| Author |
Message |
|
rebel.socom
Member
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 151
|
 Posted: 06 Aug 2004 01:33:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think this is the motherboard i saw at microcenter (i dont really know because i only saw the box) k7 triton is name i think. Dis is good enough right?
o should i get 512 or 768mb of ram? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brazucs
I have no idea what my avatar is.
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 3349
|
| Posted: 06 Aug 2004 01:55:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Microsoft says that 512mb is enough. Therefore, get 768mb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISUCK
Newbie
Joined: 09 Feb 2004
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: 06 Aug 2004 02:45:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nah, 512 Megs is plenty IMO... but more is better... heck I remember microsoft saying that 128 mb was enough... well it isn't now, so don't even think about getting that much... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 06 Aug 2004 03:06:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rebel.socom wrote: o should i get 512 or 768mb of ram?
May I ask why you ask? I mean, clearly 768 MB is better than 512 MB and the only reason not to get 768 would be money, and we have no clue how much you're willing to spend. 
Quote: Microsoft says that 512mb is enough. Therefore, get 768mb. Microsoft is right, 512MB is (more than) enough, but if you want to keep from having to buy the additional 256MB later, get it now. Simple enough, no?
Quote: heck I remember microsoft saying that 128 mb was enough... well it isn't now So, would you mind explaining why I can run Morrowind (smoothly, so at least 12FPS since that's what the average human eye sees as smoothly) on a system with 128MB RAM at 1024*768*32b if it isn't enough? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
X1011
10100111001
Active Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: 06 Aug 2004 03:20:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: at least 12FPS since that's what the average human eye sees as smoothly
Where did you get that fact from? I thought it was 24 FPS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 06 Aug 2004 03:42:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
12 is the absolute minimum for animated imagery, I've seen it myself running Unreal Tournament on a P1 133MHz, the more I tweaked, the higher the FPS got, below 12 it was obviously shocky, at 12 and above it was actually playable and smooth.
I believe 24 is what is used most often, like in Cinema's and DVD movies and stuff, because 12 FPS will probably get annoying if you have to watch it for 3 hours straight, but another standard was 30 (TV I believe) so I'm not sure at all about what the 24 was good for.
Last edited by Guest on 06 Aug 2004 03:44:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
X1011
10100111001
Active Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: 06 Aug 2004 06:52:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well I wouldn't consider 12 FPS smooth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlienCC
Creative Receptacle!
Know-It-All
Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 1927
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2004 12:17:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
agility wrote: Quote: if they didn't care about their customers they wouldn't have just recalled the latest Intel chipset for the Pentium 4 which had a serious bug in it.
Which processor is that exactly?
I said chipset, not Processor, chipset is on the motherboard, anyway you can read more about it here.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0...tid=118&tid=137
rebel.socom wrote: Is amd 64 really going to be worth the $209. Cant i play half life 2 using ^. In my opinion yes it will be worth it, and agains yes you will be able to do everything on the Amd 64 that you can on any Athlon / Pentium.
Arcane Wizard wrote: It's just a simple rule of thumb, if you have a $200 CPU then don't buy a $500 GFX card because the CPU won't be able to keep up with it. Guess we don't shop the same places...
http://pricewatch.com/
Current Cpu Prices (08-06-2004) Quote: $640 - Athlon 64 3800
$504 - Athlon 64 3700
$345 - Athlon 64 3500
$346 - Athlon 64 3500 939pin
$286 - Athlon 64 3400
$203 - Athlon 64 3200
$160 - Athlon 64 3000
$140 - Athlon 64 2800 Current Videocard Prices (08-06-2004) Quote: $545 - Radeon x800 xt 256mb
$392 - Radeon x800 pro 256mb
$345 - Radeon 9800 xt 256mb
$117 - Radeon 9800 se 128mb
$234 - Radeon 9800 pro 256mb
$192 - Radeon 9800 pro 128mb
$311 - Geforce 6800 ultra
$313 - Geforce 6800 gt
$389 - Geforce 6800 256mb
$275 - Geforce 6800 128mb
$199 - Geforce pcx 5900 128mb
$121 - Geforce pcx 5750 128mb
$347 - Geforce fx 5950 256mb ultra
$347 - Geforce fx 5950 256mb
$395 - Geforce fx 5900 256mb
$170 - Geforce fx 5900 128mb
As far as I'm concerned any of those have my stamp of approval as components for a High-Quality Gamer's PC. From that list I see no reason to spend $500 on either the cpu, or the videocard as you can get quite a winner from either group for under $200.
X1011 wrote: Well I wouldn't consider 12 FPS smooth. I wouldn't either, unless you're trying to play an interactive slide show, instead of a game. I also wouldn't consider 60Hz acceptable for the monitor's refresh rate, you gotta go up to at least 75Hz, somedays even 85Hz is almost unacceptable. Anything slower then that I can physically see the picture refreshing on a monitor, so maybe its just me but I can see the flickering physically happening. Same with games, if they go much lower then about 45FPS. So just maybe my eyes can see faster then normal?
Personally my main gaming machine runs with a ($160) Asus A7N8X Deluxe PCB2.0, ($350) Athlon XP 2700+, ($350) 1GB of Mushkin (2-2-2) level2 PC2700 Ram, which I've had (motherboard cpu & ram) for over a year & half, and a ($329) ATI Radeon 9800 Pro which I've had for half a year. Included is how much I spent on those not what they cost now. You would love how great Doom3 (released 3 days ago) runs on this system with the graphic quality set on high.
--AlienCC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NETWizz
Byte by bit
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 2369
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2004 01:23:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
brazucs16 wrote: Well... your computer's performance will really vary on the specific hardware and software that you're using. The good thing about HT is that it's compatible with today's IA-32 apps and OS's.
Actually, it is not compatible with all OS's.
Essentially, it pretends to be more than one CPU, os you need an OS that can handle multiple CPUs.
e.g.
Win NT 4.x (recent version)
Win 2k (any variant)
Win XP
Longhorn
Novell Netware
Linux
BSD (Any Variant)
Dos, Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, BeOS, and a few others are not compliant with HT, since they don't support multiple processors. BeOS might now not sure.
Basically, if you get an OS that supports only one processor, you need to go into the bios and turn off Hyper Threading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2004 05:07:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
X1011 wrote: Well I wouldn't consider 12 FPS smooth.
Well, that's your problem then, because it is smooth. I use Morrowind FPS Optimizer to make sure it runs at at least 12 FPS, 20FPS max.
Quote: As far as I'm concerned any of those have my stamp of approval as components for a High-Quality Gamer's PC. From that list I see no reason to spend $500 on either the cpu, or the videocard as you can get quite a winner from either group for under $200. Getting the Athlon 64 3800 for $640 and then a Radeon 9800 se 128mb is a shame, the videocard will be a huge bottleneck for game performance and the $640 is mostly wasted. Athlon 64 2800 and the same vid card would be able to keep up with that system very well, gaming wise, only for $400 cheaper.
You don't buy an old lawnmower engine for $10 to put in your Lamborghini don't you?
BTW I heard that XP home edition didn't support HT either. 
Last edited by Guest on 07 Aug 2004 10:44:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agility
Calc Spammer
Calc Guru
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 1266
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2004 07:11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What's "Longhorn"? Is that a version of windows? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2004 07:37:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's the codename for the upcoming version of windows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
X1011
10100111001
Active Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2004 12:33:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arcane Wizard wrote: BTW I heard that XP home edition didn't support HT either.
Yes, only the pro version supports multiple processors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NETWizz
Byte by bit
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 2369
|
| Posted: 08 Aug 2004 03:22:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kind of fucked up hugh?
Lucily I knew that when I purchased my duel processor system.
You see, XP Pro is just 2000 Pro with a lot of added bells and whistles. For example, system restore, fancy login, skinning, 2 colum start bar, program compatibility wizard...
XP home is XP pro taken to the chop shop. They pull a lot of NTFS features such as security settings, a up the network settings, horde ip addresses, and they a up your access control lists so they don't work right.
Group policy is almost removed, the microsoft management console doesn't manage much. Very fec connections are allowed per port...
You cannot join a windows domain.
No encrypted filesystem.
Only one processor for home.
If you ask me, Microsoft made XP Professional from Widows 2000 Professional.
Then after completing Pro, they took stuff out, slashed the price, and sold it to home users.
Why not just not bothered making XP Home. Instead, just give everyone XP pro, but call it just plain XP. One OS for everyone!.
XP Pro is limited to 2 maybe 4 processors. I am not sure. I just know home was capped.
Last edited by Guest on 08 Aug 2004 03:31:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rebel.socom
Member
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: 08 Aug 2004 12:22:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| will half life play better on xp pro than xp home? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 08 Aug 2004 12:47:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you're going for Dual Processing or HyperThreading, definately. Otherwise there's not a huge difference in performance, depending on your hardware of course. Home Edition tends to be a little screwy and not like (a default Home Edition installation can't handle more than 512MB RAM for example, if you put in more the rest simply won't be used or show up in any hardware statistics) the hardware Pro likes.
But considering Pro is better, download ( ) Pro and not Home Edition.
Last edited by Guest on 08 Aug 2004 12:50:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agility
Calc Spammer
Calc Guru
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 1266
|
| Posted: 08 Aug 2004 04:21:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: XP Pro is limited to 2 maybe 4 processors. I am not sure. I just know home was capped.
What about XP Media Center Edition? How many processors can that handle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optimize
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: 08 Aug 2004 05:37:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok the only difference between Windows XP Home and Professional are basically the support for dual processing and single processing and a handful of other features thats not going to change your performance, so save money and go home
Second of all, a 32-bit system could easily handle Half-Life 2 on highest graphical settings, just make sure you get somewhat of a decent computer!
Third, the K7 Trition is for 32-bit processing and will not handle the 64-bit (FYI). If you plan on getting a 32-bit processor though, that motherboard will do everything you want it.
Fourth, if you're going cheap I'd get a 3000+/2800+ AthlonXP 32-bit processor with a simple with at least a Radeon 9700 (Pro?) or a nVidia 5700. Those paired with a 2800+/3000+ AthlonXP 32-bit, 512mb ram, and a nice ATA133 harddrive would smoke Half-Life 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optimize
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 08 Aug 2004 06:13:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: This computer would destroy anything you throw at it off the shelf. It won't run Doom3 at max detail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Computer Tech Support => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
