Computer crew - Answer me some ?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
From: Eagle Mountain, UT
Computer crew - Answer me some ?
Alright, I'm semi-computer savy but not as savy as I'd like.
1. How much RAM is enough? I'm a gamer, not necessarily with all the newest games. I don't do any graphic design or crazy stuff on my PC. Gaming is probably the most intensive activity my PC gets. I'm thinking 2 GIGs will be enough. I'm considering 4. Is too much memory a bad thing? Memory I'm looking at:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145034
Corsair's always been good to me, and PC2 6400 should be sufficient I think.
2. Which processor do you lean toward? AMD or Intel? And single cores vs. multiple cores for a machine running WinXP? I know Vista utilizes the multiple cores better but will a multiple core processor slow down XP? Like many, I'm holding out for Vista as long as possible until I'm more or less forced to get it from microsoft due to XP's eventually becoming obsolete. But that could be a few years for all I know and I don't want the comp running worse than my single core just because I'm using a dual core on XP. I've got a pretty good single core, AMD Athlon 64 4000+ running at 3.0Ghz. I'd hate to get a newer more expensive dual-quad core to find out it bites on XP.
1. How much RAM is enough? I'm a gamer, not necessarily with all the newest games. I don't do any graphic design or crazy stuff on my PC. Gaming is probably the most intensive activity my PC gets. I'm thinking 2 GIGs will be enough. I'm considering 4. Is too much memory a bad thing? Memory I'm looking at:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145034
Corsair's always been good to me, and PC2 6400 should be sufficient I think.
2. Which processor do you lean toward? AMD or Intel? And single cores vs. multiple cores for a machine running WinXP? I know Vista utilizes the multiple cores better but will a multiple core processor slow down XP? Like many, I'm holding out for Vista as long as possible until I'm more or less forced to get it from microsoft due to XP's eventually becoming obsolete. But that could be a few years for all I know and I don't want the comp running worse than my single core just because I'm using a dual core on XP. I've got a pretty good single core, AMD Athlon 64 4000+ running at 3.0Ghz. I'd hate to get a newer more expensive dual-quad core to find out it bites on XP.
Last edited by losiglow; May 16, 2008 at 06:04 AM.
åhhhhh
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,992
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Canada
1. 2gb is enough for now.. but bigger is better... 4gb is awesome to have. you cant have too much.
2. AMD vs INTEL ... they are both fundamentally the same. Intel technology is usually a little bit ahead of amd but at the same time its a little more expensive (the mobos that handle intel chips are more expensive too for some reason).
multicore pc's are the thing of the future, i would stay away from single core cpu's. however, the software out there now doesnt utilize the multicore properly (or to its full potential). there are programs out there that help a little with that tho.
4gb, intel quad core , is the way to go if you have $$
2gb, amd dual core, if you need to save some cash.
mix and match ftw
2. AMD vs INTEL ... they are both fundamentally the same. Intel technology is usually a little bit ahead of amd but at the same time its a little more expensive (the mobos that handle intel chips are more expensive too for some reason).
multicore pc's are the thing of the future, i would stay away from single core cpu's. however, the software out there now doesnt utilize the multicore properly (or to its full potential). there are programs out there that help a little with that tho.
4gb, intel quad core , is the way to go if you have $$
2gb, amd dual core, if you need to save some cash.
mix and match ftw
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
From: Eagle Mountain, UT
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
From: Eagle Mountain, UT
1. 2gb is enough for now.. but bigger is better... 4gb is awesome to have. you cant have too much.
2. AMD vs INTEL ... they are both fundamentally the same. Intel technology is usually a little bit ahead of amd but at the same time its a little more expensive (the mobos that handle intel chips are more expensive too for some reason).
multicore pc's are the thing of the future, i would stay away from single core cpu's. however, the software out there now doesnt utilize the multicore properly (or to its full potential). there are programs out there that help a little with that tho.
4gb, intel quad core , is the way to go if you have $$
2gb, amd dual core, if you need to save some cash.
mix and match ftw
2. AMD vs INTEL ... they are both fundamentally the same. Intel technology is usually a little bit ahead of amd but at the same time its a little more expensive (the mobos that handle intel chips are more expensive too for some reason).
multicore pc's are the thing of the future, i would stay away from single core cpu's. however, the software out there now doesnt utilize the multicore properly (or to its full potential). there are programs out there that help a little with that tho.
4gb, intel quad core , is the way to go if you have $$
2gb, amd dual core, if you need to save some cash.
mix and match ftw
I'm convinced of getting a multiple core chip, I've got about the best single core anyway so I couldn't upgrade with getting a better single core. The question is whether I want to hold out or buy now. Would a multiple core chip cause XP to run any slower?