New CPU for Vista?

[celewign]

Hey all!
This is my first post, be nice. Keep Poowadd away.

I think Ill be upgrading for Vista (I heard a rumor of a legend with a story where a quote taken out of context indicates that the new OS may ship on time or close (!) Heres a link:
http://gizmodo.com/search/vista)

Question: Will I need a new CPU (current = athlon 64) and therefore new processor, mobo, and whatever else to run this OS? Is it worth it? Should this forum be in the software section of the forum?
Thanx all, info that I could find about the Vista hardware is sparing.
-cm

 

[megame255]

Your current CPU should be fine, although you might want to upgrade to an x2 later on for better results, if you can.
What you will want to do for sure however, is to have at least 2 GB of ram and if you're going to do any heavy gaming, get a new video card when the DX10 games start coming out.
Also, with any luck jackoff Poowad's been banned

 

[celewign]

crap.
Im running on an athlon 64 2800+ (hey it works ok for me..) with a radeon x850xt pe. I know the vid card isnt up to snuff, Ill have to get another.

To be honest, I know Areo will be cool, but Im mostly going for vista in the hopes of better security and networking.

JumpingJack, are you going to be upgrading for it or even getting it for that matter? I figure in 6 months MS will have the bugs mostly out and it should be safe...
-cm

 

[brainysmurf]

OK, you do know that historically, a new release from Microsoft will have bugs, issues, problems, odd quirks, etc.?
Upon release, Windows XP was good -- much better than Windows Millenium edition, that's for sure -- but, it had issues. Issues that were (mostly) fixed by Service Pack 2, which is what most of us here are using.
I had a nice, stable install of Windows 98 (with all the fixes installed, and a number of second party add-ons, fixes and modifications) so I waited -- and waited -- and waited until early 2005, when I built my first new rig in about three years.
Hey, if you feel like being a pioneer, go right ahead! When you get a few arrows in your back, come back here and we'll pull them out for you
As for me, I'm not switching to Vista until I absolutely have to ... i.e., it's the only Windows OS I can buy; or the games I want to play require DX10; or there is some compelling reason to change.
For now, I'm worried about some of the things I'm hearing about Vista being a resource hog, and now this:
Gaming performace takes a hit under Vista

So if you play Battlefield 2 or FEAR or any other popular game you are likely to get lower frame rates with Vista. That is certainly not a good buying argument but don’t think you and I have much choice as it looks like a take it or leave it deal. I like Vista as the 3D desktop looks sexy but that is probably its key feature.

 

[sailer]

For now, I'm worried about some of the things I'm hearing about Vista being a resource hog, and now this:
Gaming performace takes a hit under Vista

So if you play Battlefield 2 or FEAR or any other popular game you are likely to get lower frame rates with Vista. That is certainly not a good buying argument but don’t think you and I have much choice as it looks like a take it or leave it deal. I like Vista as the 3D desktop looks sexy but that is probably its key feature.

Yes, Vista is a resource hog, which is why it will probably require 4 gig of ram to run efficiently, but as for slowing down games, I've heard nothing so far. As for what the Inquirer says, I'll trust that when I hear of confirmed reports of moonsons in the Sahara Desert.

 

[sailer]

crap.
Im running on an athlon 64 2800+ (hey it works ok for me..) with a radeon x850xt pe. I know the vid card isnt up to snuff, Ill have to get another.

I figure in 6 months MS will have the bugs mostly out and it should be safe...-cm

Didn't know they made an Athlon 64 2800+. If so, it would probably be way slow using Vista. As long as the video card supposts DX9c, it should work with Aero, but like the cpu that you have, would be slow. Depends on what you're doing. Word and such shouldn't matter, games would drag it way down.

 

[exit2dos]

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
512 MB of system memory.
A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

To run Windows Aero Interface you'll need at least:

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
1 GB of system memory.
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
DVD-ROM Drive3.
Audio output capability.
Internet access capability

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

 

[Bazukaz]

Hi,
Actually , you don't need anything very special to run Vista Aero.

For example , i have a PC :

Celeron 2.4 Ghz
512mb RAM
Radeon9600xt graphics card


Even though the computer's configuration is on a low side , Aero GUI runs fine.

Regards,
Lukas.

 

[DaBigHurt]

I believe the x850xt was one of the first ATI cards that Vista was tested on back when it was a Beta. And it ran it fine. Plenty of RAM and a dual-core CPU(or a fast single Core) is more optimal to run Vista "smoothly".

 

[turpit]

First, be aware that the cheap "home" version of Vista which will cost at least $160(US) for the full version $100(US) for the upgrade will not have manyof the features that MS has been touting, including "aero"
The opposite end of the line, the "ultimate" Vista will have all the features but will cost about $400 for the full version, or $260 for the upgrade disc.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/29/vista_prices_revealed/

Second, as Brainysmurf pointed out, early releases of Vista are likely to be laden with problems. It took MS until 2002 to get 98 reasonably straightened out. Even if MS were to pull a miracle out of the blue and have Vista relatively bug free, it will probably take some time for software vendors to patch their progs to function properly.

My advice to you, wait. Contrary to any propaganda you may have heard, everyone on the planet is not going to rush out to upgrade to Vista when it finally appears. Too many people have been bit on the arse upgrading from 95 to 98, 98 to mill, mill to XP etc. If Vista holds true to MS form, when it does appear, it will (initially) create more problems than it solves.

 

[DaBigHurt]

From: Windows IT Pro

The internal documentation also notes that Vista still has more than 1400 bugs. Microsoft's internal processes require this bug count to drop to 500 or fewer before the product can go into escrow for RTM. By comparison, Vista had more than 2470 bugs on September 22

So we can expect 500 bugs at launch.

 

[celewign]

Uugghhhhhh.... soooo many bugs...


Good advice all. FYI, My 84 year old grandma is getting vista so she can hardcore game with dx10.
Thanx.
-cm

ps: just kidding bout the grandma thing.

 

[Multiplectic]

I'll talk based on my recent Vista RC1 experience...

First, specs: A64 3200+, NF4 SLI chipset, 2 GB RAM, 6600GT 128 MB

With full graphics enabled, Aero in all it's glory, 1280x960 resolution, it was smooth. Really really smooth, though a real beast on memory: close to 550 MB on startup. That's odd, since startup time is almost the same I have with WinXP.
For some reason, if I set my monitor above 60 Hz, smoothness dissapeared, just like that. Everything was choppy and ugly. I guess it was one of the ~1400 bugs...

I'm assuming you have a S754 Athlon, since it's a 2800+, so you don't have dual-channel memory. That may be a slight performance hit.
Your X850XT PE is AGP?
SATA or PATA hard drive?
I'm asking this questions because, if you're running everything on older interfaces, you might consider buying a whole new system.

If you'd like to know how WinVista will run in your current system, check the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor.

 

[SuperFly03]

I am on a 7900GTX, 2GB DDR500, RD580 chipset, X-FI (non operational), realtek sound and RC1

On startup I hit around 650MB on RAM and I hold a constant 15% CPU load with AIM triton loaded up and no conversations. It is a really spiffy looking OS, whether it is worth it or not is another discussion. From a performance standpoint my OC'd Venice pumps out a 4.4 on their performance index (lowest score tested). 7900GTX hits 5.9 on the index, all of this at 1600x1200.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10. It is on its way out and has been acting very funny, so I do not blame VIsta for part of the performance lag. What is nice is being able to click 2 buttons and have a network printer installed without having to download HP drivers.

I would love to test X-FI + BF2 but that isn't possible because the X-FI drivers were build specific and Creative hasn't kept up with M$ so we probably won't see a real X-FI driver until Vista goes live.

As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).

 

[celewign]

yeah its single channel memory.
x850xt pe... its an older version machine.

im in college tho, and poor.
i dont want to upgrade until I have too.
-cm

 

[SuperFly03]

im in college tho, and poor.
i dont want to upgrade until I have too.
-cm

Join the club... 8O

 

[Multiplectic]

That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.
Anyway, try the Upgrade Advisor. With a score of 3 or above you should be fine. You wouldn't run Vista with Aero smoothly, but you can run Vista, if you like.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10.
...
As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).

I installed Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. (to check OpenGL and DX 9.0 performance). I didn't do any benchmarking, but both seemed to run as smooth as always (at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF... my 6600GT can't do much higher than that... )
And yes, Vista is designed to take advantage from a Dual-Core processor. Maybe M$ doesn't officially state that, but you can tell after using Vista for a day or two. Not that it runs awfully with a Single-Core processor, but you can "feel" it, someway. It's hard to explain.
For the OP to upgrade to an X2 or C2D, he would have to buy a whole new system, and, like he said, he's poor.

 

[niz]

That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.
Anyway, try the Upgrade Advisor. With a score of 3 or above you should be fine. You wouldn't run Vista with Aero smoothly, but you can run Vista, if you like.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10.
...
As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).

I installed Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. (to check OpenGL and DX 9.0 performance). I didn't do any benchmarking, but both seemed to run as smooth as always (at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF... my 6600GT can't do much higher than that... )
And yes, Vista is designed to take advantage from a Dual-Core processor. Maybe M$ doesn't officially state that, but you can tell after using Vista for a day or two. Not that it runs awfully with a Single-Core processor, but you can "feel" it, someway. It's hard to explain.
For the OP to upgrade to an X2 or C2D, he would have to buy a whole new system, and, like he said, he's poor.

>> That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.

Why do people keep saying this paranoid crap? nVidia's DX10 cards are due out in about 4 weeks. Its a hard release because suppilers already have the chips.

 

[SuperFly03]

Yeah, good point. My trusty little Venice is handling it OK, I will say sometimes it just throws its hands up and says "F*$# this!," but that isn't that often. We have to give M$ a little credit within the context of XP. XP was envisioned sometime around 1999 and released in 2002 (as far as I remember) and back then a good processor was a P3.... we were still in the 180nm process (again, if I remember correctly). P4C hit in mid 2003, and A64 sometime that year (honestly don't know, sheer guess). Then dual cores weren't thrown into the mix until 2005 or so, depending if you want Intels version of dual core or AMD's hehe. So XP was never designed with even the stray thought of a possible dual core environment in mind.

I am glad to hear that Vista performs much better on a dual core platform. I have been itching to get a dualcore CPU since X2, but I couldn't afford it at the time of my build. Now with C2D and C2Q coming out, I am quite thrilled at the prospect of rebuilding and setting myself up for Vista. Of course the 7900GTX will have to go sometime in the 1H of 2007 because I am getting Halo 2 PC... no question.

 

[SuperFly03]

That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.
Anyway, try the Upgrade Advisor. With a score of 3 or above you should be fine. You wouldn't run Vista with Aero smoothly, but you can run Vista, if you like.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10.
...
As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).

I installed Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. (to check OpenGL and DX 9.0 performance). I didn't do any benchmarking, but both seemed to run as smooth as always (at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF... my 6600GT can't do much higher than that... )
And yes, Vista is designed to take advantage from a Dual-Core processor. Maybe M$ doesn't officially state that, but you can tell after using Vista for a day or two. Not that it runs awfully with a Single-Core processor, but you can "feel" it, someway. It's hard to explain.
For the OP to upgrade to an X2 or C2D, he would have to buy a whole new system, and, like he said, he's poor.

>> That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.

Why do people keep saying this paranoid crap? nVidia's DX10 cards are due out in about 4 weeks. Its a hard release because suppilers already have the chips.

They say it because Vista isn't due out until Jan 07, R600 isn't due out until that time frame as well, so the 8 series has no benefit other than speed, ok that is a reason to buy in and of itself. However, it is likely Nvidia will be able to crank out a second revision by Q2 2007 while ATi is on thier first card, and with just the 8 series out now, Nvidia can charge a ridiculous premium and promote themselves as the only Vista ready or compliant video card, or whatever BS M$ says they can use.

 

[Multiplectic]

Please re-read what I said.
"...until DX10 fill the market..."

Did I say specifically "nVidia"?
At launch the all-new GeForce 8800GTX will be hugely overpriced, so I advised to wait until nVidia and ATI fill the market with DX10 cards. That way he'd have more choices, and at more affordable prices.

 

[Multiplectic]

So XP was never designed with even the stray thought of a possible dual core environment in mind.

Even Windows 2000 had support for a Dual-Processor system. For the OS, a Dual-Processor system works almost the same as a Dual-Core system.
Remember that M$ has to make the OS as future-proof as possible. Maybe Vista already has support for an 8-Core system, which is mostly certain.

 

[SuperFly03]

Point taken. Now that dual core is becomeing incredibly mainstream, let's hope that software guys get on the ball and really get some optmized code out, there is some but we still have a long ways to go.


Side note: they finally uploaded RC2 64 bit so I am d/ling that now. check back in 3 hours (includes install and program installation).

 

[slim142]

Maybe you should upgrade your motherboard to a socket 939 w/ AGP port, get an AMD +4x00, get 1Gb of RAM and you should be ok. You would be only upgrading your mobo and cpu.

 

[celewign]

hell, Intel already let toms have a quad core chip.
-cm