my new computer

2*intel pentiumD Dualcore 3.4GHZ 4mb cache(2*3.4 ghz 8mb cache)

16GB ram DDR2 667(i ram)

2*Geforce 9800GTX 1GB GDDR4

1TB H.D.D buffer 16 1000RPM

32" LCD wideScreen

 

I thought a computer couldn't utilise more than 4Gb?

 

only windows XP wont let you have more than 4gb of ram.. most vista installs will let you have more

Also, that computer makes me sick... did you spend enough money on it that you couldve bought a whole car?
Hard drives come down pretty fast, you shoulda gone with a 300gb one or something for now, then upgraded later (assuming you dont do video editing)
2 * 9800GTX? why not wait till a better, cheaper card comes out that doesnt need to be used in SLI? there are so many things i hate about SLI
16GB RAM? dont even get me started on why that is the most stupid thing ever
the CPU is nice tho.. wait.. is that 2 * mean there are 2 dual cores? mmk, you realize how rare it is to find a game that can actualy use 4 cores? UT3 is the only one i know of (and even then, it fakes it)

 

do you like the bangle?

 

-gasp-, that's my CPU!

Well, not sure about the cache size, but I've got a 3.40GHz Pentium D. Although apparently the core 2 duo is way better, even with 2/3 the clock speed. But yeah, I've only got one...

I'm buying a 32-node PS3 cluster (that's 192 usable CPU cores, folks). Either that or the QS21 cluster... I haven't made up my mind yet.

 

i like the bangle

 

quote: farzad
lol, i doubt you could afford a mobo supporting 2 dual cores...name the mobo model/brand and I may believe it, but they tend to be out of reach price wise for most people
9800GTX * 2? Why?
Why not get a 9800GX2 which is SLIGHTLY *Very slightly like 2 frames slightly* better performance, with bigger clocks, and the GX2 runs at 60% efficency *SLI Wise* the 9800GTX only runs at 40%
16GB Ram aint that stupid, I use 4GB+ easy, if you do serious photoshop/multimedia/cad then 16gb is easy to reach

Also, your HDD is bull shit, you can't buy *From what I've seen atleast* 1TB 10,000 RPM with tiny 16MB cache, smallest ive seen on 10k RPM 1TB is 64MB

Anyways, point is, a system with those specs (CPU that old, and that low cache, and *age wise* low FSB) with uber gpu's *compared to the CPU's that is* like that is a huge bottle neck, I guarentee you spent more, on the CPU's to get 2, dual cores, then you would if you got 1 quad, or 1 uber dual core E8500 (Model above mine) *I say 8 series cause as far as I know, they are the best Intel C2D cpus*

 

+1 to toby, for everything except the RAM

an uncompressed image of 20 MP with 10 layers is 800MB, add in a bit for undo data, and even the most unefficient program will handle that image in < 2gb of RAM

and all high grade image editing programs will compress on the fly, so that image above should take about 1gb max

from what ive seen CAD is vector, its CPU intensive, but not so RAM intensive. I dont see why a user would need more than 2gb of ram to run CAD extremely well (its proly changed since i used it like 5 years ago tho)

 

umm anyone else notice that the 16gb of ram is 667? that would mean 4gb sticks of 667,,,, a quick look around i couldnt find any 4gb sticks of 667,,,

 

 

this thread almost makes it look like hey4 has lots of posting members!

 

hey4 FTW

 

Yeah, You can get 667 4gb sticks, but its difficult to find *Maily cause 667 is so slow for DDR2 now* and its hell expensive