Author Topic: Budgit pc build. (Read 28609 times)

Boozu · « **on:** November 25, 2009, 03:37:00 PM »

I am building a PC for a friend on a budgit. What do you guys think?

Intel Pentium Dual Core E5200 2.5GHz
2Gb DDR2
EVGA GeForce 210 Video Card
500Gb HHD
Windows 7 x64

He is a light gamer and I was wondering how the Pentium CPU will do with that?

Thanks.

Geek-9pm · « **Reply #1 on:** November 25, 2009, 04:14:41 PM »

Quote

Windows 7 x64

Seems out of place for a budget.
Unless you plan on more memory later.

Boozu · « **Reply #2 on:** November 25, 2009, 04:29:30 PM »

If you are referring to the 64 bit part then there are a few reasons.

1. Everything(almost) is 64 bit now so why go back when computers advance so fast.
2. The 2Gb of RAM was only to stay in budget and I will be recamending an upgrade to 4Gb.
3. He does some gaming so the added boost, however small, will hopfully make up for a slower CPU.

What exactly did you mean by "out of place for a budget"?

Geek-9pm · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2009, 05:54:58 PM »

Quote

What exactly did you mean by "out of place for a budget"?

The 64 bit OS does not use memory in an economical way.
If you do not ad more memory it will crawl like turtle.
Most, if not all, of the free stuff is 32 bit.
Using a 64 bit OS is justified on a huge database or application that needs more that the 3GB limit of the 32 bit system. Otherwise, having 64 bits available for a typical low budget application has no value.

OK, if you are running a internet server, it matters. But for personal use it is of no value unless you use an application that really needs a big address space.

Boozu · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2009, 06:56:09 PM »

Interesting. So I should recamend the 32 bit version if my friend does not go for the 4Gb upgrade?
How do you think the CPU will handle gaming? Will the GPU be able to handle enough to compensate?

Geek-9pm · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2009, 09:38:14 PM »

Maybe this may help:

Quote

Can I run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit computer?
Most programs designed for a computer running a 32-bit version of Windows will work on a computer running 64-bit versions of Windows. Notable exceptions are many antivirus programs, and some hardware drivers.
Drivers designed for 32-bit versions of Windows do not work on computers running a 64-bit version of Windows. If you're trying to install a printer or other device that only has 32-bit drivers available, it won't work correctly on a 64-bit version of Windows. If you are unsure whether there is a 64-bit driver available for your device, go online to the Windows Vista Compatibility Center.

For more use:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/32-bit-and-64-bit-Windows-frequently-asked-questions

You can read that over and see what your think. My impression is that more better use of huge memory is the whole point of the 64 bit system.
There is not indication that anything else is better. Under 4GB the 64 bit OS does not have any edge.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2009, 10:46:46 PM »

aside from 64-bit instructions and the ability to process 64 bits of data at one time, effectively doubling the speed of almost any operation.

This same tired arguments were used for the 16-bit to 32-bit shift, and none of them were valid.

Boozu · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2009, 11:36:07 PM »

Only the most obscure unmanages hardware would not have proper 64 bit drivers now. Even If They don't have Win7 drivers most likely they will have Vista drivers witch will work until Win7 ones come out. While running the RC of Win7 I had to use Vista drivers for my TV tuner and optical drive and I have not seen any improvement now that I have the proper drivers. The part about the Antivirus is not as true now as far as I have seen. But if my friend ops for the 2Gb then would the 32 bit version be better?

patio · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2009, 07:47:02 AM »

Quote from: Geek-9pm on November 25, 2009, 05:54:58 PM

The 64 bit OS does not use memory in an economical way.
If you do not ad more memory it will crawl like turtle.
Most, if not all, of the free stuff is 32 bit.
Using a 64 bit OS is justified on a huge database or application that needs more that the 3GB limit of the 32 bit system. Otherwise, having 64 bits available for a typical low budget application has no value.

OK, if you are running a internet server, it matters. But for personal use it is of no value unless you use an application that really needs a big address space.

I respectfully disagree with the above assertions...

Boozu · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:00:05 AM »

So Patio. You are saying 64 all the way?

patio · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:07:58 AM »

I ran both Vista and the RC of Win7 64bit with 2G of RAM and never experienced what is mentioned above.

Beyond that if and when he does add more RAM with a 32bit OS he would be limited to under 4G.

Boozu · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:11:43 AM »

Thanks Patio. How do you think the Pentium will handle?

patio · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:14:02 AM »

Should do fine...
I run a Q6600...rock solid.

BTW with Win7 you recieve both a 32 and 64bit DVD in the package so there are still options...

Boozu · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:19:00 AM »

Well the Q6600 is a core 2 Quad, so I hope it is solid. The OEM copys don't have both 32 and 64.

mroilfield · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:23:05 AM »

Quote from: Boozu on November 26, 2009, 08:19:00 AM

Well the Q6600 is a core 2 Quad, so I hope it is solid. The OEM copys don't have both 32 and 64.

If you are building this PC wouldn't you be buying a copy of the OS instead of using the OEM version from another PC?

patio · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:25:09 AM »

I was just about to ask the same thing...
Also just so you know you can do a clean install from the Upgrade ver. and save some cabbage...

Boozu · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:35:21 AM »

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5213931&CatId=4622
OEMs are cheaper than the upgrades and is 100% legal(important when you are basically selling it to someone). mroilfield I am not sure what you mean by "from another PC." OEM copies are specifically made for building new PCs. Patio, I know about the upgrade trick and even did NOT do it for my PC.

mroilfield · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:41:50 AM »

Quote from: Boozu on November 26, 2009, 08:35:21 AM

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5213931&CatId=4622
OEMs are cheaper than the upgrades and is 100% legal(important when you are basically selling it to someone). mroilfield I am not sure what you mean by "from another PC." OEM copies are specifically made for building new PCs. Patio, I know about the upgrade trick and even did NOT do it for my PC.

I am sorry but I had the understanding that OEM stood for "Original Equipment Manufacturer" meaning it would be a copy that ships with say an already manufactured PC. I was also under the impression that a new retail version of an OS was made for building new PC's or upgrade other PC's.

Sorry if I was wrong.

Boozu · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:55:45 AM »

Quote

I am sorry but I had the understanding that OEM stood for "Original Equipment Manufacturer" meaning it would be a copy that ships with say an already manufactured PC. I was also under the impression that a new retail version of an OS was made for building new PC's or upgrade other PC's.

OEM does stand for "Original Equipment Manufacturer." When you buy lets say a DELL yo will have an OEM copy installed. The reason that the full retail versions are so expensive is because you get 32 and 64 bit together. OEMs are just one ore the other and are a cheaper way for people like me to build computers because I know exactly what version I need. Think of it this way. DELL uses OEMs and sells to you. I use an OEM and sell to my friend. Also if I build a PC for myself then I can use an OEM and save money.

While the retail upgrade version is useful for the general market to do just that, the full version is mostly a way to get more money from people that don't have the tech savvy, or whatever, to know to get an OEM copy.

Geek-9pm · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2009, 09:59:27 AM »

Quote from: patio on November 26, 2009, 08:07:58 AM

I ran both Vista and the RC of Win7 64bit with 2G of RAM and never experienced what is mentioned above.
Beyond that if and when he does add more RAM with a 32bit OS he would be limited to under 4G.

I have been corrected.

Boozu · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2009, 10:44:37 AM »

It is ok to be wrong. There is something interesting in what you said. I have been watching videos of Bill Gates and Steave Jobs talking about how computers have advanced so quickly and it makes me wonder where computers will be in 20 years. Will we see the first commercially available Tb stick of RAM and will we be going into a 128 bit system. And think of the power that video cards will have....

inapaler · « **Reply #21 on:** November 28, 2009, 02:15:59 AM »

Quote from: patio on November 26, 2009, 08:14:02 AM

Should do fine...
I run a Q6600...rock solid.

BTW with Win7 you recieve both a 32 and 64bit DVD in the package so there are still options...

I dont know about this... if this is true then its great!
thanks for sharing this

Geek-9pm · « **Reply #22 on:** November 28, 2009, 12:20:11 PM »

Quote

and it makes me wonder where computers will be in 20 years.

Hard to say. I think that we will not have any of this stuff. Or it will not be useful. Progress does not follow a nice starring line. Years ago they siad the electric car was dead. Then it came back. And died again. And now we have the Hybrid. We can not even predict what the automobile will be.

Personal Computers have been a practical item from the early 1980s. But the machine you can build or buy now for under a $1000 would be classified ans a military weapon back in 1982. Maybe the government does not want the PC to develop anymore. It would be a super weapon if it gets anymore powerful.

Boozu · « **Reply #23 on:** November 28, 2009, 02:46:22 PM »

Quote

But the machine you can build or buy now for under a $1000 would be classified ans a military weapon back in 1982.

I think it is more powerfull then they would be able to imagine back then.
http://www.bit-tech.net/custompc/news/605445/foldinghome-now-the-worlds-most-powerful-supercomputer.html
http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/result-browser/top10---flops.php
Look at the bottom of the second link. It shows the core i5 and i7. According to that my core i5 dose 10,222.58 MegaFlops. You may also see that it is more than the i7 920 stock and at 3.5GHz.

I get what yo are trying to say though.

Dough · « **Reply #24 on:** December 13, 2009, 02:23:48 PM »

Quote from: Boozu on November 28, 2009, 02:46:22 PM

http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/result-browser/top10---flops.php
Look at the bottom of the second link. It shows the core i5 and i7. According to that my core i5 dose 10,222.58 MegaFlops. You may also

wow

dude, have you seen this:

http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/result-browser/memory---all-inclusive.php

or

http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/description/mips/mips-scaleability.php

best

Computer Hope Forum

News:

Author Topic: Budgit pc build. (Read 28609 times)

Boozu

Geek-9pm

Boozu

Geek-9pm

Boozu

Geek-9pm

BC_Programmer

Boozu

patio

Boozu

patio

Boozu

patio

Boozu

mroilfield

patio

Boozu

mroilfield

Boozu

Geek-9pm

Boozu

inapaler

Geek-9pm

Boozu

Dough