked together to make a 'transitional' quad core. Both upcoming revisions for Intel (Yorkfield) and AMD will be native quad core cpu's. Both are scheduled for release in Q3 2007. Both are hinting at a possible earlier release. Both again bring more focus to power management (AMD switching to 65nm process, as well as having unlinked core processing speeds (DICE); Intel running on a 45nm process and on an architecture that already is superior powerwise to AMD's). Which will be faster, especially for gaming? Nobody knows, there are arguments back and forth all over the web, and until the chips are actually released and benchmarked on their respective platforms...who can say for certain which will be faster.

nooo amd's quad core is 4 cores on a single DIE and not 2 DIE like intels quad core

[Zantham]

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better :D ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here:smug: )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency
Both current AMD and Intel quad cores are essentially two dual cores linked together to make a 'transitional' quad core. Both upcoming revisions for Intel (Yorkfield) and AMD will be native quad core cpu's. Both are scheduled for release in Q3 2007. Both are hinting at a possible earlier release. Both again bring more focus to power management (AMD switching to 65nm process, as well as having unlinked core processing speeds (DICE); Intel running on a 45nm process and on an architecture that already is superior powerwise to AMD's). Which will be faster, especially for gaming? Nobody knows, there are arguments back and forth all over the web, and until the chips are actually released and benchmarked on their respective platforms...who can say for certain which will be faster.
nooo amd's quad core is 4 cores on a single DIE and not 2 DIE like intels quad core

From an article found in Hardware Central:
"The Quad FX platform consists of two matching dual-core Athlon 64 FX processors, but these are not your father's FX -- instead of using AMD's current desktop Socket AM2 as the Athlon 64 FX-62 does, they're based on the 1,207-pin Socket F used for Opteron server processors. Equipped with 1MB of Level 2 cache per core, they come in three different flavors: the Athlon 64 FX-70 (2.6GHz), FX-72 (2.8GHz), and FX-74 (3.0GHz)."
and further down:
"One promising aspect of the Quad FX launch is its anticipation of AMD's "real" or native K8L quad-core CPU in mid-2007"

[elite_hunter_sh3]

errm i was talking about single socket quad core like c2 quad and the soon to be released god amd barcelona first actual quad core. not quad fx with socket f

[Zantham]

errm i was talking about single socket quad core like c2 quad and the soon to be released god amd barcelona first actual quad core. not quad fx with socket f
Well of course the new AMD native quadcore cpu that is not yet released will be faster than a current Intel core that is released:damn:. Lets not compare apples to oranges here shall we? My point being that, of the quad core cpus available today, neither AMD nor Intel have a native quad core. Both intend to release one later this year, who will be first I havent found firm release dates for either yet...and there is the chance one or the other, or both, may try to release before schedule. Both of these new cpus will be native quad core. Nobody knows yet which will be faster or better or have more bang for buck.

Today, if you want to build the fastest quadcore system possible, you would use an Intel quad over the AMD quad. Come Q3 and the release of the new series of quads....well we will all have to wait till then to see if Intel will stay on top, or if AMD will again dethrone Intel.

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, how about this for a new system:
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz 1066MHz FSB 2MB cache, non-HT)


Memory: 2048MB PC5300 dual-channel DDR2 667MHz SDRAM (2-1024MB modules)


Video: NVIDIA® GeForce® 7950GT 512MB GDDR3 Dual DVI - Dual Link w/HDCP & TV-Out

OR

Dual Card ATI Radeon® X1950 CrossFire™ solution w/512MB GDDR4 memory DVI w/HDCP, VGA (via adapter) & TV-Out

Would that be ample for a few years?

[SUBMAN1]

Ok, how about this for a new system:
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz 1066MHz FSB 2MB cache, non-HT)


Memory: 2048MB PC5300 dual-channel DDR2 667MHz SDRAM (2-1024MB modules)


Video: NVIDIA® GeForce® 7950GT 512MB GDDR3 Dual DVI - Dual Link w/HDCP & TV-Out

OR

Dual Card ATI Radeon® X1950 CrossFire™ solution w/512MB GDDR4 memory DVI w/HDCP, VGA (via adapter) & TV-Out

Would that be ample for a few years?

Yes! But change over to an Nvidia based chipset so that if you decide to run SLI, you can. If you plan to keep the Crossfire chipset, buy ATI - like an x1900 series of some sort. Then you can run a Crossfire setup. I don't think Nvidia does SLI on an AMD Crossfire based board.

-S

[flintlock]

Ok, how about this for a new system: <listed specs> That looks like a fine system, and I'm sure you would get some good mileage out of it. What flavor of the X1950 are you considering? I'd find it difficult to recommend the 7950 GT over an X1950 XT with the current prices of the latter, and it's a better performer. Although there are some great deals to be had on the 7950 GT as well (rebates).

The E6400 is a great CPU, but I'd suggest you consider spending just a little more for the E6600 and get the extra 2MB cache (you'll notice this).

[Zantham]

Ok, how about this for a new system: <listed specs> That looks like a fine system, and I'm sure you would get some good mileage out of it. What flavor of the X1950 are you considering? I'd find it difficult to recommend the 7950 GT over an X1950 XT with the current prices of the latter, and it's a better performer. Although there are some great deals to be had on the 7950 GT as well (rebates).

The E6400 is a great CPU, but I'd suggest you consider spending just a little more for the E6600 and get the extra 2MB cache (you'll notice this).
Agree with upgrading from e6400 to e6600, also consider avoiding DDR2-667. Instead go with DDR2-533 because it runs synchronously with the CPU FSB and its cheap. Or go with DDR2-800 because the higher bandwidth of the RAM offsets the asynchronous latencies with the CPU, esp if you get ram with tight timings (most new boards directly support up to 800 now also).

Here's an article I found that benchmarks the various speeds of RAM with a Core 2 Duo system.
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=472
If nothing else read the last page:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=4&artpage=1965&articID=472

[elite_hunter_sh3]

i say GO crossfire its a more effiecent technology then SLI where in SLI 1 video card is reduced performance(slave card) go corssfire because ATI x1950 xtx is the best only 2nd to the 8800 gtx

edit* definately ample for at least 1.5-2 years

edit*u can wait 2-3 months and get a native amd quad core? and intel is not planning on releasing native quad core till fall 07 , while amd is between spring-summer 07

[geetrue]

Ok, how about this for a new system: <listed specs> That looks like a fine system, and I'm sure you would get some good mileage out of it. What flavor of the X1950 are you considering? I'd find it difficult to recommend the 7950 GT over an X1950 XT with the current prices of the latter, and it's a better performer. Although there are some great deals to be had on the 7950 GT as well (rebates).

The E6400 is a great CPU, but I'd suggest you consider spending just a little more for the E6600 and get the extra 2MB cache (you'll notice this).
Agree with upgrading from e6400 to e6600, also consider avoiding DDR2-667. Instead go with DDR2-533 because it runs synchronously with the CPU FSB and its cheap. Or go with DDR2-800 because the higher bandwidth of the RAM offsets the asynchronous latencies with the CPU, esp if you get ram with tight timings (most new boards directly support up to 800 now also).

Here's an article I found that benchmarks the various speeds of RAM with a Core 2 Duo system.
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=472
If nothing else read the last page:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=4&artpage=1965&articID=472

That's good advice Zantham ... I like balance between everything, especially the chipset ...

One quick question ... Can I put (2) 1gb sticks of DDR2 800 in a MB with slots for DDR2 400? Will it revert to the 400 status or reject them?

[elite_hunter_sh3]

depends on mobo, if mobo supports max ddr2 400 (wait ddr2 400 doenst exits) r u asking ddr400?? cuz it wont fit.

[geetrue]

No, I'm talking DDR2 400 ... it's a special combo board by MSI has slots for DDR1 and DDR2 both are 400 ...

[elite_hunter_sh3]

please post MB model and name and brand, and i can give answer

edit* right now i think it will be limited cuz mobo is designed for ddr1 and ddr2 so im pretty sure it wont run like computer wont even start up if u put in wrong memory, but to give a exact answer need MB model (ex, asus A8n-X etc....) and i can tell u exatcly which ram can be put

[geetrue]

please post MB model and name and brand, and i can give answer


MSI 915P and then I think it says combo on it too

[Zantham]

DDR2-400 does exist.

Geetrue let me see if I understand your question:
You want to run DDR2-800 RAM in a board you were running DDR2-400 in?
In this case, the DDR2-800 will run at the highest speed that your board allows, which could be 400, 533, 667 or 800. The RAM is backward compatible as long as it is all DDR2. Dont try to run both DDR and DDR2 at the same time.
My question is: why would you want to spend all that money on getting DDR2-800 if in fact your board will only run it at 400 or possibly 533? Running DDR2-800 RAM on a board that only supports 400 will be no different than running DDR2-400 RAM. DDR2-533 and 667 is generally a lot cheaper than 800. Hope this helps.

edit: and some high performance DDR2 RAM requires higher voltages to run and wont boot at stock voltages.

[geetrue]

DDR2-400 does exist.

Geetrue let me see if I understand your question:
You want to run DDR2-800 RAM in a board you were running DDR2-400 in?
In this case, the DDR2-800 will run at the highest speed that your board allows, which could be 400, 533, 667 or 800. The RAM is backward compatible as long as it is all DDR2. Dont try to run both DDR and DDR2 at the same time.
My question is: why would you want to spend all that money on getting DDR2-800 if in fact your board will only run it at 400 or possibly 533? Running DDR2-800 RAM on a board that only supports 400 will be no different than running DDR2-400 RAM. DDR2-533 and 667 is generally a lot cheaper than 800. Hope this helps.

Easy question ... it's a combo board, only four places for ram, both are color coded one is green one is orange ... Running (2) sticks of 512 DDR1 400 now and would take them out and put in (2) DDR2 800 in the correct slots for DDR2 and then later upgrade MB and take the DDR2 with me ... :cool:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

yea u can run it i guess, but it will be ddr2 400 speeds.

[JSLTIGER]

Ok, how about this for a new system: <listed specs> That looks like a fine system, and I'm sure you would get some good mileage out of it. What flavor of the X1950 are you considering? I'd find it difficult to recommend the 7950 GT over an X1950 XT with the current prices of the latter, and it's a better performer. Although there are some great deals to be had on the 7950 GT as well (rebates).

The E6400 is a great CPU, but I'd suggest you consider spending just a little more for the E6600 and get the extra 2MB cache (you'll notice this).
Agree with upgrading from e6400 to e6600, also consider avoiding DDR2-667. Instead go with DDR2-533 because it runs synchronously with the CPU FSB and its cheap. Or go with DDR2-800 because the higher bandwidth of the RAM offsets the asynchronous latencies with the CPU, esp if you get ram with tight timings (most new boards directly support up to 800 now also).

Here's an article I found that benchmarks the various speeds of RAM with a Core 2 Duo system.
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=472
If nothing else read the last page:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=4&artpage=1965&articID=472
I concur...get a 4MB cache part.

and @ Flintlock

Check your PMs.

[Roads88]

My kind of thread. Check out others folkes stuff and talk about your own. hehe

Here is mine:
Intel 2.4 Hz Duo2
Asus, P5B, Delux P965, SLI mother board
2GB (in 1GB dimms for more ram room when needed), PC6400
EVGA GeForce 7950 GT KO. 512MB GDDR3
650w power supply.

Runs everthing at max settings.:rock:

I get myself a new computer every 5 years if i need it or not.:rotfl:

[jumpy]

- Athlon 64 X2 3800+ cpu (for now).
- Asus M2N32-sli-dlx nforce590 PCI-E DDR2 (socket AM2) mobo.
- Corsair 2GB DDR2 XMS2-6400C4 TWINX ram.
- Hiper HPU-4M670 TYPE-R 670W ATX2.2 psu.
- Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 10 NCQ 250GB 6V250FO SATAII 16MB CACHE hd. Plus my 160gb ide drive as a backup.
- BFG GEFORCE 7950GT OC 512MB GDDR3 HDTV/DUAL DVI PCI-E grafix card.
- vented side panel for my Akasa Eclipse 62 case and some assorted cables.
- 2 monitors - 19" iiyama vision master pro 454 & 17" generic flat screen crt monitor.
- creative 5.1 sound card (old but does the job so far).
- creative 5.1 surround sound speakers.. plenty loud enough and only 30 quid :up:
- 2nd edition black ice mat.
- logitech G3 gaming mouse.


I may consider some more HD space in the future, but I can't see what I've already got filling up any time soon. More RAM? maybe another graphics card to run SLI? not sure if that' worth it. Probably a new cpu in about 12 month when some of the prices have reduced a bit.
Whatever happens the basics at the core of this stuff should last me a few years at the very least and hopefully with some room for improvement without having to lash out on a whole new machine, but that all depends don't it? :lol:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

amd is also a good way to go even with C2D because AMD isplanning on releaseing a patch (what ive heard) that purely utilizes 100% 64bit programs, thus increasing performance, amd is planning on releaseing version of their athlon and fx and X2 series purely for 64 bit and not 32 bit. (mainly for business)

[Konovalov]

You strike me as a bit of an AMD fanboy elite_hunter_sh3. :lol:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

AMD owns intel, intel just has more advertising:nope: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :arrgh!:

cant wait till native quad core comes out, then i can replace my Quaqd FX with 2 native quad cores giving me a total of 8 cores !!!!

[Zantham]

elite_hunter, have you considered adding the Gigabyte iRam drives to your computer? Western Digital Raptors are very fast drives, but can only sustain a theoretical 120MB/sec in a RAID0 config (realistically around 90MB/sec). If you get two (or more, with all those SATA ports you have) you can add in iRam drives and RAID those. You eliminate seek time completely (5.5ms in the Raptor to 0.0 in the iRam), plus you will achieve a true 300MB/sec throughput (with two of them RAID0, 600MB/sec). You need 4x1GB DDR RAM per iRam (putting in larger sticks has no benefit, they only support 4GB each) and even old PC-2100 is enough to fully saturate the SATA bus to give you max speed. They use your system's power to maintain the memory even when your system is shut off (just dont unplug it from the wall or shut off the power bar), and they have a battery backup in case you do need to unplug your system. You can install Windows on them and use them as you would any other hard drive. My usage scenerio would be: 2x iRams (8GB) Windows install and maybe one or two commonly used progams. Then maybe another pair (or more) of iRams that I would use for installing games onto. Just a thought if you are planning on building the ultimate computer anyways:D

[elite_hunter_sh3]

is that like those hdd that u jus place memory in em, ive seen those, im not sure about it , im concerend for hdd space, (games, movies, pics, more games, movies, programming languages and i tinker andmodify windows OS and mac OS :arrgh!: )

ill stick with my raptors for now, but thanks for the info ill look into it:up:

[Zantham]

Yup, you'd use them with your Raptors. Put the stuff you want to load fast in the iRam drives then the important stuff (I'd put backups of the iRam's too) on the Raptors.

Here's an article from AnandTech about the iRams and some benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480

I dont think they played around with raiding the iRams in that tho. But a single iRam is a fair chunk faster than an single Raptor, and the speed difference would be even more noticeable when you start raiding them vs raiding raptors. Your motherboard should have 12 SATA ports on it...its not like your gonna run out of places to plug in drives anytime soon:)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

update* ive just sold one of my 8800 gtx's in anticipation for ATi's r600, my other 8800 gtx will be just fine without it :up:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

cant wait for native amd barcelona and ati r600, !! yay, o wait now i have to wait until crossfire motherboard for socket F is out:nope::nope::nope::x:damn::damn:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

bump revive an oldy:arrgh!:, still waiting on tem r600s and amds quads

[flintlock]

still waiting on tem r600s
As am I.

My entire next build is on hold until I see what this next GPU brings to the table.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

funny thing is the r600 is a complete redesign, its designed to be PURE DX 10, it will work with dx9.0c, even faster then the 8800 series, but the 8 series is half dx 9.0c half dx10, r600 decimated the 8 series.. nvidia said they r gonna release the 8900 gtx which is just a faster clocked version of the same core... still not gonna beat the r600.:up::rock::rock::rock:

AND NEW UPDATES!! from wut ive read on dailytech.com,

r600 and amd quad core benchmarks and specs shud be out within the next 2 weeks and r600 released close to end of this month and quad core be released few weeks after atir600 comes out.:rock::rock::rock::rock:

[geetrue]

But you will need Vista for DX10 ... I don't have the 8800 yet, but the 8800GTS is down to $299 and who knows what it might come down to after more DX10 cards come out ...

But I just put Vista home premium on a Seagate 320GB hdd sata 3 16mb cache and it runs great ... I love it ... had some problems with Creative sound drivers, but I switched to the mobo sound and it sounds better than my sound card did.

The new ati video drivers are still being rejected, but it will all work out ... Vista ain't going away, it's getting better everyday.

One warning put Adaware on before you surf the web ... I added a bunch of new (what they call) gadgets to the new sidebar and let some trackers in. Blue screened me for a couple of days, before I figured it out.

Great recovery, repair system ... I'm very happy with Vista ... I have XP on two other hdd's in case I need them, but they are getting older and farther away everyday.

[Rilder]

Il post my computer

Amd Anthlon 3200, 1.9 ghz, runs at 3.2 ghz according to System Requirements lab. (Winchester Model)
ATI Radeon x1950PRO(:D )
250gig Hiatachi Dexster Sata Hard-drive
450W PSU.
1.5 Gigs of RAM.
MSI, MS-7093 Motherboard (http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=RS480M2-IL&class=mb)
Standard Emachines Case.

[kiwi_2005]

MainPC
MSI
AMD Athlon 64
2gigs Ram ddr2
160hdd
7800GTX 256ram
winxp pro

2nd PC
KT600-A
AMD AthlonXP 2.6ghz
2gig ram ddr333
GFX 6200 256ram
80hdd
Winxp pro/Mandrake 9