Can anyone clear up these computer specs/stats for me?

[Isphius]

This is some information that can help everyone, and stuff i really have no idea about and I cant find info on because i dont even know what i am looking for...i try to read computer websites and i get tired of looking all the terms up after a while. So here it goes

Processors and motherboards

Ok, what is the true measure of performance for both of these? when i was younger, it was the ghz wars. But the newer ones seem to be faster than ever and are much lower frequencies. With the specs, I know bus speed is good, but why and what does it affect? Same scneario with the L1 and L2 cache, And what is the deal with the x64 stuff? Is it worth it to upgrade your operating system over? I would like to use regular windows xp pro and i have always liked AMD processors, but they are all 64 bit. anyone?

Video Cards
Again, what is the true measure of performance? I understand that these parts are a system and that just having a lot of memory isnt the only thing, like advertised. What exactly does the memory clock speed, type, and interface do? core clock speed? And is SLI worth it? Ill be honest i just think its cool to be able to link 2 video cards and ever since i heard about ive wanted to, but is there really an advantage over one good card? again, can anyone explain some of this?

Ram

Basically all the same questions with ram. Is it better to fill all your dimm slots with 512mb sticks, or buy one 2gb stick(for example)?? and is dual channel ram still around? I upgraded my old athlon xp 3200 from 1 gig of reg ram to 2 gigs of a "dual channel" kit like my motherboard advertised it could support, and it did make a big difference. Also, what do the timing and voltage represent? I always hear people talk about this and i have no idea what it means.

Also, for some good argument...i would love to hear some educated info on AMD vs Intel

 

[Mark3Supraholic]

Oh man. It was so much simpler just 3 years ago. Here's what I know:

Processors: Even though an older, single core processor is rated higher, a dual core or quad (or 8 or whatever) has the GHZ frequency rated per core. Simple way to think about it is to multiply this figure (dual core 2.6 is like a 5.2 single core). L1 and L2 cache are different levels on onboard "memory" the CPU has. When processing, the different levels are scanned before moving to external memory (RAM) to compute things. X64 is considered a 64bit processor. In simple terms, most systems were 32bit, so a 64bit system should be twice as fast (usually not the case). I am not sure exactly what the deal on bit systems is, but it has to do with how much stuff the system as a whole can process. If you use a 32bit (Windows XP) OS with a 64bit processor, it should work, but the only thing is that you technically won't be utilizing the processor to max potential. Bus speed is a buffer measured in mhz. Basically, a processor has an internal multiplier. Multiply that number by the bus speed to get your clock speed. Higher the bus speed, lower the multiplier needs to be, making it simpler.

Video Cards: Again, memory is the big thing here. More onboard memory means less of the system resources you have to use. SLi configuration can be good when clocking an older model pair vs a newer model. And I think you can run them in tandem, but as for being double the video processing power, I think its more like 1.8 times.

Ram: Memory is a big thing, and essentially more is better. A 2 gig stick is usually better than 2 1-gig sticks, since it leaves room (assuming the board can handle it) for expansion. But if they both run at the same frequency, and the total is the same, having it split is like the video card issue. Doesn't really matter much except to gamers. Dual channel is pretty much the standard. They're up to DDR3 or 4 now. From what I understand, the way the memory is "hit" with information and how it responds has to do with the timing (or stepping code for preccessors). The voltage can make it run hotter and faster (like a processor) by upping it.

For arguments sake: Right now, in my opinion, AMD can't compete with Intel. Most intel Core2duo or quads run near the same processing speed but at less power and slightly less heat. Although it is a myth that AMD's uncontrollably overheat. The last processor that did that was the XP-series. Hope that helps a bit, although I am not 100% sure on all of it.

 

[GrimJack]

More to the point, what are you going to use the machine for when it's done?

If you are surfing the web and answering email, none of this is a concern. If, on the other hand, you like playing high powered games or need to build a high end CAD workstation, you've got some work to do.

 

[drunk_medic]

There is a bit to take into consideration, yes, but if you buy compatible "best buy" components [what I mean is, not the top of the technology curve, but JUST behind the top, where you are getting the best cost to performance ratio NOT counting overclocking] you will be doing fine.
There are a ton of programs out there for benchmarking and measuring performance of components, but they will all achieve different results. Unless you are going for a record of some sort, are trying to tune or diagnose your system, or just want warm fuzzies, I wouldn't recommend the whole benchmark bit.

As far as AMD vs Intel goes, Intel is and has been winning the CPU game since the Core2 platform came out, however AMD [who acquired ATI] is doing alright in the processor department AND they are currently top-dog in the video card arena [but that could change at any moment].

I'm with Grim - I'd like to know your purpose before I would recommend that you learn all of this. It's interesting stuff to a nerd, but with how PnP everything has become most people may think it a waste of time.

 

[Doward]

First of all - a dual core 2.6 is NOT equal to a single core 5.2 Ghz processor.

Ok, here you go:

Processor: The Core 2 architecture is the fastest architecture per clock cycle. Intel's the performance king right now - if you don't mind overclocking, get your hands on a cheap e2160 and run @ 3.0Ghz for good speed at a cheap price. I recommend a dual core system, but a quad core is overkill unless you use heavily multi-threaded applications.

Bus speed: The faster the better, unless you plan to overclock. This dictates how fast the processor can communicate with the rest of the system.

64bit: 64bit is needed if you intend to run 4.0GB of ram or more. 32bit CAN NOT access over 4.0GB of memory. 64bit also allows for increased performance where the programs are written for it. If you go with Vista, I recommend 64bit. If you go with XP, stick with 32bit.

L2 cache: The more, the faster the system. The e2160 only has 1MB cache. Try to get at least 1MB cache. The effect in gaming is not very large, but it is noticeable.

Video Cards: Get an HD4870 and call it a day. Seriously. Crossfire/SLI is almost not worth it - a single HD4850 will outperform a crossfire HD3870 system almost all the time.

Ram: XP = run 2 x 1 GB sticks. Vista = run 4 x 1 GB sticks, or 2 x 2 GB sticks. Get the lowest latency at the fastest speed your board supports. I'd also recommend waiting before hitting that DDR3 bandwagon

 

[Poodles]

64bit gives lower performance for games not written for it because it's using an emulation layer. Unless you're running Vista (I pity the fool), you won't need all that RAM...

You forgot to point out that there is always a minimum spec for RAM speeds for a motherboard, hence why some are picky bastards...

 

[Isphius]

well i like a lot of games from the 99-03 or 04 area, like battlefield 2, starcraft, warcraft 3, etc. But i really only "like" those games because my current computer cant run much more than that. BF2 on full settings is too much and wc3 pushes it pretty close with big battles. So i dont know which games i intend to play, because i cant try them, but 4 year old games are running my computer to the max. The current is an xp 3200+, 1 gig of dual channel ddr400 ram, a geforce 5700le, and a few other cheap bits and pieces. It was the best stuff i could afford a few years ago. And ive never had a problem with my athlon overheating, it runs about 170 at full tilt, which is pretty hot, but ive never had a problem with it. So basically, i want to run the highest ram per slot my motherboard will accept? ram wise, what will be acceptable for running a game like assassins creed or supreme commander? or any of that new crap that comes out for the next few years?

 

[Poodles]

You could overclock the piss outta that CPU and get a better video card. But, you can build a rediculous system for under $500 that will destroy it.

I know i'm gonna get bashed for this, but you're not missing much in terms of modern games. Most are full of eye candy and lack any innovation...

 

[jmanbball]

When I rebuild my comp is is what I'm going with

Processor:45nm Core 2 Duo e8500
Motherboard: Some sort of P45
Ram: Start with 2x 2gb of at least ddr2 800
Video Card: Radeon 4850

This leaves plenty of room for upgrading. You have another video card slot and 2 more ram slots at least.

 

[Kai]

64bit gives lower performance for games not written for it because it's using an emulation layer. Unless you're running Vista (I pity the fool), you won't need all that RAM...

You forgot to point out that there is always a minimum spec for RAM speeds for a motherboard, hence why some are picky bastards...

I beg to differ on the performance issue - you're making it sound like its a huge deal, when in fact, it's not.

I have here, Crysis Benchmarks, conducted using 32 and 64-bit versions of the software in Vista x64 Ultimate, and for shits and giggles, plugged in my external, loaded up XP with SP3 on it and compared results (bear in mind that they're the same system otherwise).

Crysis 32-bit on XP: 42.177 fps (High Detail, 1440x900 Res)
Crysis 32-bit on Vista 64: 42.189fps (High Detail, 1440x900 Res)

Crysis 64-bit on Vista 64: 41.301fps (High Detail, 1440x900 Res)

Yes, the 64 bit version loses nearly 0.7FPS! However, using a 64-bit OS, i can allocate as much memory as the application requires, whereas a 32-bit OS is limited to maximum of 2gb - which causes stuttering and low minimum framerate, as the hard disk is thrashing to page data in and out of the tiny 2gb memory partition it's been allocated.

4GB of memory was necessary on XP64 as well for me, and thats based around the very compact Server 2003 Kernel.

Modern Games will only require 2gb of memory, but seriously, if you're going to be doing any kind of serious gaming, you'll want to get at LEAST 4gb. And judging by the way the industry is moving, you want to get a DDR3 capable board and DDR3 memory (it's fast becoming the 'new' standard).

Also - NEVER get a single 2gb stick of memory over a pair of 1gb's - dual channel and triple channel is where its at - bandwidth of the memory is just as important as the amount you have.

I can vouch for the Radeon HD4850 in Graphics as well, i have a pair of them in Crossfire, you'll probably only need a single one though, cause i'm just that hardcore....and i like running with all the settings on full

 

[drunk_medic]

I beg to differ on the performance issue - you're making it sound like its a huge deal, when in fact, it's not.

I have here, Crysis Benchmarks, conducted using 32 and 64-bit versions of the software in Vista x64 Ultimate, and for shits and giggles, plugged in my external, loaded up XP with SP3 on it and compared results (bear in mind that they're the same system otherwise).

Crysis 32-bit on XP: 42.177 fps (High Detail, 1440x900 Res)
Crysis 32-bit on Vista 64: 42.189fps (High Detail, 1440x900 Res)

Crysis 64-bit on Vista 64: 41.301fps (High Detail, 1440x900 Res)

Yes, the 64 bit version loses nearly 0.7FPS! However, using a 64-bit OS, i can allocate as much memory as the application requires, whereas a 32-bit OS is limited to maximum of 2gb - which causes stuttering and low minimum framerate, as the hard disk is thrashing to page data in and out of the tiny 2gb memory partition it's been allocated.

4GB of memory was necessary on XP64 as well for me, and thats based around the very compact Server 2003 Kernel.

Modern Games will only require 2gb of memory, but seriously, if you're going to be doing any kind of serious gaming, you'll want to get at LEAST 4gb. And judging by the way the industry is moving, you want to get a DDR3 capable board and DDR3 memory (it's fast becoming the 'new' standard).

Also - NEVER get a single 2gb stick of memory over a pair of 1gb's - dual channel and triple channel is where its at - bandwidth of the memory is just as important as the amount you have.

I can vouch for the Radeon HD4850 in Graphics as well, i have a pair of them in Crossfire, you'll probably only need a single one though, cause i'm just that hardcore....and i like running with all the settings on full

You are also forgetting that there's a bit of extra instruction in Crysis/Vista vs XP due to DX10 - XP doesn't have to deal with that. I think that alone could possibly make up for the 0.7FPS loss, easily, especially if you have seen some of the texture differences between DX9 and DX10 [water, for example].

I don't have Crysis. I guess the newest game I will be playing is Fallout 3 later this month, but that's just a tweaked Oblivion engine I believe - so probably just some really good tweaks to an older engine. I am currently playing Assassin's Creed, but that's getting older now. Even so, I am getting amazing framerates with settings maxed on a 22" widescreen [1680x1050].

For processors, the Core2Duo and Quad are the place to be. E8500 I believe is a sweet price spot for the Duo and Q9550 [what I have] is a good price point for the Quad.
I bought my processor because the thermals didn't seem terrible for a quad [especially compared to AMD, even compared to my old Opteron] and 12MB of cache is nice. Video encoding and multitasking should be a breeze [haven't jumped heavily into that quite yet].
DDR3 costs a bit more than DDR2, sure. There is something to be said for 8GB of it running in dual-channel, with synchronized speed to the CPU's FSB [1333] though.
The 4850 is a really nice card. I considered getting either one 4870 or one 4850 with the option to get another 4850. I figured I would just get the best I could currently get for the [dual] slot and shoehorned a 4870x2 into my XPC. I parrot Kai in saying I like running with all the settings on full. Still, if you are playing older games and do not like many of the newer ones [or can stand to play newer ones on medium settings] I hear a single 4850 is the card to get. Don't forget to tune your fan profile with the 48x0 cards though - they can get HOT if you don't tend to them, and if you don't tune your fan profile the card will get hot and then the fan will come on FULL FREAKING BLAST. Note: AMD Overdrive utility will not work if you are trying out Server/Workstation 2008 - I had to use RivaTuner 2.11.

Overall I think that If you are playing mostly older games, a mid-level processor and video card matched with a good amount of RAM on a newer motherboard would be the way to go - something that will pave the way for the future, so you can possibly pop a newer CPU that is compatible with the same socket, another two sticks of memory and a newer video card whenever the next time to upgrade comes.

Reminds me, I never took finished pics of my computer upon final assembly with the last of components. I will have to update that thread soon..

 

[Kai]

I was running both instances at High with the -dx9 switch, Vista and XP both support that.

 

[Isphius]

ok so i think i know what to get now I said i play older games cause thats what my computer can run, but i sure would like to play newer ones. Im a big fan of eye candy in games, but the playability is my number 1. I like battlefield 2 because of they essentially nerfed the sniper as compared to other games, Something i always thought should happen. Its nearly impossible to hit someone while running without a lot of practice. I also love the "open world" style of that game. Not like half life or call of duty where you are on a mostly straight forward map with not much deviation. I will admit that some of the stuff you guys are saying, i dont really understand, so if you could also give me a little noob laymens terms, haha. like what is this dx9 and dx10 you are referring too, and what are the differences between ddr2 and ddr3? just an evolution like the dual core vs single core? Thanks guys! this is very helpful to me

 

[Kai]

DX9 and DX10 are shorthand for DirectX 9 and 10, the API's that games use to render the graphics.

DDR3 is almost no different to DDR2, however, it has a much higher bandwidth and lower voltages, the only penalty being latencies.

 

[Rennat]

heres a quick "kit" i just looked up for you... it would handle just about whatever you would throw at it.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4196651&CatId=2405

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2135206&CatId=493

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3581357&CatId=1558

Then if you need the software.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2552182&CatId=672



And as far as processor speeds go, look more at the FSB (front side bus) because thats what really counts for the actual speed of things. yeah having a 4GHz cpu is nice... but if you have a 800MHz FSB... well its not that cool anymore. L1 and L2 cache, MORE = BETTER! but buy whats in your price range, often times, more cache = more cash. I personally LOVE the Q9550 with its specs, my brother has the xeon version of it, and i must say... its a NICEEEEEEE cpu.

A lot of the stuff is just buy whats in your price range, and make sure everything will work with the other parts, you could call up tigerdirect and they'll help you out. i just like them because of the wide array or products, and the prices are normally pretty good.
Total is around 700. and thats a damn nice PC for surfing the web, playing MMORPG, FPS, Racing... ect.


Breakdown of the barebone kit:

Case - just a nice looking simple case, has a window, so if you wanted to add lights or LED fans you could.

motherboard - EVGA makes top notch products, thats all i run now, NEVER had any issues that i could solve with a little thinking power. very easy to use and setup.

Processor/CPU - its a quad core, with 8MB of cache, so it'll have more than enough power then you'll ever use (which is GOOD!)

Ram/Memory - OCZ makes good memory, its 2GB which if you wanted to, you could upgrade to 4GB (useless in XP though, as it only see's 3GB). not the fastest stuff on the planet, but it doesnt sound like your a pro gamer or anything like that.

The other links are for the CPU fan since the kit doesnt come with one, i've used that fan before and liked it, was quiet when i wasnt doing something intensive, but cooled the CPU fine under load.

graphics card - i personally like EVGA, i have an 8800gts 320MB card, and it does everything i need to playg Counter Strike Source in 1600x1200 with my dual 20'' monitors, and i chat on aim, use SM, and play CS alllll at the same time. never lags. low FPS for me is 90... haha

ATI vs Nvidia is more of personal preference, i used ati, and after a card burned up on me that i just spent $200 buying (i was 14). i never used them again and i havent looked back. i love my EVGA Products with a pashion, and their warranty program is the shit!

 

[Isphius]

http://www.xoxide.com/clearacatxca.html

I already have one of these cases, and its pretty awesome haha. I would like to assemble it all from the ground up too, and maybe learn a little more in doing so, so i dont really want one of those barebones kits. The video card seems pretty awesome tho. I spent 200$ i believe on mine, 256mb GF5700. It was the shit back then. I was using a 128mb GF4 before that and it was a huge upgrade lol. And what are some of these benchmark programs that will test your frame rates? I would like to do a before and after. Im sure its going to be massive. And what does the manufacturing tech mean? its like Xx nm. What is that a measure of?

 

[Poodles]

ewwww. clear cases = bad for grounding

 

[Isphius]

what is grounded through the case? And just for the record i didnt ask these questions because im building a computer anytime soon, but so i could know the answers. I didnt have a clue what to look for when shopping and now i do. I still would like to know if it is worth it to run sli or crossfire, i plan on getting some newer games and want to run everything on full graphics, and to be able to for at least a few years to come. And are all cards compatible, or are they specific? thanks again everyone

 

[Rennat]

for the home user SLI and crossfire are worthless. go look at some of the comparisons... they only get 10-20fps more over a single card, and normally the single card is already doing REALLY well.

its an electrical system, and it needs good grounds just like a supra. you want an all metal case to have good grounds.

and FWIW, i used at 7800gt or a 7600gt for the longest time until my dad got me my current setup.

EVGA 680i motherboard
E6600 @ 2.4GHz Dual Core, FSB of 1066mhz which is why i got it. but i know what a Q9550 for the quad core and 12mb of cache.
2.75GB of ram (really 4GB)
8800GTS 320MB (have much better cards now for less)
500GB SATA HD and a external 750GB HD

and i've had ZERO issues playing any games i've bought, Command Conquer 3, everything on HIGH, Elder Scrolls Oblivion - i get no lag loading the HUGE maps and worlds that game has.

 

[Kai]

Worthless? Sorry but thats BS - only in some apps do they go unused, because they're so badly coded they can't take advantage of the multi GPU setups.

Crysis and Crysis Warhead give me about 15 to 17fps over a single card, but COD4 gives me a MASSIVE increase, more than double the framerates.

Thanks to Crossfire, i can run 1440x900 with every last detail cranked up as high as it'll go in COD4, Source Engined Games and i'm running a Custom Crysis Config that still looks better than 'Enthusiast' settings and gives me a smooth 32fps average framerate.

Games that are coded properly and have driver optimisations will perform far better than just 10fps over a single card.