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

[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



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.

[Seth8530]

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!!!! ) (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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by 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



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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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 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 )


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]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better 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 )


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.

[Zantham]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better 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 )


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

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]

Originally Posted by Zantham

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

[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

A dated rig, but it still works!