Geek Squid questions

[Allegiance]

you guys can try to talk me into Intel, but I'm still an AMD fan by nature. Plus, only the AMD Quadcores actually have 4 buses. Intel cheats and only has two according to what I have heard.

I'll consider any configurations.

Whatever OS I get will be my license for sure. Generally, I get pretty good rates on this anyway as education.

The difference between them is the AMD is actually designed specifically for four cores, whereas the Intel is basicly two Core2 Duos stuck together.

You might want to check out a couple of reviews. Guru3D have some really good ones.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...edition-review

http://www.guru3d.com/category/processor/

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-x3-8750-review

[Lex]

This is in line with what I've heard. I'll check these.

[Hdale85]

Well they aren't using the best Intel CPU available but they are using the best AMD available. At least in the first review there. They are using the Q6600 there the newest ones are up to Q9650. The higher end 96XX's have 12Mb's of L2.

[Lex]

Ok, here's what I am thinking.

Stick with a 95 watt based system, max it out with the lower end AMD Phenom Quad Core.

Between these two mobos:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3930721&sku=P450-9118

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3939759&sku=P450-9120

Dial in this CPU:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3740791&sku=CP1-AM2-9550

What OS you guys think, still stick with Vista 64? I'm nervous, but I'll follow the experts advise. (well general concensus)

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3746770&sku=M17-7404%20SP1

I think saving some money and using 800 mhz memory is fine, I don't see that I need top shelf 1066, though of course, it would be nice. I will think further today...

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3617672&sku=C13-6094

I think I will add a lower end decent graphics card to take advantage of on board SLI capability. Ideas?

Power supply, TBC back in a bit...

[Kevin P]

Looks good... but I'd check to make sure the software you plan to use (Photoshop etc.) is compatible with Vista64. Also, I'd go with Home Premium, as Home Basic is pretty limited (basically little more than XP's bloated cousin).

if I were building this system, I'd be putting 64-bit Ubuntu on it... :B

Have you at least looked at Intel CPUs/mobos? Just to expand your options. Some reviews I read put the Core2's per-core/per-clock performance ahead of the Phenoms. 3 years ago I would have said AMD, only AMD, because it was P4 vs. Athlon64 back then. The Core2 series turned the tables some.

The difference between them is the AMD is actually designed specifically for four cores, whereas the Intel is basicly two Core2 Duos stuck together.

IMHO that would mean the AMD would perform better with apps that use multiple threads where the cores share the cache, while the Core2 Quad would have more of an advantage running distinct, separate apps at the same time (separate caches).

[Lex]

I dont' know if you could make that analogy or not Kevin, I am sure it's been studied by someone.

You are right, that 64 bit thing does concern me with my apps.

So, which mobo did you like?

[Lex]

Hmmm, this looks like Photoshop 32 bit can get messy on 64 bit Vista... Not sure I am up for many late nights of configuration issues.

http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/archive/2007/04/26/problems-installing-adobe-photoshop-cs3-on-vista-x64.aspx

[Hdale85]

I'd get the 4gb's of ram and use the 32bit and hold off until the new 64bit version of photoshop comes out. If you can spend the extra I believe Vista Ultimate will allow you to install 32 or 64. I would go with the first motherboard as its a bit more flexible. I don't like micro ATX boards much unless you need them. The motherboard does look quite nice though. Everything there looks good to me.

[Hdale85]

Looks like you have to buy 64 or 32 for ultimate as well... hmm. And I also agree with the stay away from Home Basic.

[Lex]

Decided, the extra core probably doens't mean all that much to me at this point, 3 cores isnt' bad, and I can get the 3 core chip which is basically the 4 core chip with 1 core shut down for 75 extra bucks as a combo deal.

well 229 after rebate for CPU and mobo, not bad.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4088315&sku=MBM-750A-8450

[Lex]

Dougie, I didn't notice one board was micro. I know the one in the prior post is not.

It's ATX. I agree, I do not like the ATX-micro form factor. no way. not with a big Lein-Lu stainless case, lol.

I'll review OS's again, geesh, it's like flavors of ice cream now shopping all the varieties of OS.

XP is tempting since I can get it for 75 bucks. But I'll look.

[Lex]

Does this look like the full OS?

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2864281&Sku=M17-7412

[Hdale85]

It's the full OS it has an OEM license. Basically they can only sell it to you with hardware. So you have to order it at the same time as your other hardware.

[Kevin P]

If you go with a 32-bit OS why not just use XP Pro?

Since you'll have to reinstall to go 64-bit either way, it won't make any difference when you go to Vista64 in the future.

[Alloroc]

I'm running Ultimate 64 bit and have had no issues with it yet. All my adobe (CS3) and Canon camera software works as does my gfx and audio etc. As I load page memory into ram too (8gb needed for that), the machine flies. I tried XP 64 a while back and had a lot of issues with the install, but Vista was super smooth.

I did have some gyp with an e-sata controller but that's now fine following a driver update.

[Lex]

Kevin, you make a valid point. Although, the memory gains to over 3 gig may well be worth upgrading to Vista 32 bit. It's my understanding you can scream at XP 32 bit til your blue in the face, and all you get is 2 gig.

Vincent, as I recall, you got a fancy Dell, that is a preconfigured system, when you go private build, things may or may not go as smoothly, an obvious concern for 64 bit...

[Allegiance]

Kevin, you make a valid point. Although, the memory gains to over 3 gig may well be worth upgrading to Vista 32 bit. It's my understanding you can scream at XP 32 bit til your blue in the face, and all you get is 2 gig.

Vincent, as I recall, you got a fancy Dell, that is a preconfigured system, when you go private build, things may or may not go as smoothly, an obvious concern for 64 bit...

Hi Lex,

I know you may be concerned about 64bit Vista, but it really is worth it. I don't have any problems with any of the Apps I use, and I love knowing that when new apps come out, that if there is a 64bit option that I can use it. One thing I do want to clarify though is XP 64bit was a disaster. Vista is much improved, I use Photoshop CS2 no problems, as well as Illustrator CS2.

The RAM you selected looks good, I use 800MHz DDR2 and I play intensive games :P XFX are great motherboard and graphics card manufacturers, it supports PCI-Express 2.0 which is good to get the extra bandwidth, but I probably wouldn't get two graphics cards to go SLI unless you where gaming.

Another advantage of Vista is if you are interested in games, you get DirectX10.

If you are concerned about compatibility with applications and Vista in either 32bit or 64bit check this website out (it's still in beta but good to use as a guide) :

Windows Vista Compatibility Center

Photoshop CS3

Application List: Certified for Windows Vista

Application List: Works with Windows Vista

[Allegiance]

Kevin, you make a valid point. Although, the memory gains to over 3 gig may well be worth upgrading to Vista 32 bit. It's my understanding you can scream at XP 32 bit til your blue in the face, and all you get is 2 gig.

Vincent, as I recall, you got a fancy Dell, that is a preconfigured system, when you go private build, things may or may not go as smoothly, an obvious concern for 64 bit...

Also interms of memory limitations, XP 32bit and Vista 32bit are the same. As is any 32bit operation system because its a 32bit limitation, no specific to XP or Vista.

Until recently, almost all consumer PCs used 32-bit processors. The bit size of a processor refers to the size of the address space it can reference. A 32-bit processor can reference 2^32 bytes, or 4 GB of memory. These 32-bit processors were standard at a time when 4 GB was thought to be more than enough memory space for software applications on Windows. When a process, such as running a program, is created on an x86 Windows computer with a 32-bit processor, the operating system allocates its 4 GB of virtual memory, irrespective of the actual physical memory installed on a system. Half of that allocated memory is user-accessible memory, while the other half is for kernel processes such as drivers. Modern computing systems increasingly confront the 4 GB ceiling thanks to memory-intensive applications and the need to store multiple processes in memory simultaneously.

In 2003, AMD released the first widely accepted 64-bit processor aimed at consumers, the Athlon 64, and coined AMD64 as the name for the new instruction set. Microsoft refers to the instruction set as x64, which parallels the widely accepted x86 nomenclature used for the instructions that run on most 32-bit processors. Per preferred Microsoft naming conventions, Windows Vista x64 Edition refers to the 64-bit version of Windows Vista in this article.

Processors capable of referencing larger address spaces provide the opportunity to use more physical memory than ever before, potentially reducing the overhead spent moving processes in and out of physical memory. The 64-bit processors are theoretically capable of referencing 2^64 locations in memory, or 16 exabytes, which is more than 4 billion times the number of memory locations 32-bit processors can reference. However, all 64-bit versions of Microsoft operating systems currently impose a 16 TB limit on address space and allow no more than 128 GB of physical memory due to the impracticality of having 16 TB of RAM. Processes created on Windows Vista x64 Edition are allotted 8 TB in virtual memory for user processes and 8 TB for kernel processes to create a virtual memory of 16 TB.

To summarize, the ability of Windows Vista x64 Edition to add address more memory space than previous versions of Windows helps minimize the time spent swapping processes in and out of memory by storing more of them in RAM.

[Allegiance]

One last thing I wanted to add to this thread.

Not that I would ever buy one ( :rofl: ), but the lastest MAC OSX 10.5 version has full 64bit compatibility. So it is the way everyone is going.

[littlesaint]

If I may be a voice of dissent: I wouldn't use Vista unless I had to. XP Pro is the best version Windows you can buy. It works with everything, it has full driver support and Vista doesn't really bring much more to the table other than the media center stuff if you want that. Maybe I'm jaded because I have to work with many different OSes, so I get to see the good, bad, and ugly, but my organization just sent back 1000 laptops to HP demanding XP Pro be installed, and if they couldn't do it we would find another vendor. Nothing but problems with Vista. Maybe as a home PC it's different, but we're already testing with Longhorn because we have no intention of using Vista unless an app requires it or we can't find an OEM to supply XP Pro.

[Allegiance]

If I may be a voice of dissent: I wouldn't use Vista unless I had to. XP Pro is the best version Windows you can buy. It works with everything, it has full driver support and Vista doesn't really bring much more to the table other than the media center stuff if you want that. Maybe I'm jaded because I have to work with many different OSes, so I get to see the good, bad, and ugly, but my organization just sent back 1000 laptops to HP demanding XP Pro be installed, and if they couldn't do it we would find another vendor. Nothing but problems with Vista. Maybe as a home PC it's different, but we're already testing with Longhorn because we have no intention of using Vista unless an app requires it or we can't find an OEM to supply XP Pro.

What problems have you specifically had with it? Also, I think you mean testing Windows 7, Longhorn was Vista's code name :rofl:

[Hdale85]

When Vista first came out I agree huge problems but after SP1 none what so ever. If Vincent truly has no issues with CS3 in 64bit then I'd certainly go that route. Vista's kernel is quite a bit quicker then XP's even with all the fancy eye candy turned on. It was something I noticed right away.

[Kevin P]

OT, but good for a chuckle: I just bought a 256 MB PC133 DIMM to upgrade my Ubuntu box to 512 MB. Who needs gigs of RAM just to run an OS? hehehe. :B

[Allegiance]

When Vista first came out I agree huge problems but after SP1 none what so ever. If Vincent truly has no issues with CS3 in 64bit then I'd certainly go that route. Vista's kernel is quite a bit quicker then XP's even with all the fancy eye candy turned on. It was something I noticed right away.

I run photoshop CS2 in 64bit Vista :P

[littlesaint]

What problems have you specifically had with it? Also, I think you mean testing Windows 7, Longhorn was Vista's code name :rofl:

Longhorn Server or Server 2008 if you're buying it. Longhorn allows us to develop and test using NT6 core technologies without having to deal with Vista's annoyances. My problems are specific to my organization, but they range from wireless security compatibility, driver support, a privilege model that isn't recognized by many applications (not Vista's fault, but still an issue), an IP stack that does some "funny" things, etc. Again, maybe for home users it's a different story, but in the enterprise Vista's a dead stick. So much so it's become known as Windows ME2.

[Alloroc]

Doug, yeah it's on a Dell, I did to a fancy home build that I sold before hand and I was able to install V64 on that too. Did not run it long enough to give a reasoned opinion as to its stability.

That said, there's no denying XP is solid. But I wouldn't go anywhere near XP64, I don't think it was mentioned at all yet, but there you go. Much, much trickier to install.

I have no issues with my PC on V64. I have the full Adobe Web Professional CS3 and all apps work fine. Furthermore all the Canon tools and apps supplied with my EOS work. I've a bunch of other stuff - I use vmware and to be able to access 8GB ram is wonderful. Vista no doubt is not the product is could or should have been. It will not be accepted open armed by the corporates. I will not have it in my operation. However, for the home/soho user, it's fine. Looks nice enough, is stable (since sp1 as already mentioned), and for the future is the only windows OS that runs DX10 games. And there is a difference there!

[Allegiance]

That said, there's no denying XP is solid. But I wouldn't go anywhere near XP64, I don't think it was mentioned at all yet, but there you go. Much, much trickier to install.

I did make a small mention earlier :P

One thing I do want to clarify though is XP 64bit was a disaster.

[Alloroc]

I did make a small mention earlier :P

Cool. Missed that. But there you go - a disaster indeed.

Actually, I should clarify that the reason I'm on V64 is ram - the fact that I can access 8GB ram or more in the future is massive. By loading paged memory into RAM, it really speeds stuff up - 'specially when working with big images in PS.

[Lex]

Well, this is a great discussion, I'm enjoying the read. thank you all for participating. Since I got sick yesterday on the order deadline time for Friday delivery, I postponed my order until I feel like making those final decisions. I feel a little better today, so far, but not on top of it.

[Hdale85]

Yeah I think I mentioned about XP 64 as well. It should have never been released. If it were me I'd be rather comfortable going with Vista 64 now. And with things like Photoshop and what not the extra memory that you can potentially have would really speed things up. Also with the 64bit version of photoshop coming you would see some nice gains there as well. But it's also what you feel comfortable with. If you think you're still not comfortable with vista then don't go that route yet.

[littlesaint]

Like any OS it comes down to what you're doing with it. If Vista brings some functionality you'll utilize, then go with that. If not, why waste resources on the OS when your apps could be using them?

[Lex]

The biggest gains could be from the 8 gb ram that Vista 64 can recognize, at least it will recognize all 4 that I was planning to purchase initially. Being that I am graphics rich and use some of the more robust programs, like CSIII, any gains I can make performance wise will be great.

[Allegiance]

The biggest gains could be from the 8 gb ram that Vista 64 can recognize, at least it will recognize all 4 that I was planning to purchase initially. Being that I am graphics rich and use some of the more robust programs, like CSIII, any gains I can make performance wise will be great.

It can recognise a hell of a lot more than 8GB for some versions :P

Home Basic: 8GB

Home Premium: 16GB

Utimate: 128GB

Business: 128GB

Enterprise: 128GB

[littlesaint]

The biggest gains could be from the 8 gb ram that Vista 64 can recognize, at least it will recognize all 4 that I was planning to purchase initially. Being that I am graphics rich and use some of the more robust programs, like CSIII, any gains I can make performance wise will be great.

If you need 64bit functionality then Vista would probably be the better route over 64bit XP, though support is better lately. I us that for my Windows VMs on my Mac with no problems, but the VMWare "hardware" is not the same is dealing with real hardware. Actually my first choice would be using a slimmed down Server 2003, but realistically, that's not an option here.

[PewterTA]

Through all my benchmark tests I couldn't get much more performance from the 64bit over the 32bit (Vista Ultimate). So I ended up with the 32bit and the 64bit version is just sitting on the shelf waiting for stuff to really start supporting it.

Course now they will be making people think Windows 7 is some huge advantage over Vista when it's only Vista Ultimate with a few changes (which all can be done to Ultimate). lol

Way to be money hungry Microsoft! :T

[Allegiance]

Through all my benchmark tests I couldn't get much more performance from the 64bit over the 32bit (Vista Ultimate). So I ended up with the 32bit and the 64bit version is just sitting on the shelf waiting for stuff to really start supporting it.

Course now they will be making people think Windows 7 is some huge advantage over Vista when it's only Vista Ultimate with a few changes (which all can be done to Ultimate). lol

Way to be money hungry Microsoft! :T

What benchmarking did you do if you don't mind me asking?

[Hdale85]

Yeah I was going to say did the benchmark programs support 64 bit processing? If not you wouldn't see much of any gain.

[Allegiance]

The biggest gains could be from the 8 gb ram that Vista 64 can recognize, at least it will recognize all 4 that I was planning to purchase initially. Being that I am graphics rich and use some of the more robust programs, like CSIII, any gains I can make performance wise will be great.

What did you end up going with?

[Hdale85]

He said he is holding off for a short while I believe.

[PewterTA]

Passmark Performance Test was what I used, then my own speed tests of opening and closing programs.

Nothing official mind you...just random testing since I have both versions of vista.

I'm not saying that the 64-bit won't eventually be standard and faster...but right now there's just not that much for it that really takes advantage of the extra memory allocation.

[impala454]

I like Vista and used the 64bit version for about 8 months or so total, but there are just a few very minor, yet very annoying things that keep me from going back to it. XP 32bit all the way for me, until I see those minor things changed. Some of those beefs:

- Folder view settings don't seem to stick, even when you click "Apply to all folders"

- Tons of extra background services that are junk IMHO. Windows Search and the indexing is horrible. It thrashes your hard drive like crazy when you step away for a while. Though these services can all be disabled, so not a huge strike against.

- Viewing a list of files in a window, the space between file names used to be dead space in XP, now in Vista, it basically has an imaginary box around every file, so there's almost nowhere to click on dead space (i.e. so you can drag a box and multiselect)

- No "up" button on the folder UI. This annoys me to no end. Yes, there is a "back" button, but there's a huge difference. I can't believe they didn't give the option to customize those buttons and the toolbar like we currently have with XP. Not a big fan of the breadcrumb UI.

- Can't stand what they did with the start menu, how it's a scrollable box instead of an actual menu.

In Vista's defense, I will say their shining achievement is Vista Media Center. If you want to use it as a dedicated HTPC, Vista rocks.