Suggestions for new system.

  • Thread starter Thread starter David Farber
  • Start date Start date
BTW 512MB RAM is not enough for the year 2005, year of
XP and and approaching the next Windows version which is already out in
Beta. Get a gig.
Click to expand...


I just did an upgrade from 512MB to 1GB on an Athlon XP 3000+
with WinXP Pro SP2. Using an Nvidia 6600GT, none of the games, and
applications seem to have benifited from the upgrade. The HDD doesn't
get accessed much, but it didn't when I had 512MB either. Now 256MB,
which is all my second PC has now, there is a noticiable performance
hit. Takes longer to load the OS, and programs.
With RAM being as cheap as it is, I'd go for 1GB, as I'm sure
it will be needed for the next Windows, but if your still using WinXP,
and don't do much other than internet, games, and a little video
editing, then 512MB would still do fine. I'm sure new games would get
some benifit from 1GB, or more, but it's not a great jump like people
tend to make it. Feels more like a $10.00 increase. :/
 
A good question to ask is, "WHICH games?"
The games I play eat up the RAM and love it and want more.
And video editing! Oooh you can not ever have enough RAM for video editing.
 
Larry said:
I just did an upgrade from 512MB to 1GB on an Athlon XP 3000+
with WinXP Pro SP2. Using an Nvidia 6600GT, none of the games, and
applications seem to have benifited from the upgrade. The HDD doesn't
get accessed much, but it didn't when I had 512MB either. Now 256MB,
which is all my second PC has now, there is a noticiable performance
hit. Takes longer to load the OS, and programs.
With RAM being as cheap as it is, I'd go for 1GB, as I'm sure
it will be needed for the next Windows, but if your still using WinXP,
and don't do much other than internet, games, and a little video
editing, then 512MB would still do fine. I'm sure new games would get
some benifit from 1GB, or more, but it's not a great jump like people
tend to make it. Feels more like a $10.00 increase. :/
Click to expand...


I noticed a big difference in Morrowind, which is a couple of years old,
going from 512 MB to 1 GB. That game can eat over 760 MB of memory if
you aren't careful.
 
A good question to ask is, "WHICH games?"
The games I play eat up the RAM and love it and want more.
And video editing! Oooh you can not ever have enough RAM for video editing.
Click to expand...


Doom 3, HL2, Need for Speed Underground 2, Tribes: Vengeance,
and PainKiller are the newest games I have, but even when they where
released people where saying 1GB was needed for best performance. I
didn't say that 512MB is all you need, or that 1GB is a waste, but in
my experience, there isn't much of a boost in performance, if any.
 
the X300 is not a good choice for any gaming, esp on line,
suggest at least an X800 or 6800 series card. Dell uses lower tier parts
to sell cheap machines, even their XPS series is not up to par for
serious gaming.
 
the X300 is not a good choice for any gaming, esp on line,
suggest at least an X800 or 6800 series card. Dell uses lower tier parts
to sell cheap machines, even their XPS series is not up to par for
serious gaming.
Click to expand...

The X700Pro isn't that expensive and kicks a reasonable amount of
bottom.
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
 
Yeah, good point, Larry.
In these kind of discussions no one can be "right" because it's so
subjective and there are so many variables to consider. Variables like what
resolution and what eye candy people want to play with as well as the
speed/capacity of all the other parts of the system, including what OS.
It's nice to see so many people caring enough to give advice to the OP.
 
David said:
When I called Dell asking for the model numbers of the Intel motherboards
they use is their systems, the sales rep said that their motherboards are
made by Dell. That's a good one.

I found that the Dell Dimension 9100 appears to be a good choice. It comes
standard with a P4 630HT 3GHz processor, 512MB RAM, 160GB hard drive, 19"
flat panel, *128MB ATI RadeonT X300 SE*, and an optional DVD burner and
cheap speakers, MS Office basic, XP home edition, inkjet printer, and some
lightweight photo software. Final total with tax and shipping is about
$1,200.

Thanks for your reply.
Click to expand...

ugh, poor guy

get someone to make you a clone, branded machines are not worth the
upgrade hassle with their proprietary parts.

Gordon
 
'Gordon Scott' wrote, in part:
| ugh, poor guy
|
| get someone to make you a clone, branded machines are not worth the
| upgrade hassle with their proprietary parts.
_____

One size does not fit all. Your suggestion might or might not fit some
needs, but it doesn't seem appropriate to the original posts stated and
implied requirements. The Dell Inspiron does.

Phil Weldon
 
Michael said:
I noticed a big difference in Morrowind, which is a couple of years old,
going from 512 MB to 1 GB. That game can eat over 760 MB of memory if
you aren't careful.
Click to expand...
I upped my xp-2000 box from 512 to 1gb and it made a slight difference
in how fast the os loaded. It made a bigger difference in how fast games
loaded. Still I could have got along just fine for now without the extra
512. When my FX-5200 card died, I jumped to a 6600 and saw a much bigger
jump in performance. It seems to me that if you have at least an xp-2000
or an intel 2.8 running 512MB RAM and a 5200 card, you can play most
games out there. You may not play them at max res and highest detail
with smoking frame rates, but you can play well enough to get by.
 
I upped my xp-2000 box from 512 to 1gb and it made a slight difference
in how fast the os loaded. It made a bigger difference in how fast games
loaded. Still I could have got along just fine for now without the extra
512. When my FX-5200 card died, I jumped to a 6600 and saw a much bigger
jump in performance. It seems to me that if you have at least an xp-2000
or an intel 2.8 running 512MB RAM and a 5200 card, you can play most
games out there. You may not play them at max res and highest detail
with smoking frame rates, but you can play well enough to get by.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that XP is very greedy with RAM.

Going back to the fairly modest requirements of the original message,
even if one were to use a modest graphics card, it would be good to
have expansion capabilities so PCI-E is important. Like wise it would
be important that whatever memory is fitted, there should be spare
slots for more at a later date.

Building from scratch, I think that it would be very good to have a
"silent" PSU and be sure that it has enough spare power for later.
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
 
Bobtail said:
I upped my xp-2000 box from 512 to 1gb and it made a slight difference
in how fast the os loaded. It made a bigger difference in how fast games
loaded. Still I could have got along just fine for now without the extra
512. When my FX-5200 card died, I jumped to a 6600 and saw a much bigger
jump in performance. It seems to me that if you have at least an xp-2000
or an intel 2.8 running 512MB RAM and a 5200 card, you can play most
games out there. You may not play them at max res and highest detail
with smoking frame rates, but you can play well enough to get by.
Click to expand...


I am running a P4 3.4 with 1 GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro video
card. While I had no problems actually running Morrowind on my previous
computer with only 512 MB of RAM, the game would at times crash to the
desktop. Looking at the RAM usage at these times showed that the game
had jumped from a normal 256 MB of RAM to over 768 MB of RAM. The game
got noticeably slower right before the crash. Upping the memory to 1 GB
eliminated this problem for the most part. The problem was not in my
equipment, which was far above the stated requirements, but in the game
itself.
 
Back
Top