Countdown for a new system

[Herr-Berbunch]

The price of hard drives now is such that I wouldn't bother partitioning, you may as well get two, one for Win7 and one for XP - if you really need it. I run some older games just fine on Win7 and by disabling UAC I have no issues with running programs.

Good luck to you both. (Not that you'll need it!)

[the_tyrant]

My advice (I just built a new system):

Big hard drives are a great idea. I bought a 3tb drive for 199$, while a 1 tb drive is like 150$. The cost per gb goes down as the size of drive goes up.

4 cores are a good idea. Its barely more expensive than a duel core processor. and the performance increase is quite noticeable.

Also, build for the future. Get a good stable rig that can be upgraded.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

My advice (I just built a new system):

Big hard drives are a great idea. I bought a 3tb drive for 199$, while a 1 tb drive is like 150$. The cost per gb goes down as the size of drive goes up.

But a 500 GB drive for 50 bucks still is even cheaper. And I do not need even that much. I simply do not need it, I do not buy new games in truckload amounts anymore.

4 cores are a good idea. Its barely more expensive than a duel core processor. and the performance increase is quite noticeable.

How is that? None of the games I plan to use is new and supports multiple cores. As I said, I have almost no interest in new stuff. So I think I am better off with investing into two cores with for example 3.3 GHz than into 4 cores with 2.8 GHz. Since my sims use one CPU only anyway, that leaves the game running with 3.3 instead of 2.8 GHz, and background processes on the other CPU. Core 3 and 4 would be of no use for me, or not!?

Also, build for the future. Get a good stable rig that can be upgraded.

Yes, absolutely. I would welcome USB 3 connectors, for example, for faster USB stick handling. Additional space for RAM, if I ever would need it (which I still doubt). But beyond that - I wonder what kind of "upgrade" in hardware I could need. Again, I do not buy software anymore like I used to buy in the past. Estimating that W7 will be supported for another 8-10 years, I think that is the amount of time the new if should hold out.

And in ten years it is possible that my interest in computer games has become so specialized and small (chess, cosims), that maybe I would prefer something in the style of a notebook then. If that still is available then.

FS9 can use more hardware than I currently have. But all other sims I mentioned already probably are served with hardware overkill capacities by my new system.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But a 500 GB drive for 50 bucks still is even cheaper. And I do not need even that much. I simply do not need it, I do not buy new games in truckload amounts anymore.

Same here. I download a huge amount of music these days, but that's what I have an external drive for.

How is that? None of the games I plan to use is new and supports multiple cores. As I said, I have almost no interest in new stuff. So I think I am better off with investing into two cores with for example 3.3 GHz than into 4 cores with 2.8 GHz. Since my sims use one CPU only anyway, that leaves the game running with 3.3 instead of 2.8 GHz, and background processes on the other CPU. Core 3 and 4 would be of no use for me, or not!?

Interesting questions. I think I'd like to have as many cores as I can afford, but the GHz question puzzles me as well.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

as many cores as I can afford, but the GHz question puzzles me as well.

Software needs to explcitly support 2 or 4 cores, else one and the same workload of one core only gets equzally distriubuted amongst the avialable cores. Instread mof one core being on duty to 80% you then have 4 cores each of them being busy at 20%. To have all four cores running at 80% and getting the speed boost from that, you need softweare supporting that.

Thnat'S why modewrn chess engines nowadays get released in two versions: single core versions at around 40-50 Euros, and multiple core versions at around 80-100 Euros. Its the same engine, but optimised for several cores.

FS9 is single core only. You cannot get around that. You only get a GHz-independant speed boost from the fact that two processors for example allow you to have one CPU running Windows and background tasks, leaving the other free for fully calculating in the service of FS9.

That's why I prefer 2 high GHz processors over 4 CPUs with lower GHz.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's why I prefer 2 high GHz processors over 4 CPUs with lower GHz.

Umm ArmA 2 would benefit much from 4 cores than 2.

I'm using a 2 core i5 myself though.

For games with a lot to compute like the Total War series or ArmA 2 it's best to have as many core as possible but it's true most application would only require 1 or two cores at most and with threading each core is already giving 2 cycle of calculation albeit at reduced speed than from different cores. The thing is if you buy higher speed double core CPU the gain will be in relatively simpler and or smaller programs such as file converting or older games. The gain will not be that much either well in the seconds range. Though it will make your everyday work activities a lot smoother.

But if you use lower speed 4 cores the gain will be very noticeable when playing newer games with a lot of stuffs going on. Like I said ArmA 2 and total war will greatly benefit from more cores. Well it's up to you to decide knowing this.

Excellent taste of gaming I must add. I like many of those titles you listed.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

The price of hard drives now is such that I wouldn't bother partitioning, you may as well get two, one for Win7 and one for XP - if you really need it. I run some older games just fine on Win7 and by disabling UAC I have no issues with running programs.

What is UAC?

Good luck to you both. (Not that you'll need it!)

I am confident, I maintain the notebook of my mother with Vista since 2 years, and hate it, and since two months I maintain another notebook of a friend of hers, with Windows 7, and I like it. So the new OS is not all that new anymore. But still there are details I probably don't know, since I had no need to investigate them since he does not need them, but I will need them due to different needs of mine.

P.S. BTW, a pure Windows 7 partition, will 32 GB enoiugh in nsize, considering future Windows upgrades, SPs and system restore points?

P.P.S. I noted with enthusiasm that W7 since the first time ever features a volume cloning function, like Acronis for example. That way I can form an image of the full HD installatrions onto another, separate HD. Does that function in W7 work reliable, or are you still better off with using separate software for that?

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What is UAC?

User account control
the popup asking you if you actually want to do something or not

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

User account control
the popup asking you if you actually want to do something or not

Ah yes, very annoying in Vista, and although less so, still annoying in W7. I need to learn how to switch that one off.

It would be nice to have all software also running in administrator mode automatically.

Microsoft is exaggerating some things there - for no productive use.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ah yes, very annoying in Vista, and although less so, still annoying in W7. I need to learn how to switch that one off.

It would be nice to have all software also running in administrator mode automatically.

Microsoft is exaggerating some things there - for no productive use.

You wouldn't want to disable UAC. It's a security measure. Without it you're opening your PC to hackers WIDE open.

It's preferable to have strong passwords for UAC about 20 or more random characters and change them periodically.

Amateur hacker could download app that will try to break your UAC password with sheer CPU power especially if you have the habit of leaving the internet online for long period of time. So changing them periodically is important than ever.

[Skybird]

Well, I have Medieval 2 and do not intend to move beyond that. My jewel case lists it as a single processor game. And Arma2 I said, but actually I messed it up - I have ArmA (1) only, and again do not intend to upgrade to ArmA2 or anything else. And ArmA again is listed in the manual as a single CPU game. I do not even play it anymore.

I listed some of those games just in case that I get interested again. Not even half of them is installed currently.

I do not own a single title, I think, which is designed for dual or quad cores. And, as I said, since I do not have much interest anymore in buyin g games and prefer to stay with some old classics of strategy and flight simming - I do not need 3rd and 4th core CPUs. I need good GHz on the first and reasonable GHz on the second core - one CPU for the single CPU game, and the other for the background tasks and Windows. Only by this splitting of working tasks can single processor games gain a slight benefit from mutiuple processors. For the real deal you need games that are optimised for multiple processors.

The only title I am currently waiting for, is World in Flames, a hexfield strategy title - hardly a hardware-killing game. FS9, Falcon and SBP, COTA and TOAW3 also all are single processor titles.

And UAC, if that is the "Do you really want to open this folder", "do you really want to start Words", "do you really want to this or that", then I never have seen any code-entry there. But maybe I misunderstand what UAC is.

[Skybird]

Could anyone help me out with my confusion about dual boot setups? I am really struggling to understand how it works and how the two OS interact with installed software. What I read on the web so far does not help me, it leaves my basic misunderstanding unadressed.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And UAC, if that is the "Do you really want to open this folder", "do you really want to start Words", "do you really want to this or that", then I never have seen any code-entry there. But maybe I misunderstand what UAC is.

UAC is there so that unauthorized users including hackers would still need to break your UAC password to mess with your critical files.

I'm using i5 661 myself it has a CPU-GPU processor in one package. Make sure the mobo can support the GPU processor. It's okay otherwise just that you'll be missing one of the feature you're buying. Not much if you already have a GPU though. And yeah it's fast for every day's task like MP4 conversion. When the program's only using a single core it will turbo itself to 3.6Ghz which is nice. 2 cores with 4 threads.

[the_tyrant]

CPUs make or break the system
Many believe that Video cards are the most important part of the system. It is NOT TRUE Video cards are important in gaming and 3d design, but everything else, CPUs are more important.
Also, back just a bit more than 3 years ago, there was a time when every Intel cpu used socket 775, and every AMD chip used am2
However, now there are different sockets for different CPUs. Bigger socket number= better cpu, and generally better board with more features.

as for core numbers, more is better, but for the same amount of money, i would rather get better instruction sets, lower heat etc.