Vista Ultimate OEM
Posted by Ianwoollam
As Gav mentioned earlier Vista is actually quite easy on RAM. OK it needs more to start with but if you have a fair amount anyway you wont notice any difference. My PC has 1 Gb RAM and Vista runs just as quick as XP did. More surprisingly though is dads PC, a humble Pentium 4 1.5 GHz, 512 Mb RAM and for what he uses it for (browsing the net, using MS Money, downloading pics from a camera) it actually runs as fast as XP did. Takes a bit longer to boot as you'd expect, that's all.
This thread is full of extreme geeks...ALL OF YOU! 
as zcott is jealous!
Zcott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread is full of extreme geeks...ALL OF YOU!
>
You work in an internet café! Welcome!
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread is full of extreme geeks...ALL OF YOU!
>
You work in an internet café! Welcome!
That Q6600 is still too expensive with the price likely to come in around £560-£600, even with the differences between the 6700 extreme version. At the moment Intels quad cores just seem abit of a niche compared to the difference that we went to from single to dual core.
You do have to factor into the price of the processor against the price of the heater in your room though
heh :P
The Q6600 is still the same as the Q6700 though, ie, its basically two E6600 Duo 2 Cores stuck together which I still dont rate as true quad core at the moment.
The Q6600 is still the same as the Q6700 though, ie, its basically two E6600 Duo 2 Cores stuck together which I still dont rate as true quad core at the moment.
It's not true quad core, you're right. The first Pentium 4 dual cores were two processors under the same head spreader which is the same trick they are using here.
I'm still edging towards buying the Core 2 Duo though.
I'm still edging towards buying the Core 2 Duo though.
Thats why I'd probably gonna invest like Neil says in the Duo's initially then upgrade later...
tbh I really would prefer to stick with AMD, but its hard to ignore the fact that the AMD's current processors are getting thrashed by the Core 2 Duo's...
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 02:37PM by Ianwoollam.
tbh I really would prefer to stick with AMD, but its hard to ignore the fact that the AMD's current processors are getting thrashed by the Core 2 Duo's...
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 02:37PM by Ianwoollam.
Glyn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm still edging towards buying the Core 2 Duo
> though.
It's hard to see where things are heading, and just how much quad+ cores are going to aid performance, but personally, I'd be buying C2D too at the moment.
C2D is quite cool (roughly that of the current Athlon64s) (though the heat ramps up quite quickly when you overclock, so bear that in mind when thinking of an after market cooler), while C2Q is quite warm from the outset. Having a high temperature isn't much of an issue with Intel's, but still, if you do intend overclocking to get more raw pace out of it, it'll likely not go as far as that of the equivalent C2D.
It depends on usage in all honesty. If you're getting one for gaming and general use, then C2D is probably the better option. If you're going to be doing a lot of media work, then C2Q will probably suit you more. I don't do enough to warrant a quad at the moment.
Aside from that media work, going dual-core hasn't made all that much difference, so I personally can't see where 2 extra cores will benefit us. Yet.
//edit: that said, Vista x64 with quad-core will be quite a potent combination... if you're thinking seriously about quad-core, then perhaps the best option would be to get some good RAM, a good board, and the cheapest C2D (the E6300 currently), then as things develop, prices drop and a native quad comes out, upgrade to that. Sell the E6300 on the bay or build a HTPC or something around it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 03:05PM by gav.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm still edging towards buying the Core 2 Duo
> though.
It's hard to see where things are heading, and just how much quad+ cores are going to aid performance, but personally, I'd be buying C2D too at the moment.
C2D is quite cool (roughly that of the current Athlon64s) (though the heat ramps up quite quickly when you overclock, so bear that in mind when thinking of an after market cooler), while C2Q is quite warm from the outset. Having a high temperature isn't much of an issue with Intel's, but still, if you do intend overclocking to get more raw pace out of it, it'll likely not go as far as that of the equivalent C2D.
It depends on usage in all honesty. If you're getting one for gaming and general use, then C2D is probably the better option. If you're going to be doing a lot of media work, then C2Q will probably suit you more. I don't do enough to warrant a quad at the moment.
Aside from that media work, going dual-core hasn't made all that much difference, so I personally can't see where 2 extra cores will benefit us. Yet.
//edit: that said, Vista x64 with quad-core will be quite a potent combination... if you're thinking seriously about quad-core, then perhaps the best option would be to get some good RAM, a good board, and the cheapest C2D (the E6300 currently), then as things develop, prices drop and a native quad comes out, upgrade to that. Sell the E6300 on the bay or build a HTPC or something around it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 03:05PM by gav.
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> //edit: that said, Vista x64 with quad-core will
> be quite a potent combination... if you're
> thinking seriously about quad-core, then perhaps
> the best option would be to get some good RAM, a
> good board, and the cheapest C2D (the E6300
> currently), then as things develop, prices drop
> and a native quad comes out, upgrade to that. Sell
> the E6300 on the bay or build a HTPC or something
> around it
Problem is this is where I'm getting confused! There are three different chipsets, Nvidia which is too expensive so thats out, but I get confused at 795 and 695... Everywhere I look I can't get a straight answer, some places say 795 are better, others 695 are better, others say don't bother with either and just get Nvidia.... Its enough to make me explode At least with AMD boards it was simple, get Nvidia, job done
/EDIT\ Actually I've just noticed this - [www.dabs.com] No Reviews yet but people do say its good! same price as the Commando mobo was going to be...
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 04:35PM by Ianwoollam.
-------------------------------------------------------
> //edit: that said, Vista x64 with quad-core will
> be quite a potent combination... if you're
> thinking seriously about quad-core, then perhaps
> the best option would be to get some good RAM, a
> good board, and the cheapest C2D (the E6300
> currently), then as things develop, prices drop
> and a native quad comes out, upgrade to that. Sell
> the E6300 on the bay or build a HTPC or something
> around it
Problem is this is where I'm getting confused! There are three different chipsets, Nvidia which is too expensive so thats out, but I get confused at 795 and 695... Everywhere I look I can't get a straight answer, some places say 795 are better, others 695 are better, others say don't bother with either and just get Nvidia.... Its enough to make me explode
At least with AMD boards it was simple, get Nvidia, job done /EDIT\ Actually I've just noticed this - [www.dabs.com] No Reviews yet but people do say its good! same price as the Commando mobo was going to be...
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 04:35PM by Ianwoollam.
Get nVidia now. Just take out a morgage. You wont regret it
(until the repayments come)
(until the repayments come)
nV suck for chipsets - nothing since nForce2 was much good, though there just wasn't much choice for AMD 
Ian, stop calling them Intel 795 and 695s. They're 975 and 965.
The 965 was built purely for C2, and it's cheaper usually. 975 is thought to be a bit better for the 4mb C2Ds (E6600 upwards) and has Crossfire support.
And... I'll finish off the rest later... my taxi is leaving now
Ian, stop calling them Intel 795 and 695s. They're 975 and 965.
The 965 was built purely for C2, and it's cheaper usually. 975 is thought to be a bit better for the 4mb C2Ds (E6600 upwards) and has Crossfire support.
And... I'll finish off the rest later... my taxi is leaving now
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nV suck for chipsets - nothing since nForce2 was
> much good, though there just wasn't much choice
> for AMD
>
> Ian, stop calling them Intel 795 and 695s. They're
> 975 and 965.
>
> The 965 was built purely for C2, and it's cheaper
> usually. 975 is thought to be a bit better for the
> 4mb C2Ds (E6600 upwards) and has Crossfire
> support.
>
> And... I'll finish off the rest later... my taxi
> is leaving now
*** Ians Head Explodes ***
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
-------------------------------------------------------
> nV suck for chipsets - nothing since nForce2 was
> much good, though there just wasn't much choice
> for AMD
>
> Ian, stop calling them Intel 795 and 695s. They're
> 975 and 965.
>
> The 965 was built purely for C2, and it's cheaper
> usually. 975 is thought to be a bit better for the
> 4mb C2Ds (E6600 upwards) and has Crossfire
> support.
>
> And... I'll finish off the rest later... my taxi
> is leaving now
*** Ians Head Explodes ***
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nV suck for chipsets - nothing since nForce2 was
> much good, though there just wasn't much choice
> for AMD
>
> Ian, stop calling them Intel 795 and 695s. They're
> 975 and 965.
>
> The 965 was built purely for C2, and it's cheaper
> usually. 975 is thought to be a bit better for the
> 4mb C2Ds (E6600 upwards) and has Crossfire
> support.
>
> And... I'll finish off the rest later... my taxi
> is leaving now
....
965 is supposed to have better overclocking potential for the E6400 downwards, but mine reaches a FSB of 370MHz no problem (good for 3.3GHz) 100% stable. I haven't even bothered pushing it any further.
I wouldn't touch the latest nVs with a bargepole from what I've read of the problems (not looked for info recently, so they may have been sorted). There's plenty more overclocking headroom, but as the CPU will usually max out long before the board will, you'd have to go for one of the low end CPUs (with its lower multiplier) to make sense of the boards. Given the price of the boards, that entirely negates any point in using a low end CPU. Might as well just get the middle ground in each case and almost guarantee a good overclock. The only advantage at all that I can see in the nV boards is the ability to use SLI.
And BTW, no I've not fallen off my bike, it's in for a service at the moment, so I'll nabbing lifts off people
-------------------------------------------------------
> nV suck for chipsets - nothing since nForce2 was
> much good, though there just wasn't much choice
> for AMD
>
> Ian, stop calling them Intel 795 and 695s. They're
> 975 and 965.
>
> The 965 was built purely for C2, and it's cheaper
> usually. 975 is thought to be a bit better for the
> 4mb C2Ds (E6600 upwards) and has Crossfire
> support.
>
> And... I'll finish off the rest later... my taxi
> is leaving now
....
965 is supposed to have better overclocking potential for the E6400 downwards, but mine reaches a FSB of 370MHz no problem (good for 3.3GHz) 100% stable. I haven't even bothered pushing it any further.
I wouldn't touch the latest nVs with a bargepole from what I've read of the problems (not looked for info recently, so they may have been sorted). There's plenty more overclocking headroom, but as the CPU will usually max out long before the board will, you'd have to go for one of the low end CPUs (with its lower multiplier) to make sense of the boards. Given the price of the boards, that entirely negates any point in using a low end CPU. Might as well just get the middle ground in each case and almost guarantee a good overclock. The only advantage at all that I can see in the nV boards is the ability to use SLI.
And BTW, no I've not fallen off my bike, it's in for a service at the moment, so I'll nabbing lifts off people
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 965 is supposed to have better overclocking
> potential for the E6400 downwards, but mine
> reaches a FSB of 370MHz no problem (good for
> 3.3GHz) 100% stable. I haven't even bothered
> pushing it any further.
Hmmm, okay, I have now changed my mind and looking at a E6400 for the time being till the Quads are properly released, but this is what I'm worrying about, if this chipset is made for E6400 and below, will that means the performance on the Quads won't be as good on the 965 than say the nVidia boards?
> I wouldn't touch the latest nVs with a bargepole
> from what I've read of the problems (not looked
> for info recently, so they may have been sorted).
I've also heard of those problems, mainly with data corruption with SATA connections, apparantly from what I've read these have been fixed now.... But this does lead me to another question, if you update the BIOS when Vista has been activated, does that count as another Yes vote for the Windows Activation?
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 07:52PM by Ianwoollam.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 965 is supposed to have better overclocking
> potential for the E6400 downwards, but mine
> reaches a FSB of 370MHz no problem (good for
> 3.3GHz) 100% stable. I haven't even bothered
> pushing it any further.
Hmmm, okay, I have now changed my mind and looking at a E6400 for the time being till the Quads are properly released, but this is what I'm worrying about, if this chipset is made for E6400 and below, will that means the performance on the Quads won't be as good on the 965 than say the nVidia boards?
> I wouldn't touch the latest nVs with a bargepole
> from what I've read of the problems (not looked
> for info recently, so they may have been sorted).
I've also heard of those problems, mainly with data corruption with SATA connections, apparantly from what I've read these have been fixed now.... But this does lead me to another question, if you update the BIOS when Vista has been activated, does that count as another Yes vote for the Windows Activation?
PSN/Xbox 360 ID - Ianwoollam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2007 07:52PM by Ianwoollam.
Ianwoollam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But this does lead me to another question, if you
> update the BIOS when Vista has been activated,
> does that count as another Yes vote for the
> Windows Activation?
My initial thought would be no, Windows wouldn't know any difference.
-------------------------------------------------------
> But this does lead me to another question, if you
> update the BIOS when Vista has been activated,
> does that count as another Yes vote for the
> Windows Activation?
My initial thought would be no, Windows wouldn't know any difference.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.