Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

building new system for gaming xp or vista

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 22, 2007 8:17:00 PM

:pt1cable:  im building new system many vairables out there first im wondering about the os do i go with xp or vista i heard vista is a pain?

next question is on video cards lookin at 8800gts 640mb. was wonderin if i got 2 8800gts 320mb to put in sli would be better then just one 8800gts 640mb.

system im lookin at doin
*evga 680i mobo
*intel core duo6750
*2gb of cosair xms memory can get 4gb is it neccessary and will it work?
*antec trio 650 psu
*antec 900 case
*hard drive suggetions 1 150gb raptor with a 320gb west dig data hard drive
or go with 2-320gb in raid? not even sure what the heck raid is and how it works but i hear it is good for performance. cheaper then a raptor set up ? lost here any suggestion open for them
*do i need a sound card or is the boards just fine?
im lookin for game speed and reliabilty
September 22, 2007 8:36:04 PM

Quote:
system im lookin at doin
*evga 680i mobo
*intel core duo6750
*2gb of cosair xms memory can get 4gb is it neccessary and will it work?
*antec trio 650 psu
*antec 900 case
*hard drive suggetions 1 150gb raptor with a 320gb west dig data hard drive


That would be a good XP machine. As for vista id just go 64Bit. but not with Intel, with XP get 2-3.5GB(3.5 being 4gb), vista go 4-8GB.
I have 2 Raptor and 1 320 in my machine and i like it so i cant say no to that.
I would say a sound card is all in your opinion. You may like the on-board and may not, i personally always get a card for audio.
As for video get 1 8800GTS 640MB and when the prices drop get another and slap it on SLI.(prices should be dropping withing 2 months)
September 22, 2007 9:11:13 PM

Go Vista for future games using dx10, which may be right around the corner now with Crysis, go XP for maximum compatibility and frame rates now, there is no right or wrong choice but if you only want to buy one OS and use it for years Vista is prolly the way to go. If you can do XP now and go to Vista whenever you choose to then you may prefer to play it safe and wait on Vista.

Most of the early Vista problems have been cleared up, more or less, depending on your perspective. I use it exclusively over XP now and I have no complaints. I actually much prefer it and every game I throw at it works fine and dandy. You'll have so much horsepower with that system you are looking at that the extra performance you may or may not get from XP will be a moot point.

Dx10 games coming out will also come with dx 9 versions (with a few exceptions from Microsoft), so it's not like you are out in the cold completely with XP.

2 gig or 4 gig. Deep question. 32 bit versions of XP or Vista will not be able to use all 4 gigs. You will end up with about 3 gig of useable RAM on that system you are looking at. 3 is better than 2.

BTW Modern core 2 gen of Intel chips do 64 bit.
64 bit versions of both OS will be able to use all 4 gig on your system.

Do you need 4 gig? Probably not with most apps and games available now. There are a few exceptions. In general Vista will like the extra RAM more than xp, it is more RAM hungry and also better equpped to use and manage the extra RAM than XP.

The major advantage of getting the 4 gig and going 64 bit would be to future proof the system for a time when and if that becomes the sweet spot. As it stands now you cannot go wrong with 2 gig.

I vote Vista 64 and four gig and you'll be set for the duration with luxurious headroom.

edit: Instead of getting 2 gts get 1 gtx. SLI is not the better option when you can buy a superior single card which will get you compareable or better performance for less$. Then do SLI gtx later if it comes to that.

Related resources
September 23, 2007 11:04:40 AM

If you are upgrading then do you already have an XP license? If so you can use that and watch until sp1 comes out for Vista to see if it improves the situation. Then upgrade/ rebuild to Vista if things are significantly better. Well thats what I'm doing.
September 23, 2007 8:53:29 PM

If you are going for vista you might as well cool your jets since noone knows what havoc vista will wreak on your hardware requirements. Lots of hype about the dx10 ( which seems unavoidable to gamers) but so far no video card exists to support it. Noone knows what problems vistas totalitarian dictates will have on the rest of your computers hardware either. If I were you I would really wait until the massive upheavel that microsoft is creating with its hardware requirements gets sorted out first.

Also I might just be ignorant, but quad core? how many different processes are you going to run that you would need a quad core cpu? all this processor development has been causing a big uproar, first the 64 bits, then the dual core, now a quad core..

But software is still a long way from catching up with 64 bit processing, as far as I know no game even exists to take advantage of this(?) the multitasking of a dual core cpu is an awesome benefit, but to take that to quad core seems kind of over the top. After all as a gamer your going to be really only using one process primarily (the game your playing) I can't really see the use of quad core its a bit of a 5th wheel.
September 23, 2007 10:41:06 PM

Quote:
If you are going for vista you might as well cool your jets since noone knows what havoc vista will wreak on your hardware requirements.


If you have NEW hardware the Vista support is pretty darn good. Not yet complete mind you, but good enough for most. Many of us here are using Vista and it's working. There are of course exceptions. The trick is to research your hardware and your software. If you are buying an OS to last you a while go Vista. If you have the luxury of running XP now and going Vista later then perhaps wait. You can of course dual boot if you have both. That's what I did and Vista has turned out to be more or less flawless for me.

Quote:
Lots of hype about the dx10 ( which seems unavoidable to gamers) but so far no video card exists to support it


Both Nvidia and ATI have released several dx10 cards to date. Perhaps you mean dx 10.1?



Quote:
the multitasking of a dual core cpu is an awesome benefit, but to take that to quad core seems kind of over the top. After all as a gamer your going to be really only using one process primarily (the game your playing) I can't really see the use of quad core its a bit of a 5th wheel.


The choice of dual or quad is close at this point but quad is pretty much taking the day. Crysis, for one, will support 4 cores, IIRC. And Crysis will also fully support dx 10. Thing is, the prices are so low and quad is so close to dual, that you may as well go quad. Keep in mind you are buying a cpu that will last a year or two. The day of the quad has indeed arrived.

Here is a nice summary from xbit labs:
Quote:
By dropping the price of the youngest quad-core processor below $300, Intel made a great gift for hardware enthusiasts. Our today’s test session revealed that this processor can really do great in skillful hands. The overclocking potential of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor based on the new G0 core stepping is quite sufficient to help it compete successfully in almost any applications.

According to our tests and numerous overclockers’ reports online, quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 processors can overclock up to 3.6GHz with proper air-cooling. In this case they can perform better than Core 2 Duo CPUs overclocked to their maximum. Moreover, we see this tendency even in those applications that are not optimized for multi-core processors and that are getting fewer day by day. As we saw there are very few tasks left, where overclocked quad-core processors cannot outperform overclocked dual-core CPUs. They defeat their rivals not only thanks to twice as many computational cores, but also thanks to twice as large L2 cache.

So, we think Core 2 Quad Q6600 seems to be a much more attractive offering these days than Core 2 Duo E6850.

However, those computer users who do not want to mess with processor overclocking may think differently. In this case Core 2 Duo E6850 with 25% higher clock speed performs better in a lot of applications, including games. Moreover, it is also more economical. As a result, the most optimal choice for a system working at nominal speeds would depends a lot on the type of tasks it is intended for.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that most upcoming applications and games are being designed with multi-threading in mind. That is why Core 2 Quad Q6600 may be a more promising solution even if used in its nominal mode.


Their opinion has pretty much been shared by tech site reviews lately.

Things change fast! :) 
September 23, 2007 10:59:51 PM

Vista 64 bit

4gig memory

and 2 320's don't make 1 640 when it comes to video memory. You said 2 320 cards, so I assume you can afford a gtx, go for it.
!