What kind of computer are you using?

[harold 0]

My GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB also runs hot..

Do they all do that?

I haven't overclocked it at all.. maybe I should underclock it a bit, but that doesn't feel right

[Rick Brewster 1,631]

Well, I've also got a 2.26 GHz Pentium 4 with Windows XP on it ... underclocked to 1.7 GHz and disabled the L2 cache. So it's basically a low-end Celeron. It's my performance baseline box If Paint.NET v4 performs well on it, then it's good. Otherwise it needs more optimization.

[Dalton 1]

Dude.

Rick. Your computer pwns all of ours.

8 gig of ram?!

I wish I had an 8800 GTS!

I've got.. (don't make too much fun.)

6100.

(Atleast I can play BF2. )

Ok mine:

Custom Build, if not which company? Psh. Freakin' emachine.

Laptop or Desktop: Desktop

OS: Windows XP

Processor: AMD Sempron 2.11 GHz

Motherboard: AM2 uATX Motherboard [got that from emachines.com]

Video/Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 6100 or somethin like that.

How much HD space? 160 Gig HDD

How much RAM? 1 gig.

Screen? Psh. So old I don't even know. Some lame dell.

Keyboard? Dell.

Mouse? Wireless Microsoft Mouse.. I guess.

[harold 0]

Mine has a faster CPU though (QX6850 @ 3.3GHz - multiplier from 9 to 10, normally 3GHz)

But I don't have the uber fast hdd and only 4GB ram

[DarkShock 49]

uh?

one that works?

[harold 0]

What do you mean?

Of course it works, why shouldn't it? (I'm posting from that comp right now)

(viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21669&p=179689#p179689)

[usedHONDA 4]

I've got.. (don't make too much fun.)

6100.

.

Hey, I don't even have a graphics card, just the little ATI GPU that comes integrated with the motherboard

(the only game I actually play is Trackmania Nations, using almost all minimum settings to get a solid 32fps)

[ncfan51 1]

My GPU doesn't support pixel shaders and is a Geforce4 MX. That eliminates 85% of new games and 40% of old ones. I'm not a megagamer, I usually just play ports of old console games (from like 1993)

[janettsue 2]

My computer:

HP Pavilion Ultimate d4999t PC

- Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit)

- Intel® Core 2 Quad processor Q6600 (2.4GHz)

- 4GB DDR2-800MHz dual channel SDRAM (4x1024)

- 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400, DVI-I, VGA adapter,HDMI

- 802.11 b/g USB Wireless LAN card

- 750GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive

- LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive

- Integrated 7.1 channel sound w/front audio ports

- HP stereo speakers with subwoofer and remote (2.1)

- HP keyboard and HP optical mouse

- HP W2007 20in. wide flat panel monitor

Being the novice that I am I decided to stick with the 32-bit knowing I could always upgrade. She does all I need her to and then some. I'm very happy with my computer. I like having the wireless card in my desk top. Most of all I like the wide monitor. It is much easier to work on a larger image and the color is brighter. Also the speakers, I did not know what I had been missing. My music is sounding pretty good these days.

[harold 0]

I would do the upgrade though..

There is barely any compatibility trouble with 64bits OS's these days (16bit programs are rare, and most drivers come in 64bit flavour as well because M$ requires it for them to be signed)

PDN benchmarks show a very big speed improvement from going from 32bit to 64bit, see the benchmark thread viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21669

And there is also the extra RAM that you'd unlock..

XP is also a bit (~2% according to witwald ) faster than Vista when it comes to running PDN (I wouldn't take that as my reason for upgrading to XP though, there are plenty of better reasons)

[Rick Brewster 1,631]

Correct. Paint.NET is much better on 64-bit Windows.

[harold 0]

I wonder what part of the 64bitness makes the biggest* improvement though

The extra GP registers?

The extra 32 bits in those GP registers?

The FastCalls?

The reduction of heap fragmentation?

The better 64bit NGEN that is completely different from the 32bit NGEN?

IIRC current MSIL JITters do not use SSE, so it wouldn't be the doubled number of XMM regs..

On the other hand, how much does does it suffer from the lack of macro-instruction fusion in long mode?

*emphasis added to avoid answers like "all combined of course" - obviously they all make a difference, but what would be the most important improvement?

Is there anyone on this forum who's also interested in that? (BoltBait perhaps?)

[oma 28]

noob question.... where in the world do you find all this information about your computors systems? mine is a grey box on my desk. I know its an HP just because it has that written on it.

[harold 0]

You could use AIDA32, GPUZ, CPUZ, and many others

Or you could you check your manual, if you have one

And you could look around through your BIOS config (usually you have to press DEL or F1 while booting), although that is probably not a good advice to someone who didn't know about that already..

And of course everyone who build their computers themselves know what they put into them

[oma 28]

well I actully found most of the information right under systems.

I use a HP Pavilion S7220n Slimline Intel R celeron ® M processor 1.50 GHz

504 MB Ram run windows XP home Edition

a little small ram size I think for some of the art work I've been attempting lately. But the computor has worked fine from day 1. More than happy with its performance, and not about to get caught up in the techno hype and run out to replace a perfectly good machine.

ciao

[harold 0]

Are you sure it's not 512MB? To make 504MB, wouldn't you need 6 ram slots? (128+64+32+16+8+4 = 504) and it's really rare for normal computers to have more than 4 slots..

Perhaps it's not being reported properly, so what does CPUZ say about it?

[pipp92 3]

windows calculates different then the producer of the ram.

so it's a bit less than 512.

[harold 0]

Windows is wrong then.

[Lego 0]

I have the worst computer here, and I bought it in 2005. I can't tell the stats, because they are embarrasing. :oops:

[oma 28]

actually it does say 504 . Should be noted there is a 7.49 allocated to HP recovery.

[Max Power 1]

Some companies count 1GB=1000MB instead of 1024...

[harold 0]

Those companies are wrong.

Ram allocated to recovery..?

Anyway, did you try CPUz etc? Those programs are more likely to give accurate results

[oma 28]

no idea what you are talking about what in the world is CPUz?

edit never mind I checked wiki and read their description.

is there actually any practical reason to know all these specs? The gray box on my desk works exactly like I asked the sales man to set me up with. no more no less. its a good practical computor for my first home computor.

[harold 0]

Checking whether your computer meets the required specs for some program without having to try it, for example

[oma 28]

sure that would be a good use. As I don't generally download any games or too many programs its not going to be an issue for me as far as I can see. if the time comes I need more ram I'll invest in either a new computor or an upgrade, based on the recomendation of a computor geek I totally trust. If I run short of storage space which I seriously doubt, I can always delete some old things I seldom use. (like artweaver, inkscape, umpteen photo editing programs, and all those nasty annoying preset so called freebies... children games, and free AOL set up etc etc. )

guess I'm just saying I'm such a basic end user I just need the computor to do x when I push x button.

nice chatting with you all on this, now I understand the hype.