Interlopers.net Forum - Half-Life 2 News & Tutorials

Bema wrote:

RC-1290 wrote:

Simon wrote:3 gigs of ram? weird...

It's probably because more than 3 Gigs won't make a difference in XP 32 bit.

punky is a Vista user.

Vista 32bit has the same limitation, you need to go Vista or XP 64bit to have more then 4gig.

Blink wrote:

Bema wrote:

RC-1290 wrote:

Simon wrote:3 gigs of ram? weird...

It's probably because more than 3 Gigs won't make a difference in XP 32 bit.

punky is a Vista user.

Vista 32bit has the same limitation, you need to go Vista or XP 64bit to have more then 4gig.

Also, if you have XP or Vista 32-bit with 4GB of RAM, don't expect windows to use more than about 3200mb of it. It's an issue with the way windows indexes memory, there's like an overall index size limitation of 4GB so if you have 4GB of RAM, all of your system memory (onboard mobo, CPU cache, GFX card onboard memory etc etc) overwrites where your RAM is in the memory index, so effectively portions of your ram aren't used.

esJ wrote:It's an issue with the way windows indexes memory

It's not an issue, it's a limitation of all 32-bit CPUs and all 32-bit software.
When addreses are 32-bit wide, number of possible adresses is 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes (each memory cell is 1 byte) = 4 gigabytes.
With 64-bit technology, theoretical limit is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes = 17,179,869,184 gigabytes.
Todays 64-bit CPUs have 48-bit address line, which allows addressing 262144 gigabytes of memory. This can be extended to full 64-bit addressing in future CPUs without losing software compatibility.

^^ what he said.

This post:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=38

Explains why 64 bit should be peoples automatic purchase

Peoples hatred for both Vista and 64 bit operating systems is some what exaggerated (mainly 64 bit, I can still see why people dont trust Vista, as I still don't!). 64 bit really is the way forward, when it first came about there of course was this big issues with nothing supporting it, people have stuck with that view despite that completely changing.

Oh and this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16 ... _the_ram/1

Explains a lot

Bema wrote:My new rig:

Motherboard: Asus P5N-E SLI
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (the Enery Efficient one for top notch overclocking)
Memory: 4Gb's worth of OCZ Ram
Graphics: 2 x Gigabyte 8800GT 512MB
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar = 500GB
Chasis: Coolermaster CM690
PSU: Antec Neopower 650W

Just short of £800 inc. shipping.

Unfortunatly there's been some cock up at the bank and im still waiting for my cash before I can order the system - so I figured i'd stop by for some last minute advice.

Now I want your honest opinions here: SLI - worth it or not? How much better (we're talking noiceable difference here) is having two 512mb cards running, than just the one?

The way I see it is that if I keep the two cards im running a beast of a machine which makes me feel awesome.

However if I only get the one 8800GT:
> I still have a 512mb GFX card which is good enough for most games right?
> Vista 32 bit only lets us use 4GB memory - so by getting rid of one GFX card the 4th stick of RAM may get some limited use!
> The system will be £150 cheaper - not that money is the deciding factor.


But yeah - thoughts and opinions please.

Now I want your honest opinions here: SLI - worth it or not? How much better (we're talking noiceable difference here) is having two 512mb cards running, than just the one?

You can only see the improvements on very high resolutions,one powerful card is all you need(except if there is no one powerful card) also it will never combine the memory on both cards(unless nvidia do something)

8800GT 512MB+8800GT 512MB = SLI 8800GT 512MB Per Card(No Memory Sharing)

Graphics: 2 x Gigabyte 8800GT 512MB

Get a 9800GX2 instead(yeah about the price...)and forget about the sli mobo,get yourself a p35 mobo?

Vista 32 bit only lets us use 4GB memory - so by getting rid of one GFX card the 4th stick of RAM may get some limited use!

You might as well get vista 64bit but then again the driver hunting *sigh*

What driver hunting, all the big companies do 64bit software and drivers, and very few smaller companies dont.

Hmmm. The 9800GX2 is a bit too steep in price really. £300 on two GFX cards is fine for me. £350 odd on one is a bit OTT.

Could you explain about the memory sharing a bit? What does that really mean for me playing Crysis or any other demanding game?

I would get Vista 64 if I didn't already own 32 bit. I'm not shelling out for Vista again.

Thanks for the input so far guys.
Still awaiting the trusty opinion of xoqolatl

I think you can upgrade for free from 32 bit to 64 bit. Also from my research, 2x 8800GTS is the better option over the GX2, unless u wanted quad sli. (much cheaper and not much difference)

Bema wrote:Could you explain about the memory sharing a bit? What does that really mean for me playing Crysis or any other demanding game?

He means there's no memory sharing in multi-card setups. Memory bus is too wide to fit on a connector like SLI bridge or Crossfire bridge; and current GPU architecture is not prepared for shared memory. This basically means that memory on card 0 has the same contents as memory on card 1. Both cards have to keep their own copies of textures etc. so one card with 1GB can fit more textures into memory than two cards with 512MB. This is no indication of performance, however, because there's lots of other important factors: memory bus width, memory speed, memory controller architecture etc.
GeForce 9800GX2 has two GPUs in internal SLI; it has 512MB of memory for each GPU; the same is true for HD3870X2. Amount of available memory is the same as any two card with 512MB each.

Basically SLI and Crossfire are high-resolution AA setups: you will see more improvement from SLI if you are running 1680x1050 or more and with AA enabled, than any smaller resolution or without AA.

I personally think 8800GTS 512 will be fine for your needs (this is my opinion not a fact).

And thank you very much for your trust Bema! I am only trying to shed some light on matters of which I know a bit.

Possible New Rig:

The Case:
Case: Gigabyte Triton 180 Black Aluminium Front (Without PSU)
PSU: OCZ StealthXStream Powersupply ATX/EPS, 600W, 120mm Fan, 4/8pin CPU, 20/24pin

The Bones:
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3P, P35, Socket-775
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz Socket LGA775, 4MB, BOXED w/fan
RAM: Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2, 2048MB (2 sticks)
Gfx: MSI GeForce 8800GT 512MB OC GDDR3, PCI-Express 2.0, 2xDVI-I/HDCP
HDD: Samsung SpinPoint T166 500GB SATA2 16MB 7200RPM

The Extras:
OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate English OEM DVD 64bit
Monitor: Samsung 20" LCD Syncmaster 206BW TCO03, 1680x1050, 2ms, 3000:1
DVD/RW: Samsung DVD±RW burner, SH-S202N, 20x, Dual, LightScribe, Black, OEM
Mouse: Logitech LX3 Optical Mouse USB,PS/2
Keyboard: Logitech® UltraX Premium Keyboard, USB, US-layout, Oem
Speakers: Creative Inspire T3100, 2.1 Speaker system, 2X6W + 17W sub


Basically this is my next purchase, i'm getting it in a few weeks, i havn't placed my order yet and i'd like some advice on these parts,
are they good?
are there better ones?
the prices ok compared to other parts on the site?

Its pretty much the Mainboard and GfxCard i'm worried about.
So if you have any advice or opinions based on that just say so, any parts, that includes the extra bits, that could be changed for a better alternative?

I'd get Corsair VX550 for better efficiency and build quality.
And seriously, why are people still buying E6850? Compared to Q6600 for 23€ less, it's weak. Nothing beats Q6600 in it's price range; that 600MHz of difference is definitely less noticeable than 2 times more cores (thats assuming you wont overclock that Q6600). For that extra 29€ saved (23 from CPU + 6 from PSU) get yourself an aftermarket cooler like Scythe Katana and set that Q6600 to 3.0GHz. Seriously, you wont regret buying a Q6600 - nothing beats a quad core experience, especially when you have lots of RAM.

Honestly?
I was getting the dual core because it was 3ghz, i wasn't interested in a quad with a lower clock speed, i wasn't interested in overclocking either. But now that you mention it it seems like a good deal. If i were to switch to the quad and over-clock it would that mobo still be good or is there another one in the same range better suited to overclocking?

I'll wait til ur questions are answered until I post my possible new rig. Unless you want to see it rb_lestr? Bare in mind it'll cost about 1150 pound. (1474.2623 Euros apparently)