 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Specs:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
GIGABYTE GA-EP45C-UD3R
Galaxy 95TGE8HUFEXX GeForce 9500 GT 1GB
2 GB DDR3 1600 Memory
Nice, yes? :-D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Specs:
>
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
> GIGABYTE GA-EP45C-UD3R
> Galaxy 95TGE8HUFEXX GeForce 9500 GT 1GB
> 2 GB DDR3 1600 Memory
>
> Nice, yes? :-D
>
Why so low memory?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Specs:
>
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
> GIGABYTE GA-EP45C-UD3R
> Galaxy 95TGE8HUFEXX GeForce 9500 GT 1GB
> 2 GB DDR3 1600 Memory
>
> Nice, yes? :-D
Eh, not bad.
The server I just sent back had *two* quad-core Xeons in it, 3GHz each,
OTOH, no GeForce. ;-)
Two questions:
- Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
- Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out loud...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Two questions:
> - Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
Mostly price... Though, I'm not much of a gamer, either, so I don't need
the latest super-fast display.
> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out loud...)
Not quite ready to run a 64-bit OS, don't need the extra memory. I've
seen very little appreciable gain with more than 2GB of ram, and memory
is easily upgradeable later.
Hard drives will be transferred from my old machine, 1TB worth of SATA
drives. Should be plenty for the moment.
And the display adapter is something that can easily be upgraded later
as well.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
>
> Mostly price... Though, I'm not much of a gamer, either, so I don't need
> the latest super-fast display.
Oh, well, if you don't need 3D graphics, then you don't need 3D
graphics. ;-)
>> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out
>> loud...)
>
> Not quite ready to run a 64-bit OS, don't need the extra memory. I've
> seen very little appreciable gain with more than 2GB of ram, and memory
> is easily upgradeable later.
OK, fair enough.
My laptop is running Vista 32-bit. (Interesting manufacturing choice...)
But that came with 3GB of RAM, which I have upgraded to 4GB. (No, I
didn't really notice any difference. But RAM is cheap ATM.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> - Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
>>
>> Mostly price... Though, I'm not much of a gamer, either, so I don't
>> need the latest super-fast display.
>
> Oh, well, if you don't need 3D graphics, then you don't need 3D
> graphics. ;-)
>
Then again, I could get the PCIe-16 version of the card I have in my
machine now, a Radeon 3850 .. which according to a benchmark I was just
looking at outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 9500 by quite a bit.
>>> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out
>>> loud...)
>>
>> Not quite ready to run a 64-bit OS, don't need the extra memory. I've
>> seen very little appreciable gain with more than 2GB of ram, and
>> memory is easily upgradeable later.
>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> My laptop is running Vista 32-bit. (Interesting manufacturing choice...)
> But that came with 3GB of RAM, which I have upgraded to 4GB. (No, I
> didn't really notice any difference. But RAM is cheap ATM.)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out loud...)
I remember one day, way back when, at the time we got some new PCs in
our office. The machines were much faster than the machines they
replaced, and yet I saw fit to predict that "one day someone will be
using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
garbage.' "
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
> garbage.' "
Yeah. I fondly remember trying to get the first versions of pre-compiled
Linux to boot on my brand new "Server class 90MHz" machine.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I remember one day, way back when, at the time we got some new PCs in
> our office. The machines were much faster than the machines they
> replaced, and yet I saw fit to predict that "one day someone will be
> using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
> garbage.' "
Curiously, the enormous speed at which "sufficient" computing power
was increasing has slowed down a lot.
If you bought the top-of-the-line, brand new Intel processor in 1995,
by 2000 it was hopelessly outdated and slow, and you couldn't play almost
any new games with it.
However, if you bought eg. a top-of-the-line Pentium4 in 2004, nowadays
in 2009 you can still play most new games just fine (assuming you upgrade
your graphics card, of course), and it's still rather competitive in speed
for most applications. Granted, it's in no way at the top anymore, but the
difference between these last 5 years is significantly smaller than the
difference between eg. 1995 and 2000.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> I remember one day, way back when, at the time we got some new PCs in
> our office. The machines were much faster than the machines they
> replaced, and yet I saw fit to predict that "one day someone will be
> using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
> garbage.' "
Heh... I'm saying that about my 2.4ghz p4, now.. :/
Of course with a 4-core chip, anything that runs parallel now, should
really benefit. That and lately my processor seems slower and slower,
but I'm not exactly sure why.
For example, this flash game runs slowly enough that it's unplayable on
my home PC, but my office PC, which has the same CPU speed, but is a
Core 2 Duo runs it fine. I can't figure out why my processor seems to be
slowing down, though.
http://www.intuitiongames.com/effing-hail/
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
