I'm assuming it'd be a *huge* inconvenience to switch over to 64-bit? I'm sure you'll upgrade to 4GB at some point...just depends when really.
Poll
The upgrade for faster performance.
| Intel Quad Core Q6600 G0 | 68% | 68% - 55 | ||||
| 2GB OCZ Platinum = 4GB Total | 31% | 31% - 25 | ||||
| Total: 80 | ||||||
It would be quite an inconvenience. Because I don't want to download Vista illegally. Too many problemos before.
And I will upgrade both my CPU and RAM eventually, but I need to know which one will give me the best performance boost now.
And I will upgrade both my CPU and RAM eventually, but I need to know which one will give me the best performance boost now.
get both thenZimmer wrote:
But it isn't that. It is the one component that will speed up my computer significantly. In this case, the price is of no significance.ig wrote:
hmmm
$260 processor or $50 worth of ram...
Well, the CPU, of course! HOW could you even THINK of getting something else?
*Struts away giggling*
*Struts away giggling*
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
.. well then I'd have to say CPU!Zimmer wrote:
It would be quite an inconvenience. Because I don't want to download Vista illegally. Too many problemos before.
And I will upgrade both my CPU and RAM eventually, but I need to know which one will give me the best performance boost now.
I disagree, if you're going to anyways, get ram now and CPU later. Penryn is just around the corner and chances are you can get a better processor for around the same price. (worst case scenario you get your Q6600 a little later for a little less).kylef wrote:
.. well then I'd have to say CPU!Zimmer wrote:
It would be quite an inconvenience. Because I don't want to download Vista illegally. Too many problemos before.
And I will upgrade both my CPU and RAM eventually, but I need to know which one will give me the best performance boost now.
Unless you plan on getting a DDR3 mobo in the near future...But I wouldn't necessarily advise that route at the moment.
I have vista 64 bit, 4 GBs of ram and an E6600 I've never used even close to 75% of my ram
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-01-03 19:43:37)
Unless you've got Vista, 4 gigs isn't very necessary.
E8400@ 4,5GHz
Again, you misread. I have Vista. I have Vista 32-bit._j5689_ wrote:
Unless you've got Vista, 4 gigs isn't very necessary.
Also, I run at around 60% with all my programs open. So I am guessing that just from that deduction, a CPU would be in order. Correct?
@Stormscythe - that is not out in Europe yet, if I am not mistaken.
The increased RAM should still help you. The new Penryns will be much better than Conroe based technology, and unless you can't work, you really should wait.
I went with the RAM option.
Getting a new processor, hmm... RAM is the bigger factor in this, apparently from 2G to 4 it's a stupidly good performance boost.
The poll seems to indicate otherwise..
Getting a new processor, hmm... RAM is the bigger factor in this, apparently from 2G to 4 it's a stupidly good performance boost.
The poll seems to indicate otherwise..
Last edited by Airwolf (2008-01-04 13:47:33)
The poll results fail. The poll itself was set up wonderfully.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-01-04 13:53:46)
Definitely RAM.
Get 64-bit Vista too. Why did you ever get 32-bit Vista in the first place? Was it because of all the negative Nancies screaming that 32-bit was better? 64-bit Vista was always the obvious OS upgrade, because 4GB of RAM becoming the norm is clearly upon us and the driver issues were obviously going to become far less of an issue and, in most cases, disappear.
Get 64-bit Vista too. Why did you ever get 32-bit Vista in the first place? Was it because of all the negative Nancies screaming that 32-bit was better? 64-bit Vista was always the obvious OS upgrade, because 4GB of RAM becoming the norm is clearly upon us and the driver issues were obviously going to become far less of an issue and, in most cases, disappear.
No, it was not because of all the negative nancies. It came with the computer.
Apologies for the revival, but I wanted to show you how my computer eventually dies. It just can't cope after a certain amount of programs are open.
Example
That and PS ( I took the screenshot too late )
It just stops. Everything stops. It freezes for a minute or so and then reverts to normal. Hell, even the music stops. So my question is, now, what is the best upgrade?
Apologies for the revival, but I wanted to show you how my computer eventually dies. It just can't cope after a certain amount of programs are open.
Example
That and PS ( I took the screenshot too late )
It just stops. Everything stops. It freezes for a minute or so and then reverts to normal. Hell, even the music stops. So my question is, now, what is the best upgrade?
When it stops is it paging to disk. If it is RAM will help more than CPU. Use task manager or reliability and performance monitor to try to work out which it is.
http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=989
If you enable PAE mode in Vista-32Bit, Vista should recognize all 4GB of RAM
If you enable PAE mode in Vista-32Bit, Vista should recognize all 4GB of RAM
and give you a shitload of issueswarhero1 wrote:
http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=989
If you enable PAE mode in Vista-32Bit, Vista should recognize all 4GB of RAM
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
Paging to disk? I can't really check task manager until the whole computer has calmed down, and by that time the statistics have gone a bit awry.gvers wrote:
When it stops is it paging to disk. If it is RAM will help more than CPU. Use task manager or reliability and performance monitor to try to work out which it is.
@ max, how do you know it will give me a shitload of issues?
Ok, some evidence:
Does that not indicate that my upgrade has to be a new CPU?
Gah.
Does that not indicate that my upgrade has to be a new CPU?
Gah.
Yes it does.
As I said, go for the quad core
As I said, go for the quad core
Hm, well this is me running FSX alone.
Sometimes ( well, once ) it crashed saying there is an error and not sufficient memory.
This is like solving a really hard puzzle.
Sometimes ( well, once ) it crashed saying there is an error and not sufficient memory.
This is like solving a really hard puzzle.
I disagree, if those programs use the page file at all then more RAM will definately improve performance (as long as the OS recognises the 4Gig - Vista will, XP won't). It really depends how many files he likes to keep open and how often he wants to switch between them. Since it sounds like he wants to keep lots of things in memory I'd suggest the extra RAM.RDMC wrote:
I'd say the Quad core. Since the RAM doesnt really affect speed in programs such as Dw, Ps etc, and so does CPU speed.
I guess both are right, in essence. I have evidence for needing the CPU and I have evidence for needing the RAM. It basically just need an upgrade.
Running FSX ( background, not actually flying ) , Opera, FF , Paint and uTorrent.
Running FSX ( background, not actually flying ) , Opera, FF , Paint and uTorrent.
The RAM is cheap. Buy it first. I'll bet it helps.
Absolutely right (except for the "Vista will, XP won't" bit, which is nonsense - it is whether it is a 64-bit OS that matters, as I'm sure most people realise).cospengle wrote:
I disagree, if those programs use the page file at all then more RAM will definately improve performance (as long as the OS recognises the 4Gig - Vista will, XP won't). It really depends how many files he likes to keep open and how often he wants to switch between them. Since it sounds like he wants to keep lots of things in memory I'd suggest the extra RAM.RDMC wrote:
I'd say the Quad core. Since the RAM doesnt really affect speed in programs such as Dw, Ps etc, and so does CPU speed.
This is a really simple decision, I can't understand what the hold up is...
Buy more RAM!