PC Spec - Comments

[ez64]

There is no extra memory usage in 64bit vista than there is in 32 bit vista, I dont know where your getting this info from.

There are the same amount of bugs in 64bit than in 32bit which all have nothing to do with 64bit.

[Chalex4]

I am afraid you are wrong there ez64. 64 bit numbers are twice as big as 32 bit numbers and therefore consume double the memory (ish).

Graphs (if they don't appear click here):

We can also see that the 64 bit versions take up quite a bit more memory as well. Again, the explanation is very simple: all of the variables are no longer only 32 bits long, but 64 bits instead. Typically, this makes applications between 20% and 40% larger, which consequently results in a higher memory footprint as well. File formats such as music files or videos are not affected by this.

The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64 bit version of Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32 bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also immediately lose it to the system due to the 64 bit version's larger memory footprint. Thus, using a 64 bit version really only makes sense with larger memory sizes. Source

This is what I have trying to say all along .

[VoX]

I am afraid you are wrong there ez64. 64 bit numbers are twice as big as 32 bit numbers and therefore consume double the memory.

32 x 2 = 64

I think I'm starting to see the difference between 32bit and 64bit. (No sarcasm intended by the way.)

[Hutch]

Thats why I said dont use 64bit if you are getting 4Gigs.

[Paper Tiger]

I'm guessing you guys recommend Vista 32Bit then?

[VoX]

No, were recommending XP 32bit. I'd give Vista another year to sort out everything.

[Paper Tiger]

Just no one specifically mentioned XP or Vista in the last few comments, so I guessed Vista...
Besides, I'd personally have gone with XP anyway..

[ez64]

32 x 2 = 64

I think I'm starting to see the difference between 32bit and 64bit. (No sarcasm intended by the way.)

but you fail to understand that nothing runs in 64 bit mode there all 32bit applications but still the full 4gb+ is avalible.

and its not double the memory anyway it just means your CPU uses its full bandwidth lane being able to take more bits per cycle on 64 bit apps, 32bit apps everything is the same.

bits dont just double themselves on the same application.............

[Paper Tiger]

Well... Here is the new list and I will be running XP Pro 32bit.



Comments?

[Chalex4]

Basically an identical system to mine apart from I have a differen't GFX card, HDD and PSU. I also have more stuff in my system like a Creative X-Fi Extreme Gamer Fatality sound card, and a TV card. But if you don't need them, it looks good.

The reason I didn't get that PSU is that my friend's exploded. My PSU is a very new model from Antec and has a nice blue LED in the fan . Have heard mostly rave reviews from the Corsair PSU though.

[Calneon]

I'd get one of these, just as fast as the Raptor, and 10x the size for the same price.

[Paper Tiger]

...It's slower than the raptor.
Raptor: 10,000 rpm, 4.6ms seek time
F1: 7,200 rpm, 8.9ms seek time

[Hutch]

You do need a bit more than 80GB though, I mean, I've used about 180 odd of my 500GB harddrive. Get a secondary harddrive at 7200rpm.

[Calneon]

I can't tell you that numbers don't mean much, because I'm not entirely sure what they mean, but from what I've read, the Samsung Spinpoint F1s are faster in real world application.

There was an in depth review of 32 HDDs in CustomPC this month, the Raptor 150GB scored 72% while the F1 750GB scored 95%. In benchmarking, the F1 was on par with the Raptor on most of the tests.

However, I don't know enough about HDDs to tell you what to get, decide for yourself .

[Paper Tiger]

I might as well go for the F1, but I've already got 2x750GB HDD's, so the size of it doesn't matter! It's just for the OS and Program files.