My System, Open for Comments and Suggestions
I just bought some more stuff from newegg, here's my system so far
^_^ Richo complimented it when he checked it out from a shell account while helping me with e17, which made me happy
RIGHTO! :D
AMD Athlon X2 6000+ 3.0GHz (runs consistently within 5ºF body temperature), 2GB DDR2-800MHz RAM, 250GB SATA 7200rpm HDD, nVidia GeForce 6600LE 128MB 400/500MHz (upgrading to at least an 8600GT soon) off a 500W PSU on an ASUS M4A-MVP mobo, with DVD-R + DVD-R/W, floppy (lmao), analog gauges/controls for volume/temp/fans, 7.1 Realtek audio, generic !subwoofer!, dual CRT monitors (plan to replace these next), lighted ergonomic keyboard, 8"x10" tablet, opt. mouse, unidirectional mic.
I run Windows XP x64 and Fedora 8 x64.
I'm getting used to the tablet, which I bought today. It's pretty sweet, very responsive, and photoshopping with it is just insanely awesome!
So… any suggestions or comments?
Ah, nearly forgot the price. The system with salvaged keyboard/monitors/speakers was under $500 from newegg, plus about $20 in shipping… I just bought the tablet, mic, keyboard, and a dvd burner for another $170, so total price of about $600 lmao. I bet it would ebay for over 1.2K with a better video card ^_^
I named her Wasser because of all the blue… blue keyboard, blue lights on tablet, blue LED case, blue windowblinds theme, and I might spray paint the monitors' faces blue lol. And yes, my computer is female.
With l0phtcrack5 I can get over 6M keys/sec, and an average of about 5.6M. My last computer barely got 1.2M lol.
ThorsDecree wrote: I just bought some more stuff from newegg, here's my system so far
Built mine at work from spare parts… we'll compare.
AMD Athlon X2 6000+ 3.0GHz (runs consistently within 5ºF body temperature), 2GB DDR2-800MHz RAM, 250GB SATA 7200rpm HDD, nVidia GeForce 6600LE 128MB 400/500MHz (upgrading to at least an 8600GT soon) off a 500W PSU on an ASUS M4A-MVP mobo, with DVD-R + DVD-R/W, floppy (lmao), analog gauges/controls for volume/temp/fans, 7.1 Realtek audio, generic !subwoofer!, dual CRT monitors (plan to replace these next), lighted ergonomic keyboard, 8"x10" tablet, opt. mouse, unidirectional mic.
Same AMD X2 6000+ processor, 3GB DDR2, 1.4TB RAID5 SATA array, ATI Radeon X1950 512MB, stock PS / MB (Bestec & Intel, if I remember correctly). BOSE speakers w/ subwoofer, Logitech G15 keyboard, 22' LCD monitor, Logitech optical mouse.
I run Windows XP x64 and Fedora 8 x64.
Vista, though I hate it… keeps up with my other Linux installs, though.
So… any suggestions or comments?
The AMD X2 6000+ is sweet, even if you put it in a shoebox with one fan, a CompactFlash for a hard drive, and 3 AA batteries to power it. That's where your performance is really spiking. Up the RAM, not the video card.
Edit: Well, yeah, okay, your video card does suck… up it to at least 256, then buy at least 1 more Gig stick of RAM.
I plan to get more but not anytime soon. Windows loves eating RAM, of course… right now i've got about 5 apps including photoshop and i'm using 45% ram and 18% of a 2gb pagefile. Fedora never touches a pagefile, and rarely goes over 35% RAM, but I probably will get another gig or two sometime in the future. The video, yeah, I really need to get a better one… it serves its purpose now, though, as I don't game often (just Halo1 and MechWarrior:Mercs, lol)
And niiice, what kind of place do you work in? Spare parts… what did you have to pay for those?
First thing I thought when I booted up this system several months ago: DAAAMN this thing's fast! (took under a 45s to boot and log in Win; that's a first XD).
ThorsDecree wrote: And niiice, what kind of place do you work in? Spare parts… what did you have to pay for those?
A computer repair place (i.e., paid nothing). Gives me a good opportunity to pit my AMD X2 6000 up against our Intel Core 2 Quad processors. My Pentium D 3.4Ghz (dual-core) running Debian still goes a bit faster than my AMD 6000 running Vista, though. It's fun stuff.
First thing I thought when I booted up this system several months ago: DAAAMN this thing's fast! (took under a 45s to boot and log in Win; that's a first XD).
Yeah, the dual-core AMDs are absolutely sexy. Good luck with your system.
ThorsDecree wrote: So would you say the x2s are faster than the P.D and C2Ds?
In most cases, yes. Like I said… the system I have with a Pentium D 3.4Ghz is the exception, since it still outperforms the AMD X2 6000. The quad-core Intel processors can (finally) keep up with the dual-core AMDs, it seems.
moshbat wrote: Why does even my "new" computer suck compared to these? AMD athalon 2800 64 (or something like that) 80gb HDD (with a 320gb usb one) XP (and fedora8 on the external HDD - fucking slow!) 512mb of ram 15" plasma monitor.
About £160 including postage. :D
Pay shit get shit. Also, why 512 ram? It's cheap these days, why don't you buy some more?
Also, replace your main HDD, dunno if your external fits (depends what size it is) but 80GB is very 1995. HDDs are so cheap these days, why do you use this crap system if you can upgrade it (so easily)?
If you buy a bigger HDD you can fits two OSes (or more) on it, so you have your external back.
Duuude(s)!!! an Intel Quad Q6600([url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017 Intel C2Q[/url] (lol) WILL BLOW AWAY the AMD x2 dual core any day! not to start a flame war!
and you can over clock that Q6600 to 4.0 on each core! (well I heard some ppl doing it) so basically… you have a 16GHZ Proc there…:o
hellboundhackersok wrote: Duuude(s)!!! an Intel Quad Q6600([url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017 Intel C2Q[/url] (lol) WILL BLOW AWAY the AMD x2 dual core any day! not to start a flame war!
and you can over clock that Q6600 to 4.0 on each core! (well I heard some ppl doing it) so basically… you have a 16GHZ Proc there…:o
you won't have a 16GHz processor as the cores can't all work together on one thread, they each work on a seperate thread. dual core and quad core chips are mainly just for multi-tasking which make then very useful as a single core processor can't multi-task properly as it just basically switches between threads while processing.
IDIOT! do some freakin research, 4ghz x 4 cores does NOT equal 16GHZ! 4 cores just means more cpu time per application, as they are distributed across all cores. It does NOT multiply the clock rate!!!!!
Do a bit of research, if you don't edit your post you're going to get flamed sooo bad… nah, here, so you can't.
I hate when people don't research…
Duuude(s)!!! an Intel Quad Q6600([url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017 Intel C2Q[/url] (lol) WILL BLOW AWAY the AMD x2 dual core any day! not to start a flame war!
and you can over clock that Q6600 to 4.0 on each core! (well I heard some ppl doing it) so basically… you have a 16GHZ Proc there…
Dude your comparing dual core with quad core. But I know that the release of the AMD Phenom 9700 is coming next month. (secret source) And it will put that Q6600 to Fuckin' shame. I saw the benches on these. Still won't keep up to my FX-74's when thier done though. You also failed to mention that if you clock a Q6600 to 4.0g it will last about 30 seconds before the temp threshhold shuts it down. Even in water cooling those fuckers burn hot when overclocked like that, Try it with an AMD temps stay down nicely. And you don't get 16g by overclocking you still have 4g. They don't multiply.
Zephyr_Pure wrote: [quote]ThorsDecree wrote: So would you say the x2s are faster than the P.D and C2Ds?
In most cases, yes. Like I said… the system I have with a Pentium D 3.4Ghz is the exception, since it still outperforms the AMD X2 6000. The quad-core Intel processors can (finally) keep up with the dual-core AMDs, it seems. [/quote] well then WTF is this? what does he mean by the Intel Procs can finallu keep up with the dual core AMDS?? wtf Intel was WAY ahead of AMD.. but anyway I don't want AMD to die! cuz intel would then do whatever they want with their prices and stuff… so that would blow –
go amd?!!
well then WTF is this? what does he mean by the Intel Procs can finallu keep up with the dual core AMDS?? wtf Intel was WAY ahead of AMD..
This means that intel for years was way behind AMD. Until last year thay never even came close on the benchmarks. And now like I said with the Phenom 9700 coming out It will be a whole new battle for intel to try and beat. Especially with AMD's new L3 cache.
benchmarks for the Phenon 9600 vs Q6600
source: http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601683/amd-23ghz-phenom-9600--first-benchmarks.html
Looks like the q6600 wins :)
@V1P3R. Yeah the 9600 was a little slower. I meant the 9700 coming out next month. Fucked up when I posted Fixed it. Plus the release of the 9900 is also coming.
korg wrote: @V1P3R. Yeah the 9600 was a little slower. I meant the 9700 coming out next month. Fucked up when I posted Fixed it. Plus the release of the 9900 is also coming.
ok, i remeber when the 3200+ series came out, they used to own intel at the time (for gaming).
hellboundhackersok wrote: Duuude(s)!!! an Intel Quad Q6600 WILL BLOW AWAY the AMD x2 dual core any day! not to start a flame war!
Okay… have you actually had both processors in systems, in front of you, with comparable specs, and compared them? Oh, wait… that was me. If you don't know what you're blabbing about, then shut up.
hellboundhackersok wrote: OMG you didnt use sysmark or 3D mark? or anything?! well its true that I didn't test it myself, I was just looking at the processors in a performance with multi-core enabled apps.. Not with just day-day-use, anyway, I don't want to argue, so I'll just leave this thread alone for a while :D
I wouldn't call my testing "day-to-day use", but yes, I do not use benchmarking software. I do my own benches. Anyways, this thread can die now… I just wanted to kill the whole "OMG, a quad has to kill a dual" mentality.
hellboundhackersok wrote: OMG you didnt use sysmark or 3D mark? or anything?! well its true that I didn't test it myself, I was just looking at the processors in a performance with multi-core enabled apps.. Not with just day-day-use, anyway, I don't want to argue, so I'll just leave this thread alone for a while :D
I test my systems through REAL WORK
I don't buy my pc's to do 3dMark tests.
Zephyr_Pure wrote: [quote]hellboundhackersok wrote: OMG you didnt use sysmark or 3D mark? or anything?! well its true that I didn't test it myself, I was just looking at the processors in a performance with multi-core enabled apps.. Not with just day-day-use, anyway, I don't want to argue, so I'll just leave this thread alone for a while :D
I wouldn't call my testing "day-to-day use", but yes, I do not use benchmarking software. I do my own benches. Anyways, this thread can die now… I just wanted to kill the whole "OMG, a quad has to kill a dual" mentality. [/quote] sorry if it sounded like that
I just wanted to kill the whole "OMG, a quad has to kill a dual" mentality.
Amen… ever heard of point of limited return? XD I have never had any performance issues AT ALL even whilst running Photoshop CS2, Flash8, 3dsMax8, full services, Startock object desktop suite (without window manager thingy cuz of my geforce6600 :\ ), iTunes, MediaCoder (and transcoding some flv's), and OpenOffice.org
On a dual-core. Maybe if I had been running l0phtcrack I would have had issues… what with it taking up 50% and mediacoder taking up the other core. But, for "normal use", and "heavy use", dual core does everything that's needed. I have no need for a quad; I won't run two versions of LC, plus transcoders, plus compilers all at once O.O.
Besides, most quads run slower than duals (clock). That means lower performance for a single app, such as keyrate in LC5…
Also, it's kinda cool looking up and seeing "98ºF: for CPU temp, and mobo only 102 XD.
ThorsDecree wrote: Also, it's kinda cool looking up and seeing "98ºF: for CPU temp, and mobo only 102 XD.
haha, you should see my laptop gfx card at the moment (512mb Geforce Go 7900GTX) runs at 102 degrees celsius when playing games lol, getting it replaced with a 7950GTX soon :)
edit: thats 215.6 ºF looks like i win :D