Author Topic: system upgrade. (Read 1714 times)

Skuzzy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 20, 2006, 12:21:41 PM »

The dual core issues were with AMD running Windows XP (Windows 2000 was fine). However, they have recently released a patch to address the problems (availble at AMD's WEB site). So far, seems to be fine.

NOT · « **Reply #31 on:** July 20, 2006, 10:14:22 PM »

one more question. Im reading alot of reviews on mobos, and was wondering about any opinions u guys may have on manufacturer. Abit, Asus, Gigibyte, Foxconn, DFI....etc.... Who do u guys think offers best product?
Again thanks for all the help.

Kev367th · « **Reply #32 on:** July 20, 2006, 11:03:34 PM »

Personally I've always liked Asus and Abit.

My only gripe with mobos now is ALL the onboard stuff. I'd prefer a basic one with a lot of slots and no onboard, sound, network etc.

Another reason to hang on a week -

AMD price cuts may be MORE that what I first posted.

Original plan was to cut them by -
X2 - 40% - 50%
64 - 20% - 50%
Sempron - 10% - 20%

Instead we may see -
X2 - 50% - 60%
64 - 40% - 60%
Sempron - 20% - 30%

If you decide on an AMD make sure to get a socket AM2 one, not socket 939. Will be upgradeable to K8L etc in the long run, 939 isn't.

handy169 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 21, 2006, 06:32:30 AM »

yeah but a 939 board and X2 chip will be cheap in the coming days.. i mean honestly you can get a X2 4800 939 50.00 cheaper then x2 4800 AM2 . 939 is still a great chip to use .. i mean if you have a 4800+ of any type of chip (AMD or INTEL) and cant run aces high or any game for that matter then we got problems.

Kev367th · « **Reply #34 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:08:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by handy169
yeah but a 939 board and X2 chip will be cheap in the coming days.. i mean honestly you can get a X2 4800 939 50.00 cheaper then x2 4800 AM2 . 939 is still a great chip to use .. i mean if you have a 4800+ of any type of chip (AMD or INTEL) and cant run aces high or any game for that matter then we got problems.

True, but for the sake of the $50, you get an AM2 based one that is UPGRADEABLE.

No point buying a brand new system that is effectively at a dead end.

If the price-cuts pan out and they apply to all the AMD CPU's I'm going to be real tempted to get a single FX on a Torrenza (yup not as fast as a Conroe), but will be able to either add a 2nd FX later, or replace it with a K8L.

Of course if Intels plans to release the quad core Conroe early come to be, that further complicates my choices.

Theres so much up in the air at the moment I'm glad I won't be upgrading till the start of 2007, all the proposed releases will be available by then.

handy169 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:25:54 AM »

well the 939 is not dead yet.. they are still putting out chips for it .. the AM2 will go further down the road in the future though ... i guess coming from the point i can go from my 64 3000+ to a X2 4800+ and consider it a good cost effective upgrade a plus.. also .. just a word of note.. when they move to quad cores.. windows XP pro wont support it .. your only choices are gonna be vista if it supports more then 2 CPUS or linux .. so really at this point .. if i had any chip that ran 4.8ghz or eqivant wither it be AMD or Intel .. AM2,478 ,775 ,939 or even 754..i would be happy ..

i mean for playing games 4.8ghz with any processor is gonna rock ..

to be honest when if 4.8ghz gonna be obsolete? maybe 2-3 years .. whats the minimum reqs on the high end games these days?

handy169 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:28:21 AM »

this is what you need

...

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8qw.html

no more problems..

and vista from what i read will support 8 cpus

Skuzzy · « **Reply #37 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:34:29 AM »

You'll need 8 CPU's to run Vista at the speed dual-cores run XP. Not to mention the umpteen terrabytes of system RAM (well, more if you want to actually run an application).

handy169 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:38:11 AM »

hehe skuzzy thats why i posted that motherboard link up above.. its scable to 8 dual cores ( 16 CPUS) and supports 64 gigs of memory .. oh and if you have available windows XP data center you can run up to 64 CPUS i think.. home only supports 1 .. pro supports 2 ..

Kev367th · « **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:37:46 PM »

I thought XP EULA was based on number of sockets (CPUs') not cores.

XP Home supports 1 socket
XP Pro - supports 2 sockets

So all the guys running dual cores on XP Home proves it's based on physical CPU's, not cores.

I have a mate who is running 2 x dual core opterons (4 cores) on Win XP Pro.
Taskmanager shows 4 "CPUs", 0, 1, 2, and 3.

So can't see any reason why even XP Home can run a single quad core, obviously for say a Torrenza you are going to need XP Pro to support the two physical CPU's.
But no reason each CPU couldn't be quad core for a total of 8 "CPUs".

[edit] 2000 Professional also supports 2 physical CPU's.

Krusty · « **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2006, 01:23:18 PM »

I don't think it works that way. My EULA (from memory) doesn't say anything about the number of CPUs. It said something about being allowed to install on one PC and have 1 backup copy on a laptop (this is good because I also used it on a laptop).

This is XP Pro

uberhun · « **Reply #41 on:** July 21, 2006, 06:52:47 PM »

So I'm reading this thread, post after post after post in some geek speek language I have no basis of understanding to resource. So my question is this. Can I just call Dell and have em make me a comp that will run this freaking game at a competitive resoloution and speed?

Krusty · « **Reply #42 on:** July 22, 2006, 12:12:21 AM »

Of course. You just have to say one thing. "Money is no object."

The trick is you have to mean it.

You can make a call and have any computer made at any time. It will simply cost 10 times the raw parts it would take to assemble your own

Kev367th · « **Reply #43 on:** July 22, 2006, 02:21:22 AM »

Anyone running XP Home with a dual core CPU shows that MS bases it on physical number of CPU's.

XP Home only supports 1 CPU, but people run dual cores on it, and both cores show up.

Therefore for quad core on a sinlge physical CPU all you need is -
XP Home

For two physical CPUs you need
XP Prof
Win 2000

Anything above that
Win 2000 Server
Vista
etc etc.

NOT · « **Reply #44 on:** August 14, 2006, 07:45:27 AM »

This is what i got. Thanks to all for your input.