Your curent computer specs!

Page 7 of 14 [ 224 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

h4x0r
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 44

05 Nov 2007, 9:43 am

moo_cow wrote:

My computer is not a Dell, Compaq, or some other crappy wallmart special. It was built by me from parts I bought online and from craig's list.

OS: Winblows is trash. I only use 64 bit Linux w/ some Unix systems in VMware and Plan 9 running under qemu
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ Over clocked to 2.2 ghz w/2 x 512KB L2 Cache
PSU (Power Supply Unit): FSP Group FX700-GLN ATX12V V2.2/EPS12V 700W Power Supply 100 - 240 V CSA, IEC, UL, CE, TUV - Retail
Chipset: Nvidia nForce4 SLI chipset
RAM: G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Hard Drive: 2x in software raid Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
Primary Optical Drive: Sony DVD RW DW-Q120A Dual layer DVD burner (white)
Secondary Optical Drive: Sony DVD RW DW-Q120A Dual layer DVD burner (black)
Graphics: EVGA 320-P2-N811-AR GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card (Nvidia)
Sound: On Board Nvidia CK804 AC'97 Audio Controller
Network: On Board gigabit nVidia Corporation CK804 Ethernet Controller and pci Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8139/8139C/8139C+
Monitor: 21 inch CRT supporting 2048x1536 resolution
AGP Slots: 0
PCI Slots: 3
PCI 1x Slots: 1
PCI 4x Slots: 0
PCI 16x Slots: 2 (supports SLI)
Mainboard Manufacture: Elitegroup
Model Number: KN1 SLI Lite
Cooling: 3x quad blue led fans

Nice rig.

Dalamar
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3

07 Nov 2007, 4:15 am

OS: Windows XP Pro SP2
CPU: AMD Opteron 170 dual core (2.0GHz) overclocked to 2.5GHz, 1.4V, stock cooler
Chipset: nForce4 SLI x16 AMD (ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard)
RAM: 4GB Corsair CMX1024-3500LL @ 250MHz (DDR500), 2.5-3-3-7-2T, 2.75V
Hard Drive(s): 2x 80GB Seagate Barracuda SATA/300, 7200 rpm in RAID-0
Primary Optical Drive: LiteOn DH-20A3H 20x DVD+/-RW
Secondary Optical Drive: none
Media Manager: none (Well, a 3.5" floppy drive. Can still come in handy for BIOS updates!)
Graphics: EVGA nVidia 8800GTS 640MB PCIe
Sound: Soundblaster Audigy2
Monitor: Dell 2001FP 20.1" 1600x1200 via DVI-D
AGP Slots: none
PCI Slots: 3
PCIe 1x Slots: 0
PCIe 4x Slots: 1
PCIe 16x Slots: 2
Manufacture: home built
Model Number: home built

Other things not listed in original form-
Case: Lian-Li PC-61 (black anodized brushed aluminum)
Power Supply: Enermax 535 Watt

I don't need a lot of disk space on this system as I have a file server (based on a Duron 1.8GHz) with lots of storage where I stash everything (and back up with a removable HD). 160GB is sufficient for my apps and workspace.

I just upgraded from 2GB to 4GB of memory after managing to find another pair of the Corsair 3500LL modules on eBay. So now I'm looking to switch to Win XP Pro x64 to get around the whole "PCI devices consume address space and limit you to ~3GB usable" issue. Not interested in Vista yet if I can avoid it. The less "Digital Restrictions Management" I'm forced to put up with, the better.

I keep telling myself I'll finally jump off the Microsoft train and take up Linux. However, I know how to make Windows do what I want and I don't want to shut myself out of the ability to play any cool future games what with the whole "games for Windows" initiative. I realize this conflicts (or will, eventually, due to DX10) with the whole avoiding Vista thing, but I can hold out until it's absolutely necessary. Heck, I was happy using Windows 2000 Pro SP4 until mid-2006!

moo_cow
Sea Gull

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 201
Location: SA, Texas

07 Nov 2007, 3:00 pm

h4x0r wrote:

moo_cow wrote:

Nice rig.

Thanks. It's nice for gaming.

moo_cow
Sea Gull

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 201
Location: SA, Texas

07 Nov 2007, 3:03 pm

Kcihtred2 wrote:

actually the e6300 runs slower than the Pentium Extreme Edition, but not by much! see:

Why do the 2 perform the same at 16.3 but there is a huge difference in the gigahertz speed. Is one not multicore? What is the units of that measurement?

Brooks
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Alabama

07 Nov 2007, 3:13 pm

moo_cow wrote:

Kcihtred2 wrote:

actually the e6300 runs slower than the Pentium Extreme Edition, but not by much! see:

Why do the 2 perform the same at 16.3 but there is a huge difference in the gigahertz speed. Is one not multicore? What is the units of that measurement?

They are both dual core, but they use a different architecture. The xe965 is based on the previous generation of P4 architecture, while the e6600 is based on the Core 2 Duo architecture.

_________________
And the world is queer
And the human is strangest of all

moo_cow
Sea Gull

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 201
Location: SA, Texas

07 Nov 2007, 3:24 pm

Brooks wrote:

moo_cow wrote:

Kcihtred2 wrote:

actually the e6300 runs slower than the Pentium Extreme Edition, but not by much! see:

Why do the 2 perform the same at 16.3 but there is a huge difference in the gigahertz speed. Is one not multicore? What is the units of that measurement?

They are both dual core, but they use a different architecture. The xe965 is based on the previous generation of P4 architecture, while the e6600 is based on the Core 2 Duo architecture.

Why is one architecture more efficient than the other?

Brooks
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Alabama

07 Nov 2007, 5:02 pm

Several reasons.

The way the processors are connected on the cpu package reduces bottlenecking. The older pentium line was basically two separate processors on a piece of circuit board and connected with an external bus. The newer core 2 chips are actually manufactered as two processors on the same piece of silicon, resulting in a single processor with two cpu. This eliminates the external bus connection between the processors and allows them to be more efficient.

The way the processors actually execute the instruction sets are also different. The core 2 series makes more efficient use of the various pipes and pathways, which results in a more powerful processor with a lower clock speed.

So it all boils down to that when Intel designed the new core 2 series, they redid the internal designs and that resulted in the new chips being able to whip the pants off of the older chips even though the newer chips have a lower clock speed.

AMD did this several years ago with the Athlon. It was originally a single core chip that ran a lower clock speed than the Pentium but was so much more efficient that it beat the Pentium on performance. AMD hid it by using the an equivalent rating system. So my older Athlon XP 2800+ is not actually a 2.8 ghz chip, but a 2.083 ghz chip. The 2800+ was used to indicate that it was the equivilent of the Pentium 4 2.8 ghz cpu, but in reality it was actually faster than the P4 2.8. It was also quite a bit cheaper.

Intel has decided not to play the equivalency rating game, which is why you see a 2.66ghz core 2 duo whipping the pants off of a 3.73 ghz Pentium.

_________________
And the world is queer
And the human is strangest of all

Dalamar
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3

07 Nov 2007, 5:06 pm

moo_cow wrote:

Brooks wrote:

moo_cow wrote:

Kcihtred2 wrote:

actually the e6300 runs slower than the Pentium Extreme Edition, but not by much! see:

Why do the 2 perform the same at 16.3 but there is a huge difference in the gigahertz speed. Is one not multicore? What is the units of that measurement?

They are both dual core, but they use a different architecture. The xe965 is based on the previous generation of P4 architecture, while the e6600 is based on the Core 2 Duo architecture.

Why is one architecture more efficient than the other?

Several reasons. See this article for some of them. This one (where that chart is taken from) is a good read too.

Edit: Brooks beat me to it, and with a more concise explanation not requiring links and reading other articles. :wink:

Brooks
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Alabama

07 Nov 2007, 5:10 pm

That second anandtec article is a good read. It also has links to more articles on the core architecture.

_________________
And the world is queer
And the human is strangest of all

Pikachu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,434
Location: half way up a big hill

08 Nov 2007, 3:40 pm

Desktop (the one known as coolblue) NEW CONFIG
--------
OS:Linux (Ubuntu 7.04)/Windows XP (XP boots first by default but needs reinstalling)
CPU:AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (overclocked to 2600+) 2.2GHz
Chipset:VIA
RAM:768 MB
Hard Drive:Primary: Maxtor91021U2 10GB (Linux drive). Secondary: Western Digital WD64AA 6GB (Windows drive)
Primary Optical Drive:The innards of a iomega ZipCD 650 USB
Secondary Optical Drive:Lite-On LTR-16102B (16x 10x 40x CDRW drive)
Media Manager:Amarok/Windows Media Player (depending on which hard disk I boot from)
Graphics:nVidia FX5200 (finally something decent, lol)
Sound:C-Media CMI8738, onboard sound
Monitor:LG StudioWorks 771B
AGP Slots:1 (1x, 2x, 4x)
PCI Slots:5
PCI 1x Slots:0
PCI 4x Slots:0
PCI 16x Slots:0
Manufacture:home built
Model Number:none

_________________
Thanks Tinkerbell.

Allegedly away with the fairies for 6-7 years

moo_cow
Sea Gull

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 201
Location: SA, Texas

08 Nov 2007, 3:48 pm

Brooks wrote:

Are you saying that multicore computers are more efficient than a multiprocessor computer thats not multicore but has the same amount and type or processor? I never new about those equivilant ratings with the amd. I have an amd athlon 3800+ dual core and it is only 2 ghz (but overclocked to 2.2 ghz without increasing the voltage). Does that mean it is equivelant to a 3.8 ghz intel cpu of an older type of architecture than c2d?

Brooks
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Alabama

08 Nov 2007, 5:44 pm

Quote:

Yes. Since the they are cut into the same silicon chip, the dual processors ont he same chip are more efficient.

Quote:

I have an amd athlon 3800+ dual core and it is only 2 ghz (but overclocked to 2.2 ghz without increasing the voltage). Does that mean it is equivelant to a 3.8 ghz intel cpu of an older type of architecture than c2d?

That is correct. It was supposed to be the equivalent of the P4 3.8. And generally it was. There were a few instances where this was not always the case, some things that P4 did a little better, such as some types of graphics rendering, but for things like everyday use and gaming, the Athlon XP was more efficient and usually cheaper in price. They were also easier to overclock than the P4 chips, which is the reason that for quite a number of years the Athlon XP was the chip of choice for gamers and overclocking enthusiasts.

_________________
And the world is queer
And the human is strangest of all

sparkman
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 202
Location: N Ireland

09 Nov 2007, 9:11 am

This is my system. I have just finished building it.

Specs are:
CPU: Core2duo E6550 2.3ghz @ 3.4ghz
Memory: 4GB Crucial Balistix PC2 8500 @ 1176mhz with 2GB it will hit 1225mhz
Mobo: Gigabyte GA-P35-ds4 rev 3
Video Card: Geforce 8800 ULTRA
Sound Card: Creative Xfi Fata1ity
PSU: OCZ 600w

Drives:
A:\Floppy Disk
C:\160gb Hiatchi SATA 7200rpm (Windows XP)
D:\160gb Hiatchi SATA 7200rpm
E:\80gb Seagate IDE 7200rpm
F:\40gb Seagate IDE 7200rpm
G:\DvD ROM

Case: Lian Li pc7

The Video card was so big that I could not install all of the Hard drives in the old hard drive cage so i made a new one out of four pci slot covers by drilling four holes in each and used the holes to mount the hard drives. Then i got some spacers to raise the hard drives off the base of the case and bolted the new pci slot cover hard drive cage down. heres a pic:

Also I modified the front of the Case by drilling holes below the DVD rom drive and added and air intake fan there:

RaceDrv709
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,078
Location: San Antonio, Texas

09 Nov 2007, 8:25 pm

OS: Dual boot Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 and XP Professional SP2
CPU: AMD Athlon FX-74 Quad Core 3.0 Ghz with Hyper-Transport
Chipset: ASUS L1N64-SLI WS with nVidia nForce 680a SLI
RAM: 8 gigabytes of Crucial DDR2 memory at 1066 Mhz
Hard Drive: 2x (RAID 0) Western Digital 1 terabyte 7200RPM and 2 80 gig hard drives for the operating systems that have no RAID setting.
Primary Optical Drive: Lite-On DVD ROM/-+R/-+RW drive with Lightscribe
Secondary Optical Drive: same as above, but for CDs
Media Manager: Samsung Media Studio that came with my Yp-T9, or MediaMonkey
Graphics: 4x EVGA nVidia GeForce 8800 Ultra 768 mb (SLI)
Sound: Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Fatal1ty Gamer Pro
Monitor: 24 inch Samsung SynchMaster
AGP Slots: N/A
PCI Slots: 4
PCI 1x Slots: n/a
PCI 4x Slots: n/a
PCI 16x Slots: One Soundblaster card I mentioned in this post, a firewire card, and a Creative Labs TV Tuner card with DVR functions AND streaming.
Manufacture: I built my computer from scratch, but the case is made by Antec
Model Number: 900 Series

_________________
Music is my gateway to freedom. My instrument of choice is the trumpet.

Last edited by RaceDrv709 on 11 Nov 2007, 3:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

jammie
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: UK

10 Nov 2007, 7:31 am

I have the 2.16ghz MacBook Topped out with 2gb of ram and a 160gb harddrive. It perfect for what i need.

^licks^

Jamie & Lion

_________________
<?php

$lion = "constant";
$lil_lion = "escape";
$baby = "dum dum, babo";
$jammie = $lion."sheepy and my comforts";

$jamie = $lion.$lil_lion.$baby.$jammie;
?>

ahayes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,506

10 Nov 2007, 4:56 pm

Core 2 Duo 2.1 MHz
1024 MB RAM
160 GB HDD
8X DVD+-RW
128 MB Radeon X1600
17" 1440x900 Wide LCD
OSX 10.5
Windows Vista

It's an iMac.

Page 7 of 14 [ 224 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14 Next

Jump to:

Your curent computer specs! Post Reply New Topic

Your curent computer specs!