Thread: Preparing to build a PC - need YOUR help.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

here's a fix.....how about 2 gig's of RAM?

I need to look at some performance charts for vista that indicate 4 gigs, or even 3 gigs, makes any performance difference in gaming/normal use (email, internet, wordprocessing, etc). As well, 1 gig sticks, and especially 512 sticks, have faster timings and clock speeds than 2 gig stick behemoths.

RAM is a funny thing. but just like harddrive space.....it's only useful if you have something that can actually use it.

Yeah seriously, I got 4 gigs because I could and I have never actually used them for apps. Although vista has these indexing services and other things it likes to do, and they do use the RAM. My vista system has had up to 3.5 gigs being used but my apps were only running in about 1.5 of that, the rest were a couple ISO's mounted virtually, and Vista "business." It's OK though; my pal at MS told me "it's doing useful stuff when it uses all that memory." But somehow I do not feel so assured.

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

Ok, after hearing the debate on RAID, I may just skip it. I will get my details together on the hard drives offline. I have read good things about the Barracudas

seagates are good stuff. but most of the big makers...WD....seagate....samsung....maxtor....the y've all figured out how to make good drives. For me, it's about quietness. And I think samsung and WD are the reigning champs.

Does the brand of memory really matter? I see them (DDR2) all around 800mhz, and dont know what else to measure other than price tag.

well....it depends on what "matters" means. for the most part, guys like OCZ, Corsair, Mushkin, Geil, PNY....all buy chips from the same 2 or 3 chip manufacturers (like samsung, for example). What matters on your ram is making sure you get speeds that match your CPU's FSB's/clock ratios. It's good for stability, and throughput. I think on your E6600 whatever, you'll be looking for DDR21066's.....but I need to ask sjt about that, since he's gone more into the intel side of things than me.

Looks like home premium is the OS I will want.

good choice.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16832116204

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

Even Crysis says recommended 1.5Gb of RAM.

If I did go with 2 GB, I would want 2x1GB sticks to leave room to change my mind later.

of course. That's what I put in iravedic and elkhartadam's boxes. firedog's too.

if you want to pick parts based on "becuase I can" stuff.....then we can spend $5000 on your box if you wish.

but I don't support such design ideals. My job is to help you make what you need without wasting your money. If you want to shove in 4 gigs of RAM, 4 750gig HD's in RAID-5, 4 DVD-burners, 7.1 surround, a 25" screen, quad-SLI, and a seriously complex cooling solution so we can clock your intel whatever to 4.0+Ghz........sure....we do all that.

But what's the point in having 350fps when your monitor only does 85? are when the server itself only does 100-200? Or when your internet connection pings the server every 20 ms (50 times a second)?

there's all sorts of show off stuff we can put in your box. $300 power supplies. $500 cases. $100 heatsink fans. Glow in the dark cabling. Sound proof panels and hard drive enclosures/coolers.

that's why it's important to know......what are you building here? The most 3dmarks for the least $$$$, a set $$$, or the most $$$$ ?

RAID and RAM article posted recently on Tom's

RAID = no 3d benefit, or encoding benefit, but shows synthetic gains in HDD benchmarks (read/write speeds.... no surprise). http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/...ame_benchmarks

RAM comparisons (mostly single and dual channel comparisons in synthetic benchmarks) advantages from single to dual channel are pretty much nonexistant, except for overall bandwidth. no 3d performance effect. (duh)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/...ng/page11.html

This second part of our article series on parallel processing dealt with single and dual channel memory, as well with the possible performance gains of upgrading a single hard drive to a RAID array with two or four hard drives. In "Parallel Processing, Part 1: CPU Cores" we analyzed where and how dual and quad core processors can increase performance, and we concluded that it makes the most sense to stick with a dual core processor for now, and only purchase a quad core if your applications can actually benefit from it. In the end, the 45 nm generation code-named Penryn is due at the beginning of next year, and it will deliver somewhat more performance at decreased power requirements.

But back to RAM and hard drives. As expected, the performance difference between single channel and dual channel DDR2-800 memory using an up-to-date Core 2 Duo system is little to nil, depending on the benchmark - most tests show differences, but they are really small. For games and enthusiast PCs, we recommend sticking to high-performance dual channel RAM, because the memory is one of those components that you want to perform best for a smooth experience. For regular applications, though, it doesn't really matter much whether you run single or dual channel. Two 1 GB DIMMs typically are cheaper than a single 2 GB module, but a single DIMM will reduce your power consumption by several watts (which might just be more interesting than it is important).

It's similar in the hard drive corner: a RAID array has to live with a marginal performance impact due to the added controller, which results in slightly decreased performance in several benchmarks. Benchmarks that actually benefit from increased storage throughput will show the best result when going from a single drive to a RAID 0 with two drives. Running four drives still increases the storage-intensive benchmarks, but the extra gains are comparatively small.

so, if I was you, I'd drop the dollars to get the 1033 or 1333 RAM, so your clock cycles will run in sync with your CPU's FSB (it matters, and makes significant performance and stability improvements to run in sync).

a good artcile explaining memory, and basic/complex prinicples about RAM (even DDR3).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/...us_performance

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

The hardware below is what I am looking at. Notice the disparity between the FSB and the memory standard. 1333mhz looks like the common denominator, except for the 'memory standard' spec.

ASUS <FSB 1333/1066MHz>
Memory Standard DDR2 800
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131153

Processor
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850
1333MHz FSB
http://techreport.pricegrabber.com/s...terid=43369635

Yeah, FSB =/= memory bus speed.

FSB = "CPU Frequency" and Total Mhz = FSB x CPU Multiplier. Meanwhile total memory speed in Mhz = RAM frequency x RAM multiplier. That motherboard is one I picked out, it has DDR2-800 memory. So its memory bus speed is actually 400 x 2 or 800Mhz. You can spend more dough and get a similar motherboard with a faster memory bus. I selected that one to save money.

But sure enough, you can look for one that has a 1333 FSB and a 1066 memory bus too. It just costs more.

So FSB speed =/= to memory speed. Was that the confusion?

Seriously, if you are wanting to spend 2k drop more on the mobo to get a faster memory bus.

1333 is DDR3....isn&#39;t it? I don&#39;t think they make 1333 or 1375 DDR2&#39;s.

DDR2 can run at 1333. But your right your in DDr3 territory

Dont think that is the memory speed though, probably just the CPU bus - probably looking at the normal DDR2 6400 at 800 until you make the jump to the DDR3 motherboards

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

1333 is DDR3....isn&#39;t it? I don&#39;t think they make 1333 or 1375 DDR2&#39;s.

List of DDR2 from Newegg....

DDR2 400 (PC2 3200)
DDR2 533 (PC2 4200)
DDR2 667 (PC2 5300)
DDR2 667 (PC2 5400)
DDR2 675 (PC2 5400)
DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000)
DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
DDR2 1111 (PC2 8888)
DDR2 1142 (PC2 9136)
DDR2 1150 (PC2 9200)
DDR2 1173 (PC2 9384)
DDR2 1200 (PC2 9600)
DDR2 1250 (PC2 10000)
DDR2 1300 (PC2 10400)

No 1333....