Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Balancing components in a Budget (Probably AMD) PC

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 31, 2011 2:40:01 AM

First, let me mention that I am using a 7 year old PC built on an Elite DDR mobo with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ cpu. It has 3 gig DDR 400. I'm using the on-board video because my AGP card just bit the dust and I just lost 1 Gig of DDR which has also bitten the dust. It does have a SATA 3GB/s PCI controller card. I have two Hitachi SATA 3GB/s drives which are rather new and I will use in my new machine. The case is junk and the power supply is not compatible with current mobo's. The machine runs Windows XP Pro 32bit OS. I can continue using XP Pro 32 or upgrade to Windows 7 home premuim 32 bit or 64 bit if required to meet my objectives.

Amazingly, this old and slow PC has served me well and is actually plenty fast until I start opening a lot of browsers or applications. It actually streamed NetFlix well with the AGP card, but the on-board video is slow, choppy, and doesn't even have the resolution to fill the screen on my lcd monitor.

I mention the above because that means even the slowest machines are likely to perform better than the current machine.

Reusing the hard-drives and/or Windows XP will either reduce my cost or the money saved can be used for other items in this build.

I actually know a fair amount about this stuff and have built or upgraded many machines. I could give a theoretical university level lecture on computer architecture, but I have no idea about how to balance CPU speed, cores, RAM, and FSB speed to get the best overall throughput given the current products on the market - without doing a lot more work than I'm willing to do, especially since the folk around here are so helpful and knowledgeable about current products. :) 

My GOAL is a nice, stable, mid-range performer. My questions have to do with balance. I want as few bottle-necks as possible. There's no point in getting the fastest CPU if all it does is wait around for the FSB and there's no point in the fastest FSB if the RAM can't keep up with it. Getting a good balance between the components is where I lack knowledge.

I want bragging rights for how little I spent to get good performance and quality.

I haven't decided whether to go AMD or Intel, but my impression is that in the budget range, ($300 to $600), that AMD is probably a better choice. I'm more familiar with AMD, so my questions are AMD centric, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go for Intel if that gave me better performance for the same or less money.

CASE AND PSU:

I'm thinking of buying a good quality mini-tower microATX case, with good cooling characteristics, and a better-than-needed efficient power supply on the theory those will definitely be re-used when I upgrade the mobo and CPU later. Does that sound right?

I'm not wed to any format and would even go as large as a mid-tower ATX case and ATX mobo, but I'm thinking the stuff is getting smaller and a smaller case and mobo make sense.

I see a lot of microATX mobos and mini-ATX towers, so I'm guessing that's the most mainstream tradeoff between slots and bays for add-ons and case/mobo size.

The case will need to hold a SATA DVD burner, two SATA II 3.5 inch drives, and perhaps a SATA SSD boot drive. I don't have a need for any expansion cards unless I have to get a video card -- which I think is unlikely.

It seems to me that a case that can do a good job cooling with fewer fans is better than a case that requires a lot of fans to get good airflow.

Is a case with a large fan on top blowing hot air out the most efficient design these days?

Noise is an important factor.

Since I'll likely use on-board HDMI and the standard CPU heatsink and fan, I will rely on the case design and the case / PSU fans to keep the thing cool, unless there's an important reason to upgrade those items.

What about cases with cable management and air filters?

The one thing I'm absolutely clear about is that I do not want side windows and a bunch of lights! Silver, beige, gray, black, or red are fine case colors - as long as the overall design is simple and clean. (If I wanted to see inside the case, I'd use the ANSUS Skeleton.)

I'm more interested in elegant than cool! I'd be happy with a color other than black, but not-black is the lowest priority on my list. I'd prefer all red, all silver, or all black rather than a two-tone case.

If this case/psu combo, or something similar, would give me solid reliability and low-noise, it's cheap enough to replace it when I upgrade:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I don't know if the above is a quality case / psu combo. It looked like a good deal for the price. Comments?

Unfortunately, I see no way I could put air filters on this case and I'm really sick of cases full of cat hair!! (I've seen the comments about using air filters in my home. I have air filters and they don't manage to keep cat hair out of the computers.)

So, easy to clean air filters are important to me unless I have to make too many compromises to have them.

Anyone care to recommend specific case formats or specific models? Same for PSU's if not included with the case!

CPU / CORES:

My impression is that for general business use, programming, some web graphics creation and editing, streaming NetFlix, and even some rare, but low-resolution video editing, that the current processors outstrip my requirements.

I'm thinking 3, probably 4 cores and that 6 is overkill. I'm also thinking that 4 cores at a slower frequency is probably better than 2 or 3 cores at a higher frequency -- but I have no idea how good today's software and browsers are at multi-threading. Years ago, before multi-core, I had a multi-CPU system, but I found that the OS wasn't really capable of making very good use of both CPU's, so I think it was a waste of money.

Also, I've seen conflicting reports on the importance of L3 cache. For general computing, is L3 cache important? Should I spend the money on a faster Athlon II with more cores or on a slower Phenom II with L3 cache?

GRAPHICS / CHIPSET:

I have no interest in multiple monitors. I've been through that phase and am now a one monitor kind of guy. I will run my monitor at 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200.

I'm thinking that on-board video rather than a separate card is the way to go as long as the chipset allows sharing a large amount of RAM and there's enough RAM installed on the mobo.

I do need HDMI.

Given the above, do I need the 890GX chipset, or would something less do the trick?

I'm willing to look at a separate video card, but my impression is that I just don't need it.


RAM:

I'm thinking I should go for mainstream RAM, which means 1333 (unless the mobo supports 1666, since there's not much price difference between 1333 and 1666 DDR3 these days.

Is it realistic to think that 2 years from now, when I'm ready to replace the mobo and CPU, that the RAM I buy today will be reusable???

I'm not even opposed to a DDR2 setup if it is cheap enough and meets my requirements.

FSB:

If I go with AMD, I'm imagining that the 2600MHz Front side bus is important to not create bottlenecks.

IN SUM: I'M LOOKING FOR SOLID RELIABILITY and GOOD PERFORMANCE FOR THE DOLLAR. To me that means a good balance between FSB speed, Chipset, SATA (II or III), processor speed, number of cores, RAM amount / speed / latency, and Disk Drive performance to get the best balanced throughput I can for my dollar.

So, What motherboard / CPU / RAM combination should I be looking at?

I don't know much about the relative quality, performance, and value of the various motherboard and RAM brands, so even if you don't have specific models to recommend, suggestions about what to consider and what to stay away from would help.

As I said, I don't object to looking at a DDR2 setup if I can get more performance for the dollar and I won't sacrifice other factors like HDMI or SSD support. Also, I know that DDR2 uses more power which means bigger PSU and more cooling.

SSD:

Since I already have two SATA 3GB/S hard-drives and don't need more space, I'm thinking about a 64GB SSD for the boot drive.

My thought is that even the fastest hard-drives are slow compared to the rest of the system. So, I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to buy a SATA 6GB/S mobo just so I can use one of the new SATA 6GB/S SSD's or whether I should save the money on the MOBO and just use a SATA 3GB/S SSD??

Does an SSD boot drive really give a nice performance kick? Should I spend that $130.00 elsewhere or just keep that money in my pocket?

BY THE WAY: Will Windows XP Pro support the SSD or does using an SSD boot drive force me to go to Windows 7 ??

SEVERAL FINAL QUESTIONS:

1. Am I approaching this from a rational perspective or making a mountain out of a mole-hill? I'm looking at this as a challenge to get the most bang for the buck, but I may be over-thinking it.

2. Do you agree with the concept of a little bit of overkill on the case, cooling, and PSU as the best plan for future upgrade?

3. Do I need to upgrade from Windows XP Pro 32 to Windows 7 to make the stuff work properly?

4. If I go to Windows 7, should I go 64bit or stick with 32bit? (Back when we went from 16 bit 286 processors to 32 bit 386 processors, half the 16 bit software didn't run at all on the 32 bit platform and the rest ran very slowly.)

5. If I go with Windows 7 64 bit, I see a lot of machines that only have 3 Gig of RAM. That just sounds wrong to me. I've seen lots of articles about how little RAM you can get by with on Windows 7 64 bit, but never one that states the amount needed for sufficient breathing room and to hit the sweet spot so the machine doesn't start thrashing on typical business / entertainment use.

Without any actual knowledge about RAM requirements, I'd want to see 6 or 8 Gig of RAM on a 64bit Windows machine.

Since I figure that I will want to upgrade the mobo and CPU in about two or three years, and given the current machine (AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2.0GHz single core), should I be looking for a top performer in older technology?

If I can reasonably expect to re-use the RAM, I should stick with DDR3. but I'd even go DDR2 for a bargain that gave good performance and reliability.

FINALLY:

I know that my questions are rather AMD centric. That's because it is my impression that Intel is more expensive for the performance in my price range. I'd switch to Intel immediately if I could get more bang for the buck. So, if you have Intel suggestions, I'd like to hear them.

A SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC ASIDE:

I looked at the DIY combos at NewEgg and they're just strange: 6GBs SATA harddrives paired with a mobo that only support 3GBs SATA and 3GB's harddrives paired with a mobo that supports 6GBs SATA. I even found one combo that had 1600 DDR3 paired with a motherboard that only supported slower RAM. As a result, I don't have much confidence in buying one of their combos without someone more knowledgeable than I am looking it over.

Thank you in advance for any knowledge you wish to share.
May 31, 2011 4:36:07 AM

I don't want to influence anyone's thought process on the questions I've asked, but here's a possible build I put together at NewEgg. I'd like to get the price down by $100.00, but I don't know what I would want to change. Perhaps, someone here has a suggestion. I could get rid of the Blu-Ray and cut $45.00 off, but that's about it.

I don't like spending this much money when Llano has just been released.

I haven't vetted this sufficiently to make sure all is compatible -- although, I think I'm OK.

Also, I'd like to know if there's an Intel build I should consider as an alternative.

ASUS M4A88TD-M/USB3 AM3 AMD 880G SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$104.99

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-8GBRL http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$79.99

AMD Phenom II X4 840 3.2GHz Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor HDX840WFGMBOX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$104.99

SAMSUNG Black Blu-ray Drive SATA Model SH-B123L/RSBP LightScribe Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $64.99

COOLER MASTER Elite 360 RC-360-KKN1-GP Black Steel / Plastic ATX Mini Tower Computer Case
COOLER MASTER eXtreme Power Plus RS-500-PCAR-A3-US 500W ATX12V v2.3 Power Supply http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
$64.98

Crucial M4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
$179.98

Total: $599.92
May 31, 2011 4:41:49 AM

hostricity said:
FSB:

If I go with AMD, I'm imagining that the 2600MHz Front side bus is important to not create bottlenecks.

.


For business use, just about any dual or quad core will do.

For gaming, the i3-2100 is available that will keep up with the X4-955/965BE despite the former being only a dual core....
Related resources
a b À AMD
May 31, 2011 4:44:32 AM

Ok that was a massive post and I only read some of it .

If I was building a budget PC today it would be based on an

Intel i3 2100
H67 motherboard
and 4 gig of RAM

Use the onboard graphics

By all means use the 32 bit XP you currently have if it runs the software you want to run . Its a good solid and proven operating system . It will limit you to the maximum amount of RAM you can install , but that is not going to be hugely important .

You will need DDR3 for most new motherboards . There is little performance advantage but DDR2 is legacy stock and often costs much more .

SATA connector speeds are compatible between 3 and 6 Gbit/s . Actual performance is usually well under 3 Gbit/sec anyway .
Only high speed SSD's get close .
May 31, 2011 5:51:13 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Ok that was a massive post and I only read some of it .

If I was building a budget PC today it would be based on an

Intel i3 2100
H67 motherboard
and 4 gig of RAM

Use the onboard graphics

By all means use the 32 bit XP you currently have if it runs the software you want to run . Its a good solid and proven operating system . It will limit you to the maximum amount of RAM you can install , but that is not going to be hugely important .

You will need DDR3 for most new motherboards . There is little performance advantage but DDR2 is legacy stock and often costs much more .

SATA connector speeds are compatible between 3 and 6 Gbit/s . Actual performance is usually well under 3 Gbit/sec anyway .
Only high speed SSD's get close .


The two hitachi drives I plan to bring over are SATA II. The SSD is a SATA III.

I won't replace the hitachi's even if I go the SATA III mobo route for exactly the reason you stated.

I may go to Win 7 because in the combo deal, it only costs about $50.00 when I get the SSD.

I just looked at the i3 2100 and with an Asus H67 motherboard, the Passmark numbers are virtually identical and the i3 is $20.00 more. Thank you for that suggestion.

I was thinking of DDR2 from the standpoint of a CPU, Mobo, RAM deal that might be significantly less expensive than either the AMD or Intel builds we're discussing. The mobo / ram / processor combo for DDR3 runs about $300.00. If I could find something similar in DDR2 for $150, I'd do it, but I doubt I can find anything like that at that price, so the DDR2 is probably not a realistic cost reduction.

How is the Intel video compared to the AMD? It's my impression that the AMD may be better for general purpose use. In other words, Intel i3 dual core for gaming, AMD quad core for general purpose. Do you think that's accurate?

I'll be interested to see if anyone comes up with a clever alternative.
May 31, 2011 6:36:52 AM

Wow, massive post. Lots of info, I read...most of it :p 

Anyway, I second the suggestions above. The i3-2100 would be more than capable for what you are looking for.

That being said, it might be better to go something like Athlon II x3 with an 880g motherboard. Not NEARLY as strong, but strong enough.

I also would like to let you know that nowadays, it's cheaper to get DDR3 than DDR2.

A very cheap and simple case is the Xigmatek Asgard II, it got the tom's nod so it brings the A game to the budget market.

And while you are correct that the 2100 is better for gaming and the X4 is for general purpose, I am still forced to suggest the 2100 because of the upgrade path. Right now, it's looking like AM3 is going to die in favor of AM3+, while LGA 1155 will be used for quite a while. This means that you will be able to upgrade your CPU without replacing the whole system in the future.

I would also like to point out that there honestly is no need to upgrade to a win7 64 bit unless you need more than 4GB of ram, which you dont. However, I do suggest you upgrade in case 64 bit programs become more prevalent in the future.

That's my advice, I apologize for not reading the whole post.
May 31, 2011 10:04:15 AM

Here's what I would get for your job!

Nice and good quality case (considering it's price)

Xigmatek ASGARD II B/O CPC-T45UE-U01 Black / Orange 0.8 mm SECC / Aluminum and Aluminum Mesh Bezel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Power supply from Corsair

CORSAIR Builder Series CX430 V2 430W ATX12V v2.3 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Power Supply
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Quad Core CPU all the way

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ955FBGMBOX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Motherboard who will fully support AMD Bulldozers, so you can upgrade anytime you want! It's also coming with intergrated Graphics Card, so you'll be fine as long as you don't play games (It has HDMI)

ASRock 880G PRO3 AM3 AMD 880G HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More Memory and SSD, is what makes the user feel he's having a 2011 system..so it's worth spending some $$

2 x CORSAIR 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Model CMV4GX3M1A1333C9
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The one and only SSD

Intel 320 Series SSDSA2CW080G3K5 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

SUM is 531$ with MIR

IMPORTANT: Of course you must use WINDOWS 7 64 Bit, so you can use all of your memory and also have TRIM Support for the SSD!

May 31, 2011 11:31:27 AM

Im with Michxy on this one that machine will give you lots of headroom and future expandability , i like to get the longest possible runs out of my hardware , and the build that mich suggests will give you a very clear expansion / upgrade path.

The intel brand is like buying branded baked beans, i understand that people trust heinz but i'm happy with my supermarket own brand that taste 90% as good at half the price.

Plus with the board that has been suggested you have support for new processors , 3-4 years in the future without having to buy a new motherboard .

Not that you'd want to because the phenom 955 will more than gobble up your tasks
Get windows 7 , for sure though the ram support and TRIM for the SSD is important

unlike when we went from 16-32 bit the API's for running 32 bit apps in 64 bit os's are much much better than the old posix , os2, and windows legacy API's.

Right now im running windows 9x programs on my 64bit machine in emulation mode no problem there is even some clock slowdown features to prevent old programs tied to the cpu speed from overunning with the new higher speed cpus.
May 31, 2011 2:57:12 PM

striker410 said:
Wow, massive post. Lots of info, I read...most of it :p 
...
And while you are correct that the 2100 is better for gaming and the X4 is for general purpose, I am still forced to suggest the 2100 because of the upgrade path. Right now, it's looking like AM3 is going to die in favor of AM3+, while LGA 1155 will be used for quite a while. This means that you will be able to upgrade your CPU without replacing the whole system in the future.
...

That's my advice, I apologize for not reading the whole post.


The point about the upgrade path with Intel is an obvious point which I completely missed.

I also agree with your comment about the 880g / Athlon II dual as a budget pleaser.

HERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT AM3+:

Am I correct in guessing that the AM3 CPU's will be around for a number of years as the lower end of the AMD lineup? I'm guessing it will take them 3 years to produce nm32 budget processors.
May 31, 2011 5:55:00 PM

Lol Bulldozers are coming and they're produced to 32 nm
May 31, 2011 6:33:20 PM

^that is correct. Bulldozer is in a few weeks, and they are on the 32nm design. That is why I say LGA 1155, because it will allow you to upgrade for a while as it is a brand new socket. LGA 1155 is also good because eventually Intel's IGP will be so good, there will be no need for a discrete graphics card.

AMD is trying with their Fusion APU, but they are still well behind Intel on this one.

I just hope Bulldozer is awesome so I get to stop recommending Intel :p 
May 31, 2011 7:06:48 PM

michxymi said:
Lol Bulldozers are coming and they're produced to 32 nm


michxymi said:
Lol Bulldozers are coming and they're produced to 32 nm


LOL, bulldozer isn't the only AMD 32nm. Llano is also 32nm, and they are already being shipped to computer manufacturers.

LOL, you didn't answer the question. perhaps, I wasn't clear enough:

How long is it going to take before the 32nm processors replace the existing Phenom II and Athlon II 45nm processors that would be used in a $400 to $1,000 desktop PC?

I've looked further and it appears to me that it will be late next year before 32nm desktop processors under $150.00 appear on the market. The list i saw even has an $80.00 offering.
May 31, 2011 8:42:05 PM

I believe that Bulldozer will replace the Phenom II's, and the Phenom II's will replace the Athlon II's. However, I don't expect it to remain that way for long.

But let's be honest. Nowadays, CPU's don't often get replaced. By the time you are ready for a CPU upgrade, it would be better to get a whole new system. Take your current situation for example. You are looking for an upgrade, but not one to your current system. You want a whole new platform. This is because technology has advanced faster than the platform can keep up, meaning they had to change the platform.

I expect that to happen again soon, especially with Intel's 3D chip manufacture. I would go with whatever is the better value and not worry about the upgrade path unless you buy a high end system and wish to upgrade within 2 years.
June 6, 2011 10:36:30 AM

I second Michxymi's build based on a PII 955 and a Bulldozer compatible build. I would make a few small changes, depending on the following:

Hostricity, if you plan on doing any overclocking, the AMD chips allow it in your price range, Intel chips do not. If you are not, go for an Athlon II X4, it is essentially the same, with only a loss in L3 cache, not a problem for general use.

AM3+ mobo gives a clear and sustainable upgrade path. Intel cannot seem to make up their mind, and has been releasing new sockets left and right, while AMD, for better or worse, has stuck with one socket for a very long timeframe. An AM3+ board should have some nice budget upgrade options for a long time to come.

As far as integrated graphics, AMD outperforms Intel by a good gap, and I don't see that changing any time soon, in fact, that gap looks like it will be widening significantly with new processors. If you upgrade to a future AM3+ Bulldozer-based APU, you should have a solid performer for the time in both the computational and graphical realm by only researching and replacing a single part.

And finally, an SSD is a great choice for overall responsivity and speediness, but don't chain yourself to a SATA III or otherwise top performer like the m4. The last generation (C300's and the like) are very fast, and you can almost get 120GB for the price of that m4. I would reccommend checking out this article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-price-per-...

Overall, I think AMD will suit your preferences in the long run, given your use case.
Cheers!

June 6, 2011 5:17:50 PM

OK. I bought a manufacturer refurbished Dell system.

The biggest selling point for me was the 460W power supply so that I could use my existing 1Tb and 500Gb SATA II Hitachi drives without power worries.

I didn't get SATA III or the SSD, but I did get everything else, including W7 home premim 64 bit, 8gb 1333 RAM, and I 1Tb 7200 RPM SATA II HD. The video card isn't fabulous, but is still far more than I expected to buy (ATI HD 5450 w/1GB).

A bonus was the eSATA socket and the 95 Watt CPU.

I paid $395.00 plus $20.00 shipping. They had 4, but they're all gone now.

Here's the machine:
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/buy/p...

The machine arrives tomorrow...

ON THE SSD:

I decided that this thing will be so much faster than my current Athlon 3000+ (1.9GHz single core) with SATA 150GB/s, that I'd wait on the SSD. When I get to the point that the new machine feels sluggish, an SSD will be a great upgrade and the prices on SSD's will only be lower by then.

Here's the Passmark on my current system. I'll post a Passmark on the new system in a few days just for a laugh. :) 

PassMark Rating
This Computer 375.6

CPU Mark
This Computer 493.3

2D Graphics Mark
This Computer 397.6

3D Graphics Mark

Memory Mark
This Computer 270.7

Disk Mark
This Computer 431.0
June 6, 2011 5:30:33 PM

that's not bad at $400. Not bad at all. It doesnt have very balanced components, but it sure will get the job done. I'm glad you found a good deal!
June 6, 2011 6:48:25 PM

striker410 said:
that's not bad at $400. Not bad at all. It doesnt have very balanced components, but it sure will get the job done. I'm glad you found a good deal!
I was ready to build an ASUS Sata 6gbs system with a Phenom II X4 840, on board graphics, 64gb SSD, Win 7 home premium and 4gb 1666 DDR3 RAM for $565.00 including shipping when I found this machine. I decided I'd rather pocket the $150.00 and anyway, I'm lazy...

I guess by unbalanced, you mean the processor outstrips everything else, especially the video card.

The problem is that a more balanced machine for $400 would only be slower.

I don't know if this machine supports RAID-0. If it does, I may do that to the 2 1TB HD's (Do HD's have to be same make and model to RAID-0 them???)

Also, I will probably break down and buy an SSD system drive in a few months - Probably an OCZ Vertex.

The video card, while not up to the processor, is way more than I need...

June 6, 2011 6:54:58 PM

Haha, yeah. It's a steal for $400. Probably overkill. But hey, it's $400.
June 10, 2011 1:18:06 AM

Here's the $400.00 machine Passmark:
(I've applied the Windows updates but haven't updated any drivers.)

CPU Mark: 5071.3
2D Graphics Mark: 333.9
Memory Mark: 1239.3
Disk Mark: 1009.1
CD Mark: 742.5
3D Graphics Mark: 332.2
PassMark Rating: 1504.4

System information: This Computer
CPU Manufacturer: AuthenticAMD
Number of CPU: 1
Cores per CPU: 6
CPU Type: AMD Phenom II X6 1035T
CPU Speed: 2561.6 MHz
Cache size: 512KB
O/S: Windows 7 (64-bit)
Total RAM: 8191.3 MB.
Available RAM: 6294.8 MB.
Video settings: 1360x768x32
Video driver:
DESCRIPTION: ATI Radeon HD 5450
MANUFACTURER: ATI Technologies Inc.
BIOS: 113-AC62200-100-MI
DATE: 12-9-2009
Drive Letter: C
Total Disk Space: 919.7 GBytes
!