"Rate my Rig" thread

[Zixinus]

Wait, why did you go back to 64-bit Vista instead of just installing 64-bit 7?

I had only a Win7 Starter key, which is 32bit only. I thought I could upgrade it freely through someone's help, but that wasn't the case.

[Darth Nostril]

Samsung and Intel should be the only SSDs you consider.

Seconding this, the OCZ I wasted money on is deader than a dodo, don't touch their crap with a 20,000 foot bargepole. The Intel, on the other hand, just keeps taking the abuse, not a single glitch.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's been 10 years now since AMD released the first x86-64 processors, there is no reason to still be using a 32-bit operating system.

Sorry if this is a tangent, but do you know why Microsoft bothered to make a 32-bit version of Windows 8? I've tried to mentally picture a segment of users who have the willingness and know-how to upgrade and whose machines are capable of running the OS and modern applications, yet whose processors are 32-bit, and I've failed every time. It seems like this should have been the OS-cycle to finally leave behind the 32-bit era.

[Dominus Atheos]

Compatibility. x64 procs can't run 16 bit code and some poorly written 32 bit programs break when run on Windows 6.x (Vista, Seven, and Eight.) x64 version.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

So it's basically an upgrade path for company machines with outdated proprietary software? That does make sense, although I wish I hadn't had to jump through so many hoops to upgrade my Vista 32-bit install to Win8 64-bit when they did that $40 early adopter promotion. I had to track down a 64-bit Win7 disc and go through the whole install process with the sole intention of immediately wiping it for a Win8 install. A simple "I see you're currently running a 32-bit OS, you want to upgrade to the 64-bit one anyway <insert many disclaimers>?" would have been nice.

[Dominus Atheos]

Also, I swear I remember reading a news article somewhere that said that Microsoft was making 64-bit the standard edition for whole computers bought from Dell or HP, etc no matter how much ram they have, but my google-fu is weak today and I can't find it.

[Starglider]

Sorry if this is a tangent, but do you know why Microsoft bothered to make a 32-bit version of Windows 8?

It must be for upgrade sales, because even the cheapest and lowest power Atom x86 processors were all given 64-bit support in the 2010 generation.

x64 procs can't run 16 bit code

Strictly speaking they can; all AMD64 compatible processors implement real, unreal and protected modes and default to real mode on startup. However 64-bit operating systems switch the processor into long mode early in the boot sequence, and while you can switch from long to compatability mode easily to run 32-bit protected mode software, it is not practical to switch to real mode without shutting down the OS entirely. So you can still install MS-DOS or Windows 3.1 and run legacy apps standalone (subject to hardware driver issues), you can't run them under a 64-bit OS without using virtualisation or emulation.

[Simon_Jester]

Question: if I have a 16-bit program from ancient times (such as Civilization II) and find a "patch" that gets it running on a 64-bit system, what would you expect it to be doing?

[Ace Pace]

Question: if I have a 16-bit program from ancient times (such as Civilization II) and find a "patch" that gets it running on a 64-bit system, what would you expect it to be doing?

Sounds really odd. Windows 64-bit doesn't support 16-bit programs.

It's either wrapping the entire game in a DosBox environment (which is fine) or doing something weird.

[Zixinus]

I have decided to upgrade my computer with a new motherboard and RAM.

My old mobo was a Gigabyte GA-M68M-S2P with 4Gbs of DDR2 RAM. It has a XFX 4850HD.

My plan is to get a Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 rev. 1.0 with a Crucial 8Gbs DDR3 1600Hz. Also, I'm buying a new DVD writer because that is less complicated and almost as cheap as buying an SATA-to-IDE converter (which the manufacturer's website doesn't even display anymore).

I have an AMD Athlon II X4 640. The new motherboard SHOULD be compatible with that regular AM3 CPU.

Are there any incompatibilities not obvious or hidden somewhere? The only real criticism I can find for the motherboard is that it doesn't have Linux support.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I don't see how you could see a noticeable performance increase by upgrading the MB and 4 GB RAM (not a bottleneck given the other specs) while leaving the old CPU and GPU in place. With AM3 on the way out and DDR4 around the corner, there's little futureproofing benefit either.

What games or applications are you trying to run and at what settings?

[Zixinus]

Huh, I didn't know about that change in PC. If what you say is true, then I'd have to buy a new mobo and RAM anyway and I might as well wait a bit until the price of those get down. Thing is, I am unsure whether upgrading the graphics card would be worth it at this moment anyway.

I have started considering it due to Minecraft complaining about memory (then again, that was a modpack that I am not quite certain is coded all that well, so that sort of doesn't count) and this mobo is locked into DDR2, does not have AHCI support (I run the system off an SSD) and only SATA2.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Minecraft shouldn't be gobbling up 4 GB, so I'd guess it's a memory leak issue or weird setting. Unless the AHCI thing causes you significant daily headaches, I'd wait until I couldn't play something at acceptable settings and then upgrade the whole rig.

[Zixinus]

A question though: how likely is there a change in AMD CPU slots? According to Wiki (I am unsure what would be a better source, if there is one, I'd like to know), AMD still has CPU architecture planned for that slot, the Steamroller generation of their processors. Or does previous AMD behavior indicate that this will also mean a new processor slot?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

A question though: how likely is there a change in AMD CPU slots? According to Wiki (I am unsure what would be a better source, if there is one, I'd like to know), AMD still has CPU architecture planned for that slot, the Steamroller generation of their processors. Or does previous AMD behavior indicate that this will also mean a new processor slot?

Not sure about AMD sockets, but Intel has been massacring them on CPU power for years now, so unless something changes drastically you should be looking at an Intel board when you do upgrade.

[Napoleon the Clown]

That assumes price is not an issue. If price is a factor AMD still offers better bang for your buck. You aren't gonna need i7 performance to run games in the near future, that's so far down the road that it's silly to spend that much unless you plan on actually using it. You can spend half that on an AMD CPU and still get plenty of CPU for the next five years. It's what I do and that hasn't made me miss out on any games.

Now, if money isn't an issue and you want the baddest computer possible Intel is the way to go. It all comes down to if you think the extra money is worth the marginally better benchmarks.

[Dominus Atheos]

If you even get any "better" performance. Modern games are not bottle-necked by the CPU, and any currently available desktop CPU won't significantly bottle-neck any future games for 7-10 years. Here's an article about a website testing a dual-core proc from 2007 with a modern GPU and getting playable framerates.

In other words don't worry about the CPU, it's only does about 10% of the work in most games so a $100 AMD will get you nearly the same performance as a $500 Intel all other hardware being equal.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Yeah, I've actually bothered to look at benchmarks a few times. The difference between AMD and Intel tends to be pretty small, in the kind of use a normal person will have for a computer. For equal benchmarks you pay more by going Intel with the benefit of lower wattage, though how much a difference that ends up making in power bills/CPU heat/lifespan is a different matter.

Hell, I built my fiancee a computer using the AMD A6 5600K Trinity APU and dropped probably under a $100 on it and it runs Skyrim on acceptable settings at a very playable framerate. CPU power isn't vitally important and you can even get away with a middling graphics card if you're willing to play on something other than the highest settings. Decide on a rough budget for computer parts then you can ask what company to buy from.

[Terralthra]

If you even get any "better" performance. Modern games are not bottle-necked by the CPU, and any currently available desktop CPU won't significantly bottle-neck any future games for 7-10 years. Here's an article about a website testing a dual-core proc from 2007 with a modern GPU and getting playable framerates.

In other words don't worry about the CPU, it's only does about 10% of the work in most games so a $100 AMD will get you nearly the same performance as a $500 Intel all other hardware being equal.

I still run modern games at a pretty high settings on a Q6600 from ~2008. Granted, it's up-clocked to 3.3ghz, but it's the graphics card that's the bottleneck, and I keep that upgraded.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's true that AMD's quad-cores are cheaper, but Intel's dual-cores in the $150 range are competitive on performance and draw a lot less power, which means most people will not need to upgrade their power supplies or get an aftermarket cooler. Don't let the number of cores and clock speed fool you. Intel has had a large edge in instructions per clock ever since Conroe (the first Core 2's) and the gap has only widened in the years since.

[Napoleon the Clown]

And you pay twice as much for it. If money is no issue, go ahead and get four more frames per second or three milliseconds faster response on this intense program you're running.

[fordlltwm]

It's true that AMD's quad-cores are cheaper, but Intel's dual-cores in the $150 range are competitive on performance and draw a lot less power, which means most people will not need to upgrade their power supplies or get an aftermarket cooler. Don't let the number of cores and clock speed fool you. Intel has had a large edge in instructions per clock ever since Conroe (the first Core 2's) and the gap has only widened in the years since.

What are you doing to the poor thing that AMD's stock cooler won't work?

My FX-4170 doesn't run hot even when mildly overclocked. I'm just reminded of the Pentium 4 days when AMD's ran circles round the intels while not generating nuclear power station levels of heat, intel survived, and their fan boys always forget those days.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I bought AMD processors in those days for the same reason I buy Intel now. Faster, cooler, lower power requirements. It's not quite the same pummeling as the P4 suffered because those were also more expensive than the Athlon and the performance gap was bigger, but it's still tough to recommend AMD these days at most price points unless you unduly weight clock speed and # of cores over actual performance and power requirements.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Dude, if things are in any way the same these days you pay more for the same benchmarks when you go Intel. Not same for the same number of cores and clock speed. The same performance on programs.

As to operating temperatures, I have no complaints with the Phenom II I'm running right now. It runs plenty cool with a stock cooler. Unless low 30s is crazy hot?

[Starglider]

For equal benchmarks you pay more by going Intel with the benefit of lower wattage, though how much a difference that ends up making in power bills/CPU heat/lifespan is a different matter.

Considering that we're talking about the cheap end of the CPU market (AMD simply don't compete in the high end), lifetime power bills are likely higher than the entire cost of the CPU.

Hell, I built my fiancee a computer using the AMD A6 5600K Trinity APU and dropped probably under a $100 on it and it runs Skyrim on acceptable settings at a very playable framerate. CPU power isn't vitally important and you can even get away with a middling graphics card if you're willing to play on something other than the highest settings.

It makes no sense to buy an APU and a graphics card, for a new system. If you have a graphics card, you don't need an APU. The only exception is gaming laptops where you might want to switch to the APU for non-game use to extend battery life. Of course you may buy an APU-based system and add a graphics card later as an upgrade.

AMD was great in the Athlon / Pentium 4 era. Since then it has completely abandoned the high end and is barely competitive in the mid-range, surviving only because Intel choose not to wipe it out with a price cut. AMD APUs are better due to the purchase of ATI, but that is only relevant for gamers on a tight budget (Intel graphics is fine for non-gamers, serious gamers will get a discrete card). That said AMD's low-end tablet cores are actually pretty good; my tablet runs on one. AMD graphics cards generally have better hardware (for the price point) than Nvidia but worse drivers.