64bit Vista and gaming in general
Pasha the Mighty
I heard the samsungs with 750gb of storage (or the 1TB versions...) are really good, they aren't as fast as a raptor, but they're probably the next best thing, if you don't want to pay through the nose for a high amount of storage. They have 32mb of cache, twice as much as most hdd's have i believe, and you can get a 750gb version here for 95 euros
Snograt
Meanwhile, back to the original saga 
Got the memory and the Vista Ultimate through the post - next day delivery from two separate companies at the same time!
If you don't hear from me for the next day or so, it's because I've royally screwed up. Backup time - last time I did a backup, it involved around fifty floppies
Wish me luck!
Got the memory and the Vista Ultimate through the post - next day delivery from two separate companies at the same time!
If you don't hear from me for the next day or so, it's because I've royally screwed up. Backup time - last time I did a backup, it involved around fifty floppies
Wish me luck!
Admael
I trust Samsung for a lot of things, their monitors, TVs, cellphones, but not their hard drives. The average latency and seek time doesn't compare to a drive with equal capacity/cache. I suggest Seagate or WD.
I've have 10 Seagate hard drives, collected over a period of 8 years and ranging from 20GB to 1TB, I've never had a any problem with them.
They might not be as fast as Raptors on paper, but they have their moments.
I've have 10 Seagate hard drives, collected over a period of 8 years and ranging from 20GB to 1TB, I've never had a any problem with them.
They might not be as fast as Raptors on paper, but they have their moments.
Brianna
Well, I have a Seagate and I like it, at first I didn't trust it, cause before this I always went with Western Digital drives which I trust a lot.
Great Hard Drive anyways.
Great Hard Drive anyways.
Admael
Seagate has a 5 year warranty, what's really not to trust? :P
WD only had a 2 year warranty just until recently.
WD only had a 2 year warranty just until recently.
Brianna
I noticed though.. that when I formatted I could only make a 160gig portion out of the 320 gigs that the HDD has, and then when I get onto my desktop it only says I have 127 gigs available?
Admael
The rest is probably unallocated space. You can use Partition Magic, or GParted (it's what I use), to fix/rearrange/merge separate blocks of unallocated space.
Snograt
Meanwhile, back in the original saga, pt 2
Vista Ultimate 64bit installed, along with 8 gigs of whizzy. No problems identified so far - and my Windows Experience Index (or whutevar) is now 5.2 - not too shabby.
Vista Ultimate 64bit installed, along with 8 gigs of whizzy. No problems identified so far - and my Windows Experience Index (or whutevar) is now 5.2 - not too shabby.
Admael
With 4GB you're a shoe-in for 5.9 for memory
Snograt
So my 2+2+2+2GB gives me 5.2, but 2+0+2+0Gb would give me 5.9?
Care to elucidate?
Care to elucidate?
Admael
4GB is the bare minimum you need to hit 5.9, any combination (4x1GB or 2x2GB) will yield 5.9
If you're getting 5.2 on 8GB there's something wrong.
If you're getting 5.2 on 8GB there's something wrong.
Snograt
Beats me, Vista sees all 8 GB of it, and it's 4 identical 2GB sticks of DDR2-800, CL4. Ballistix, if that makes any difference. With flashing red LEDs down the side to illuminate the inside of my non-modded case
Admael
What a load of crap. Update the scores!
So your RAM score is 5.2, what is your computer score?
So your RAM score is 5.2, what is your computer score?
The Way Out
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surena
HDDs suffer from very bad access times not transfer speed and while Raptors might seem nice, they lose (epicly) against SSDs which hopefully see more and more land. I would get a Raptor only for its access speed, not for anything else.
Saying that anything else below 10k RPM is painful is pretty epic fail. |
I am sorry you are a gamer...
Again, anything below 10k (especially at the prices they are now) is painful. You get severe bottle necking (and a boatload of system performance on a 10k drive). Also, 10k doesn't refer to transfer speeds... it refers to how fast the platters spin (which translate to read and write times being faster)....
When you point the finger.... you know the rest! TY for the epic failure!!! Good to know I know nothing about anything.
Surena
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Way Out
This is why I work in IT and you don't....
I am sorry you are a gamer... Again, anything below 10k (especially at the prices they are now) is painful. You get severe bottle necking (and a boatload of system performance on a 10k drive). Also, 10k doesn't refer to transfer speeds... it refers to how fast the platters spin (which translate to read and write times being faster).... When you point the finger.... you know the rest! TY for the epic failure!!! Good to know I know nothing about anything. |
Epic indeed! Talk to me when you're not first level support anymore.
The Way Out
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surena
Good to know that we are on a gaming board and advising people on how to build their gaming machines and not their enterprise file/storage servers.
Epic indeed! Talk to me when you're not first level support anymore. |
10k drives for gaming (is that how you bold to emphasize?) rigs...
I am a gamer, and have been so for quite some time...
7,200k drives are average drives that you get in any system right now. They are not gaming drives. 10k drives are more common in true gaming rigs (which amazes me that you wouldn't know that).
Advice is to keep your agenda out of things and stop trolling for attention. I am now going to be factual from now on.
The first level support comment was funny... as was your lack of knowledge on the benefits a gamer gets from a faster rpm HD...
When you are helpful... then come talk to me...
When you speak from an emotional standpoint only... you sound like an ass.
Numa Pompilius
What are you guys talking about? What's HD speed got to do with running GW under Vista? Is it about the swapfile?
You do NOT want to turn off the swap file with any modern operating system, be it Linux, OSX or Vista. Doing so will not improve performance, you're just wasting RAM and setting yourself up for system instability.
Any reasonably modern HD will run Vista just fine. Leave the swap file alone.
You do NOT want to turn off the swap file with any modern operating system, be it Linux, OSX or Vista. Doing so will not improve performance, you're just wasting RAM and setting yourself up for system instability.
Any reasonably modern HD will run Vista just fine. Leave the swap file alone.
Brianna
I just thought that since vista is a more ''Modern'' operating system that it could use the benefits of newer faster hardware, and I heard Raptors are pretty fast.
The Way Out
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
I just thought that since vista is a more ''Modern'' operating system that it could use the benefits of newer faster hardware, and I heard Raptors are pretty fast.
|
Admael
Raptors are fast, yes, but they're not for everyone. I think Raptor/Raid 0 is the only way Vista will give you a 5.9 in "disk transfer rate".
I've gotten complaints about them running hot and making too much noise, but I have neither of those problems.
I've gotten complaints about them running hot and making too much noise, but I have neither of those problems.
Snograt
*cough*
Meanwhile, etc...
5.2 is my lowest score, so 5.2 is my computer score :/
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz 5.8
Memory (RAM) 8.00 GB 5.2
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 5.9
Gaming graphics 2812 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 315GB Free (463GB Total) 5.6
The HDDs are Western Digital 500GB jobbies - 2 of em, not RAIDed. 5.6 ain't too bad for them. Expected 5.9 for the 2 SLI'd GTXs.
Meanwhile, etc...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
What a load of crap. Update the scores!
So your RAM score is 5.2, what is your computer score? |
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz 5.8
Memory (RAM) 8.00 GB 5.2
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 5.9
Gaming graphics 2812 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 315GB Free (463GB Total) 5.6
The HDDs are Western Digital 500GB jobbies - 2 of em, not RAIDed. 5.6 ain't too bad for them. Expected 5.9 for the 2 SLI'd GTXs.
Admael
I'm sorry to inform you that you can get a lot more out of your system than that! There must be something wrong, your processor, its the Q6700 Kentsfield right? It should hit 5.9+ easily. I have an old Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz that hit 5.9 running on stock.
Your RAM, take two DIMMs out and update your scores. Make sure the remaining two DIMMs are in matching color bays.
The a single 8800 GTX can hit 5.9, so glad you're having no problems there.
The maximum a 7200.XX RPM hard drive can hit without extra redundancy support is 5.7, so no problems there.
Your RAM, take two DIMMs out and update your scores. Make sure the remaining two DIMMs are in matching color bays.
The a single 8800 GTX can hit 5.9, so glad you're having no problems there.
The maximum a 7200.XX RPM hard drive can hit without extra redundancy support is 5.7, so no problems there.
Evil Genius
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
Any combination (4x1GB or 2x2GB) will yield 5.9
|
No way 4GB of no brand RAM will get you 5.9
In reference to Snograt's system scores, I wouldn't be too concerned about the RAM only scoring 5.2. Windows Experience isn't exactly the best benchmark for real ingame performance. With 8BG of Ballistix Tracer RAM, you will be fine with anything. The Q6700 score is only .1 off maximum - no real reason for concern. Tom's Hardware says the QX6700 should have a score of 5.9, perhaps difference is the extreme/non-extreme versions?
Btw, my scores are:
Processor (Intel E4300 @2.4 Ghz) ... 5.3
RAM (2GB Kingston HyperX @1066MHz 5-5-5-15) ... 5.7
Graphics (XFX 7950GX2 XXX) ... 5.9
Gaming graphics .....................5.8
Hard disk (Western digital at 7200RPM)........ 5.4
The Way Out
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evil Genius
I don't think so. The score is more dependent on RAM quality than quantity. By quality I mean "Data Transfers per Second" (800, 1066 etc), "Peak Bandwidth" (6400, 8500 etc) and "Latency" (eg 4-4-4-12).
No way 4GB of no brand RAM will get you 5.9 In reference to Snograt's system scores, I wouldn't be too concerned about the RAM only scoring 5.2. Windows Experience isn't exactly the best benchmark for real ingame performance. With 8BG of Ballistix Tracer RAM, you will be fine with anything. The Q6700 score is only .1 off maximum - no real reason for concern. Tom's Hardware says the QX6700 should have a score of 5.9, perhaps difference is the extreme/non-extreme versions? Btw, my scores are: Processor (Intel E4300 @2.4 Ghz) ... 5.3 RAM (2GB Kingston HyperX @1066MHz 5-5-5-15) ... 5.7 Graphics (XFX 7950GX2 XXX) ... 5.9 Gaming graphics .....................5.8 Hard disk (Western digital at 7200RPM)........ 5.4 |
At work, I picked up some Kingston Value RAM and got the same... go figure.
Snograt
Hum, it's nice all the input I'm getting from you knowledgable types - thanks a lot!
Now I've got the 8 Gig, I'm wary about messing about with swapping sticks - damn system cost me £3200 and I don't want to bust it
Can you guys recommend some investigative software that would pinpoint any problems? I seem to recall Memtest (?) being bandied around. Think I've got a 3DMark knocking around in windows.old somewhere too...
[EDIT] - whoa - hold everything! I also had a copy of CPU-Z, and that reports that, yes, I'm running a QX6700 Kentsfield, BUT it reports that my 8GB of brand new RAM is running at 400Mhz. What in frog's name do I do about that?
Brain hurts now
Now I've got the 8 Gig, I'm wary about messing about with swapping sticks - damn system cost me £3200 and I don't want to bust it
Can you guys recommend some investigative software that would pinpoint any problems? I seem to recall Memtest (?) being bandied around. Think I've got a 3DMark knocking around in windows.old somewhere too...
[EDIT] - whoa - hold everything! I also had a copy of CPU-Z, and that reports that, yes, I'm running a QX6700 Kentsfield, BUT it reports that my 8GB of brand new RAM is running at 400Mhz. What in frog's name do I do about that?
Brain hurts now
Pasha the Mighty
Change the speed in the BIOS. But don't do it untill you've read you're motherboard's manual, and if it's the first time, maybe read a guide or something on the internet
Brianna
Mine says ''DRam Frequency 332.5Mhz'' and then just on ''Frequency'' it says; 200Hmz, 266Mhz, 333Mhz'' and on ''Max Bandwidth'' it says PC2-5300(333Mhz).
Bad? I can boost that way up right? Cause If I can then I'm going to.
Bad? I can boost that way up right? Cause If I can then I'm going to.
Snograt
The BIOS reports that it is 800MHz
Pasha the Mighty
maybe cpu-z is wrong. would it be listed in dxdiag? just try it and make sure
Admael
400MHz for your RAM sounds good to me. If you're running PC2-6400, that's the speed RAM runs at stock. (without overclocking)
I could only *IMAGINE* how much you paid for a QX6700 Kentsfield, but WEI score... definitely a huge letdown.
That's not bad, the max a PC2-5300 can run at is 333MHz, so either overclock it, or get a new board+memory
EDIT: I decided to explain the confusion early instead of walking this in circles, cuz I know we will. DDR stands for double data rate, there are DRAM dividers, so you only see your RAM running at half the speed. DDR2 667->333, 800->400, 1066->533. This is true with AMD's HT BUS and Intel's FSB/QDR as well.
EDIT2: You're right, kinda forget, I haven't bought "cheap" computer parts in awhile... I know better! I just loosen the timings of my memory to 5-5-5-12, 5.7 blarg
QX9650 Yorksfield @ 4GHz, 450x9: 5.9
2GB mushkin 1066, 4-4-4-12: 5.9
Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 in SLI: 5.9
2303MB GFX Memory: 5.9
Raptor X, 10k RPM: 5.9
I could only *IMAGINE* how much you paid for a QX6700 Kentsfield, but WEI score... definitely a huge letdown.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
Mine says ''DRam Frequency 332.5Mhz'' and then just on ''Frequency'' it says; 200Hmz, 266Mhz, 333Mhz'' and on ''Max Bandwidth'' it says PC2-5300(333Mhz).
Bad? I can boost that way up right? Cause If I can then I'm going to. |
EDIT: I decided to explain the confusion early instead of walking this in circles, cuz I know we will. DDR stands for double data rate, there are DRAM dividers, so you only see your RAM running at half the speed. DDR2 667->333, 800->400, 1066->533. This is true with AMD's HT BUS and Intel's FSB/QDR as well.
EDIT2: You're right, kinda forget, I haven't bought "cheap" computer parts in awhile... I know better! I just loosen the timings of my memory to 5-5-5-12, 5.7 blarg
QX9650 Yorksfield @ 4GHz, 450x9: 5.9
2GB mushkin 1066, 4-4-4-12: 5.9
Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 in SLI: 5.9
2303MB GFX Memory: 5.9
Raptor X, 10k RPM: 5.9
zamial
I have also upgraded to vista 64 recently. I love the new os. I score a flat 5.9 in vista and a 16k+ in 3dmark06. people complain about vista's memory foot print but with 8gigs of ram I don't seem to ever run into issues other than the memory controller on my mobo not being happy with me but thats a dif story. I have found that I like my overall computer experience more (with games included). I do not play games older than gw currently and am more excited about the ones coming out, than older games.
From what i can tell:
Some people hate change but there are others that hate stagnation more, I am in the latter of the 2.
From what i can tell:
Some people hate change but there are others that hate stagnation more, I am in the latter of the 2.
Snograt
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zamial
I have also upgraded to vista 64 recently. I love the new os. I score a flat 5.9 in vista and a 16k+ in 3dmark06. people complain about vista's memory foot print but with 8gigs of ram I don't seem to ever run into issues other than the memory controller on my mobo not being happy with me but thats a dif story. I have found that I like my overall computer experience more (with games included). I do not play games older than gw currently and am more excited about the ones coming out, than older games.
From what i can tell: Some people hate change but there are others that hate stagnation more, I am in the latter of the 2. |
Think I will run a 3Dmark06 benchmark - if I can get the damn thing to work! It's one of several things in windows.old that isn't happy being there (obviously). I may d/l the free version, but it's annoying after paying for the damn thing.
Admael
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snograt
QFT and agreement.
Think I will run a 3Dmark06 benchmark - if I can get the damn thing to work! It's one of several things in windows.old that isn't happy being there (obviously). I may d/l the free version, but it's annoying after paying for the damn thing. |
The QX6700 costs twice as much as the Q6700, but they're the same processor. The QX6700 has an unlocked multiplier, so you have more options when overclocking. Bottom line: You paid for the unlocked multiplier, it'd be a waste not to use it
Snograt
I'm at work now, so I can't check, but basically it was a missing .dll - I'm assuming I installed 3Dmark under XP, then upgraded to Vista, THEN upupgraded to 64bit
Poor old Vista hasn't got a clue what's in windows.old (and, er, windows.old.000) - my copy of office was in .old but quite happily re-installed in the new system, passed original software checks and downloaded several gigs of updatery. Heh.
Sorry, I tend to ramble when I'm "working"
[edit]Lucky I keep old emails for too long - found my old 3DMark keys
9335 3DMarks
Added a lengthy dxdiag output saved as a .doc file, as there's a weird 19kb limit for .txt files.
DxDiag.doc
Poor old Vista hasn't got a clue what's in windows.old (and, er, windows.old.000) - my copy of office was in .old but quite happily re-installed in the new system, passed original software checks and downloaded several gigs of updatery. Heh.
Sorry, I tend to ramble when I'm "working"
[edit]Lucky I keep old emails for too long - found my old 3DMark keys
9335 3DMarks
Added a lengthy dxdiag output saved as a .doc file, as there's a weird 19kb limit for .txt files.
DxDiag.doc
Admael
Is that 3DMarks06? If so, I know you can do a hell of a lot better than 9.3k marks.
Snograt
Yup, 3DMark 06. Wonder what the hell's up with my system :/
Admael
It's probably because your system is running at stock, once you tighten the timings of your RAM you should do a lot better.
Let's talk about memory timings, they're displayed (in it's simplest form) as CAS/tRCD/tRPD/tRAS.
CAS controls the amount of time, measured in "cycles", between receiving a command and acting on that command.
tRCD is the RAS to CAS delay. tRCD is the cycle time between the first stage in memory access, the row strobe, and the second stage.
tRPD is the amount of time it takes for memory to terminate the access in one row and begin another.
tRAS is the time between receiving a request for data electronically on the pins of a memory module and then initiating RAS to start the actual retrieval of data.
You mentioned you had OCZ 4x2GB, iirc, you can tighten them to 5-4-4-15
Let's talk about memory timings, they're displayed (in it's simplest form) as CAS/tRCD/tRPD/tRAS.
CAS controls the amount of time, measured in "cycles", between receiving a command and acting on that command.
tRCD is the RAS to CAS delay. tRCD is the cycle time between the first stage in memory access, the row strobe, and the second stage.
tRPD is the amount of time it takes for memory to terminate the access in one row and begin another.
tRAS is the time between receiving a request for data electronically on the pins of a memory module and then initiating RAS to start the actual retrieval of data.
You mentioned you had OCZ 4x2GB, iirc, you can tighten them to 5-4-4-15
Snograt
I have Ballistix Tracer. Going to flash the BIOS - the current one for my nForce 680i is from 2006. Hate BIOS flashing, but needs must...
Admael
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snograt
I have Ballistix Tracer. Going to flash the BIOS - the current one for my nForce 680i is from 2006. Hate BIOS flashing, but needs must...
|
Snograt
Ok, flashed the BIOS with no problems (nVidia's tweaking software is pretty damn good).
My memory IS set at 4-4-4-12.
Some extra, and maybe irrelevant information...
RRD 3
RC 24
WR 5
WTR 8
REF 7.8µs
Freq. 1866.7MHz
7x multiplier
FSB Memory Clock Mode - Unlinked
FSB (QDR) 1066.7MHz
As a point of interest, when my system was delivered, only one core was enabled - had to enable cores 1 to 3 via the BIOS myself!
[edit]By the way - $20 for a BIOS update? What's that all about? Grrr...
My memory IS set at 4-4-4-12.
Some extra, and maybe irrelevant information...
RRD 3
RC 24
WR 5
WTR 8
REF 7.8µs
Freq. 1866.7MHz
7x multiplier
FSB Memory Clock Mode - Unlinked
FSB (QDR) 1066.7MHz
As a point of interest, when my system was delivered, only one core was enabled - had to enable cores 1 to 3 via the BIOS myself!
[edit]By the way - $20 for a BIOS update? What's that all about? Grrr...