Your Specs

[Frosty]

as the title says post your comp's specs.....

Mine

AMD athlon x2 (dual core) socket am2 stock 2.5ghz oc'ed to 3ghz
ATI radeon x1950 pro
2GB geil DDR2 800 (oc'ed to 867mhz) of ram
Raidmax 630 watt powersupply
Evga motherboard (nvidia 590 sli chipset)
Westerdigital Raptor Raid 0 750GB
Samsung SATA dual layer dvd burner

[Blahages]

Desktop (Built it in Late October 2005):

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Socket 939)
1GB DDR PC3200 OCZ RAM
Seagate SATA 500GB HDD
Maxtor SATA 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon X800GT PCIe
DFI LanParty NF4 UT Motherboard
Antec 550 Watt PSU
Samsung DVDRW Drive (Dual Layer, LightScribe)
Creative SB Live 24 Bit PCI Sound Card
Windows XP Professional SP2
Ubuntu 7.04
Linux Mint

Server:

AMD Athlon XP 2200+
1.25GB DDR PC2700 RAM
2x80GB Western Digital IDE HDDs
2x40GB Western Digital IDE HDDs
Random 300 Watt PSU
Nvidia Vanta 16MB AGP Video Card
Some Random MSI Board, Forget which
Ubuntu 7.04 Server

Laptop:

AMD Athlon 64 3400+
512MB DDR PC2700 RAM
80GB HDD
DVDRW Drive
15.4" LCD
Ubuntu Studio (Right now, But it's Basically Test System, so the OS Changes quite often)

Work Laptop (Gets used for Home Use too):

AMD Turion 64 1.8GHz
1GB PC2700 RAM
80GB HDD
DVDRW Drive
15.4" LCD
Windows XP Professional SP2
Freespire 2.0

[Elscire]

this is my red custom ready for action, though i need a new keycode for the OS because its going to expire in 3 more days :p
250 Gig harddrive
Standard Graphics and audio for the moment
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3198/uberx2tp1.png

[Glasgow]

Intel Celeron
15GB Hardrive
112MB RAM


I could go on and on but its just too awesome for you to hear :P

But really, my PC isnt as bad as that but too embarrasing to mention here :P

[Frosty]

Intel Core2 Duo 3.1ghz (overclocked it too)
2Gb DDR2 Ram (Upgrading to 6Gb)
1x 1Tb HD
1x 80Gb HD
1x 500Gb HD
2x Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTX 768Mb
Tagan 800 Watt PSU

no need to have 6gb of ram.....4gb is even a waste.....

[Blahages]

no need to have 6gb of ram.....4gb is even a waste.....

32Bit Operating Systems only support up to 4GB of RAM, and a lot of them won't even recognize the full 4GB. You're right, 6GB of ram is a HUGE waste. 4 is too. Heck, I run all the time on 1GB of RAM, and I average about 20 Tabs in Firefox open at once, Several Windows, Pidgin, and several other programs open. I abuse my computer more than most people do, and 1GB of RAM is plenty. 2GB would certainly be enough.

There is no reason to upgrade your RAM (Unless changing Speeds) unless you are maxing it out.

Intel Core2 Duo 3.1ghz (overclocked it too)
2Gb DDR2 Ram (Upgrading to 6Gb)
1x 1Tb HD
1x 80Gb HD
1x 500Gb HD
2x Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTX 768Mb
Tagan 800 Watt PSU

That is ridiculous. I doubt you're even using a fourth of that HDD Space. Doubt you're even barely pushing the Video cards either. There's pretty much nothing on the market now that would need those specs. Who paid for it? You, or someone else?

[Joe3140]

First of all Id like to respectfully say your all not very bright when it comes to computers. no offense. First of all your RAM does matter alot. And yes 32 bit OS only address 3.25Gb of ram however Windows xp/vista have 64 bit versions which cost the same and can address up to 8 Gb of ram. That settles the first stupid argument.

Second, CPU's you all seem to not know much considering you all write the clock speed and an occassional actual name (core 2 duo doesnt count). As for clock speed yes it matters alot however there are two other main factors, Cache (amount of super quick ram is held within the actual cpu) and FSB(frontside bus speed, how quickly your cpu can use your ram). Hint: all AMD chips lack in cache and some in FSB so comparing intel clocks to AMD doesnt do them justice.

Third the whole thing about no programs use this or that. Hell yes they do. If you actually had any demanding programs (firefox doesnt count, lol) youd know running on low memory dramatically hurts performance.

Fourth none of you even wrote what mother boards you have (im assuming u have no idea). Mother boards matter a lot they connect all the parts together. Basically for a mobo FSB is what counts cuz it must match your cpu's.

Fifth my beautiful computer built by myself.



Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 oc's to 3.3GHz 4Mb cache 1333MHz FSB

ATI Sapphire Radeon X 1950 XT

Seagate 250GB HDD (idk why u all think HD space is so important when its so easy to increase)

Abit IP35-E motherboard

2Gb Patriot High Performance Tight Time RAM

Apevia X-discovery case with blue LED lights lining the case and fans

[Frosty]

Second, CPU's you all seem to not know much considering you all write the clock speed and an occassional actual name (core 2 duo doesnt count). As for clock speed yes it matters alot however there are two other main factors, Cache (amount of super quick ram is held within the actual cpu) and FSB(frontside bus speed, how quickly your cpu can use your ram). Hint: all AMD chips lack in cache and some in FSB so comparing intel clocks to AMD doesnt do them justice.

Third the whole thing about no programs use this or that. Hell yes they do. If you actually had any demanding programs (firefox doesnt count, lol) youd know running on low memory dramatically hurts performance.

Fourth none of you even wrote what mother boards you have (im assuming u have no idea). Mother boards matter a lot they connect all the parts together. Basically for a mobo FSB is what counts cuz it must match your cpu's.


it's not the motherboard the counts, it's the chipset on the motherboard......

and second AMD cpu's don't have a FSB they use hypertransport, because the memory controller is on the CPU itself... yeah you certainly know computers.

edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ram_do_you_really_need/

[Joe3140]

Haha Frosty. Try me. First of all by motherboard i obviously mean chipset thats what the motherboards main part is. Second I didnt explain hypertransport so it was much easy to say the dont address memeory as quickly by saying lower FSB. Third, they have significantly lower cache and thats not debateable. And im not trying to insult AMD im just saying whats true. Also that link at the bottom u put in there pretty much says the same as i did about memory. BTW if you really think you know a ton about computers then lets see it. How much smarter are you because it seems a little dumb to buy the parts you listed. For example a 630W psu....wtf is that for??? ur 1950 pro certainly doesnt need it. also your cpu isnt all that great compared to the rest of your parts.

[Frosty]

\ dumb to buy the parts you listed. For example a 630W psu....wtf is that for??? ur 1950 pro certainly doesnt need it. also your cpu isnt all that great compared to the rest of your parts.



because i got it for 30 bucks at frys, i chose it over the $30 power supplys because they're shit, besides it was modular, and i needed a new power supply so i picked it up. But you didn't know it was on sell....


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817152026 here is the specific power supply, it's pretty nice actually

edit: i didn't think i'd explain this but....


you said "Second I didnt explain hypertransport so it was much easy to say the dont address memeory as quickly by saying lower FSB."

actually you don't lower the front side bus, to adress memory faster, you would speed it up, and hyper transport adresses memory faser, because the memory controller is on board the CPU, resulting in lower latency....

[Blahages]

First of all Id like to respectfully say your all not very bright when it comes to computers. no offense. First of all your RAM does matter alot. And yes 32 bit OS only address 3.25Gb of ram however Windows xp/vista have 64 bit versions which cost the same and can address up to 8 Gb of ram. That settles the first stupid argument.


I'm assuming you're directing at least some of this towards my post. "First of all" read my entire post, for its meaning. I didn't say the RAM doesn't matter. What I said, was the after a certain amount, the amount of RAM does NOT Matter depending on how you use it. Like, say, for example, I have 1GB of RAM. Say I'm a light user (I'm not, but this is just a theoretical situation) and I don't use any memory intensive programs. If I use my computer lightly, there may not ever be a need for me to ever need more RAM than that 1GB. I may, in essence, only technically need 512 to get the job done. If I have 1GB of RAM, and always have 400-600MB Free, There's absolutely NO need to add more RAM. None whatsoever. That is what I was saying. In that situation, the comparison of 1GB to 4GB of RAM is Null. It wouldn't matter in that situation, performance-wise or in any other respects, how much RAM you had, over that 1GB. That user will NOT see a difference in their daily use. IF they Upgraded the RAM to a Faster speed (Say they upgraded from DDR to DDR2 (And had to buy a new motherboard and RAM, but kept everything else from their old machine)) they would see a jump in performance, even if they stayed with the 1GB of RAM.

That is what I was trying to get across. Nothing more. And, I'm right.

And, Yes, I'm aware of the availability of 64 Bit Operating Systems. I've used several of them. I was assuming the poster in question didn't have a 64 bit Capable OS. If they do, I'm sorry. I was going with what was more likely. That is why I clearly stated that 32BIT Operating Systems won't take more than 4GB.

As to your claim that Vista and XP 64 only support up to 8GB of RAM, you are partially right, but also quite wrong.

Assume all of these are the 64 bit Editions, because, well, they are.

Directly from MSDN (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx) (Also Here (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx)):

Windows XP x64: 128GB Max
Vista Home Basic: 8GB (You were Right Here)
Vista Home Premium: 16GB
Vista Ultimate, Business, & Enterprise 128GB+

Most of them can address much more than 8GB of RAM, in their 64bit flavors.

Second, CPU's you all seem to not know much considering you all write the clock speed and an occassional actual name (core 2 duo doesnt count). As for clock speed yes it matters alot however there are two other main factors, Cache (amount of super quick ram is held within the actual cpu) and FSB(frontside bus speed, how quickly your cpu can use your ram). Hint: all AMD chips lack in cache and some in FSB so comparing intel clocks to AMD doesnt do them justice.

Again, a Generalization, it appears. Who cares if EVERYONE here doesn't know Every little spec of their computer? It makes little difference. Some Posted all that stuff, some Didn't. Live with it. Who Cares?

Also, I wasn't aware that anyone was comparing AMD to Intel here?


Third the whole thing about no programs use this or that. Hell yes they do. If you actually had any demanding programs (firefox doesnt count, lol) youd know running on low memory dramatically hurts performance.

Again, take my post in context. When I said NO Programs will use the 6GB, I'm saying, NO Program that 99.999% of the Computer Users on this Planet uses that Much RAM, or even Close to it, when it's functioning properly. There are some people who use extremely demanding software, that DO need that much, and in cases, quite a bit more RAM. I am aware of these. I was making a generalization, that is quite true. 99+% of the Population, right now, would never have a use for 6GB of RAM, and even 4GB of RAM.

I wasn't going to go into a huge thing of categorizing my programs based on how much RAM they use. And, Honestly, I chose Firefox because it DOES in fact, use quite a bit of RAM. In fact, it uses the highest amount in many situations. It almost always is utilizing 100+ MB of RAM on my Machines. Right now, it's using 76, because I only have a few Tabs open. But, in general, I have quite a few open, and it uses 150-230MB of RAM. That, I'd say, is quite a large chunk. MOST programs do not use that much RAM. Don't tell me they do, because that's not true. Again, I'm aware there are programs that do, such as Photoshop, and other various Image/Multimedia programs, as well as other things.

Where did I say running your Machine low on memory DIDN'T Decrease System Performance? I never said that. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. Going back to what I said above, I was referring to the average user, who wouldn't need the Several Gigabytes of RAM. For that user, the 1GB is enough, and they wouldn't have to worry about running low, and having their performance take a hit, because they weren't maxing out the system.

I know full well how a machine acts when it's low on memory. I've used more than my fair share of computers that didn't have enough RAM for what they were being used for and running.

Once you've run XP on a Pentium 1 @ 266MHz with 32MB of RAM, and a 4200RPM HDD, you can speak of Low System Performance. I did that quite a few years ago, just to see how unbearably bad it would be. And before you try to blow my statement out of the water, and say that you CANNOT install XP on a machine with less than 64MB of RAM, I will tell you that you can. It's NOT hard to edit the configuration file for the Setup to allow it.

And, I do do System Intensive things on my machines. I have, on many occasions, Had FF open, with the 200MB of RAM being used, along side of CS:S, while Ripping a DVD, and having about 10 other programs open, and Editing Pictures. On those occasions, NO, 1GB of RAM was NOT enough. But, those occasions are Rare for me. And, even at that, I COULD have closed all but one program. It's not hard. And, IF I felt the need, I could go out and buy more RAM. If it was needed, I would. I don't do that enough to warrant it, though.


Fourth none of you even wrote what mother boards you have (im assuming u have no idea). Mother boards matter a lot they connect all the parts together. Basically for a mobo FSB is what counts cuz it must match your cpu's.

Again, another Generalization. Pay attention. I included my motherboard.

In the future, please thoroughly read the posts you're talking about before you reply. It's generally a good idea.

Fifth my beautiful computer built by myself.



Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 oc's to 3.3GHz 4Mb cache 1333MHz FSB

ATI Sapphire Radeon X 1950 XT

Seagate 250GB HDD (idk why u all think HD space is so important when its so easy to increase)

Abit IP35-E motherboard

2Gb Patriot High Performance Tight Time RAM

Apevia X-discovery case with blue LED lights lining the case and fans

See? You don't even have very much RAM for how you've been talking. 2GB is sufficient for a good 99% of the population. Even 1GB is sufficient for a good percentage of people, too.

I originally had a 200GB Maxtor SATA1 Drive. I just added the 500GB after having the computer about a year and a half, and am Using about 65% of the combined total of both drives.

You make it sound like a huge accomplishment that you built your own computer. People are doing it left and right nowadays. It's growing all the time. When I built mine, all my parts were pretty much top of the line, if I didn't want to spend a fortune. It cost me almost $1,300 to build mine, and that was just the Computer, I already had a suitable monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, Etc. It was just for the Case, and the Components within it. This was before Socket AM2 came out.

Please try to take my posts in context from now on. It causes less problems. Also, just for everyone's knowledge, I'm not trying to "start" anything, or really continue anything. I'm just trying to set him straight on what I was saying, and what he was saying, so it's in context.

I'm hoping you'll try to disprove me on anything here. Go ahead. I welcome the challenge :).

[Aηdy]

Thanks for your post Blahages, you're right, not everyone knows every single little bit about their computer.

Anyway..

Intel Core 2 Duo 6300 2.13GHz

2GB DDR2 Ram

320GB

DVD-RAM Litescribe

nVidea (Can't remember number right now) LE Graphics

Onboard sound.

Its not the computer I wanted but our old one started to get really bad so we had to go to a shop instead of buying a custom one online.

The one I built (on a tight budget)....

Asus K8V SE Deluxe

AMD Sempron 2600+ (1.6 OC'ed to 1.72GHz)

1 GB Generic RAM (2x 512mb)

1x 80gb SATA Maxtor Har disk

1x 40gb SATA Maxtor Hard Disk

1x DVD-RAM Dual Layer

ATI Radeon 9550 Graphics

Sound Blaster (Can't remember model) Sound Card

iCute Black Gaming Case

5x 80mm case fans

1x GPU Fan

1x Stock CPU Cooler




Now for my laptop....

AMD Turion 2.0GHz 64-Bit

2gb DDR2 Ram

120GB ATA Hard Disk (Currently Broken)

ATI Mobile X1150 (I think)

15.7" Widescreen LCD (Glossy)

DVD-RW

Yeah thats all I can think of :P

[thesonicguy]

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/8495/specsiu7.th.png (http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=specsiu7.png)

Windows XP DELL

[Aηdy]

Might aswell post my old lappy while I'm using it :P (About 7 years old now bless it :P)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/6/11/62374/old%20lappy%20specs.JPG Free file hosting from File Den! (http://www.fileden.com)

[Joe3140]

As a matter of a fact there is need to have that much ram. You ever tried to render an animated film in maya, with less than 2gb of ram? Takes a HELL of a long time! For those that dont know, maya is a pro-level 3d modeling suite. Its used rather frequently for special effects in films. And as for my mobo really cant be arsed to look up what model it is. And who said i dont have a 64-bit os?

Exactly, that kind of stuff. And nobody ever said anything about 64 bit but me but somoen was talking about the 32 bit limitations.

And yes Frosty it is quite obvious higher FSB means faster memory addressing. Btw good deal $30 :yes:

[Zazu]

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 oc'ed to 3.2GHz

2GB Crucial Ballistix RAM (I think I've got my CAS timings at 4-4-4-10)

nVidia 8800 GTS 320MB

Gigabyte P35C-DS3R

Corsair 520W psu

Asus 19" widescreen

[Joe3140]

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 oc'ed to 3.2GHz

2GB Crucial Ballistix RAM (I think I've got my CAS timings at 4-4-4-10)

nVidia 8800 GTS 320MB

Gigabyte P35C-DS3R

Corsair 520W psu

Asus 19" widescreen

Very nice!!!! I was thinking about getting the E6600 but i went for the E6550 cuz it had 2x cache and the new 1333FSB. So i just overclock it and its up there with the E6600 and E6700.

[Frosty]

Blahages, i love you for fighting my battle for me and no i'm not being sarcastic, you saved me alot of time here : )

Joe3140, about my powersupply, you would have been right at calling me "dumb" if i had bought it at normal price, but there is no way you could have known i didn't (unless you can read minds....you can't....right?)

edit: compare CPU's with other members!

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

[Joe3140]

Blahages, i love you for fighting my battle for me and no i'm not being sarcastic, you saved me alot of time here : )

Who you talking about?

[Aηdy]

Who you talking about?

The answer is in the first word of the post.

[Joe3140]

Lol i didnt know that was a name i had no idea what he was sayin :lol:

[Joe3140]

Oh btw yes this is correct but 99.99% of mobos have 4 slots for memory and the highest Gb memory stick commercially available is 2Gb. So idk how you gonna get that high with 4 x 2Gb max.

Windows XP x64: 128GB Max
Vista Home Basic: 8GB (You were Right Here)
Vista Home Premium: 16GB
Vista Ultimate, Business, & Enterprise 128GB+

[Frosty]

http://www.techmessenger.com/Transcend-4GB-DDR2-667-Fully-Buffered-DIMM-070424001.html

[Aηdy]

Oh btw yes this is correct but 99.99% of mobos have 4 slots for memory

Not true, many of them only have two or three.

[Joe3140]

Not true, many of them only have two or three.

Well I was talking new models for sale now but yes tahts true and it further proves my point.

[Frosty]

i took what joe said about the 99.99% of motherboards having 4 slots, as more of a hyperbole then as fact, you'd be suprised how many have 4 slot motherboards, not including micro-ATX

[Joe3140]

Yes it was an exaggeration but yeah it pretty much become standard. So until they come out with 3 or 4 Gb sticks 8Gb is usually max.

[Blahages]

Lol i didnt know that was a name i had no idea what he was sayin :lol:

It's called a username. Pay attention. I'm the one that authored the long post you felt the need to entirely ignore.

I'm thinking you just didn't counter anything I said because you didn't know how.

Oh btw yes this is correct but 99.99% of mobos have 4 slots for memory and the highest Gb memory stick commercially available is 2Gb. So idk how you gonna get that high with 4 x 2Gb max.

Windows XP x64: 128GB Max
Vista Home Basic: 8GB (You were Right Here)
Vista Home Premium: 16GB
Vista Ultimate, Business, & Enterprise 128GB+

Oh, you did read some of it. You pulled those four lines out of my post. You didn't even remove the "You were Right Here" Part, which, how you used it, makes no sense in your post. Good Job.


Well I was talking new models for sale now but yes tahts true and it further proves my point.

How does that PROVE your point? You can't prove a point that is, in it self, unprovable. I pulled those MAX Memory Amounts from MS. Those ARE the MAX Memory Configs. With those types of Configs, they're NOT assuming you're using a typical motherboard. There are Motherboards in Servers that have QUITE a few Memory Slots. Take a look at this one: http://www.hiptechblog.com/2007/06/10/ever-wondered-what-128gb-of-ram-looks-like/

Also, http://extended64.com/photos/article_screenshots/images/577/original.aspx


That one has 64 Slots. 128GB of RAM. You're still taking things out of context. Just because something isn't seen in every computer you see, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't prove any of your points. You can't Prove that your supposed MAX Memory for Both Vista and XP was 8GB in its 64bit Variation. You simply can't. And continuously repeating yourself by making claims that because the majority of the mainstream public doesn't have it, it's obviously nonexistent, and thus proves that your point is, in itself, fallible.

Why is it that, out of all the times I post responses that are fairly lengthy aimed towards someone who I feel obviously has no idea what he/she is talking about, that person never responds?

Eh. Heck, USUALLY, the thread ends at that point too.

[Frosty]

128gb of ram that shit is as my friend would say "re-dunkulus"