PC upgrade advice

[caseys]

What is this windows you talk about.... real men use REAL os

 

I have no issues with my 64GB ram on ubuntu

 

I'm still trying to hit that 16EB limit... I admit, not close yet. PB well past... but we're yet to hit an EB.

 

Pfft, real men don't use Ubuntu, they build their own Linux From Scratch distribution (er, not that I have, far too much hassle)

 

What's this linux thing? Some sort of new fangled OS for the kiddies?

 

OS/360 / z/OS ftw!

[Thorin]

Surely you are on the windup?

 

You think that upping the amount of ram from 2GB to 4GB will see a bigger performance gain than upping the rate from 400mhz to 800mhz will? The processor can't even stretch it's legs at 400mhz.

 

If this is your job I think you should be looking for another one.

 

*sigh* OK I'll bite again.

 

Does it sound like CJ wants to spend £2k on an uber fast PC? No?

 

I'm trying to recommend the best bang for buck improvements to his current spec. To me that is a cheap upgrade adding another 2GB and a second hand graphics card from someone who is upgrading to the latest generation. Yes faster memory would be an improvement, but that would mean more cost and ditching his existing memory. As CJ is unlikely to be overclocking his PC and pushing bus/memory speeds then the faster memory is not going to be as big a speed boost as it could be.

[Matt H]

It comes down to whether you'd prefer four normal rams pulling your cart, or only two, but faster moving rams pulling it.

 

Personally, a single one of these would do me and I reckon it would fit in my computer case too:

 

http://www.wotif.com/webdata/image/promotion/big_ram.jpg

[Matt H]

Bottom line is:

 

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-computer-more-rams-field.jpg

[caseys]

*mildly NSFW*

 

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/upgrade/

 

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/upgrade-pt2/

[stevie_b]

It comes down to whether you'd prefer four normal rams pulling your cart, or only two, but faster moving rams pulling it.

 

Personally, a single one of these would do me and I reckon it would fit in my computer case too:

 

http://www.wotif.com/webdata/image/promotion/big_ram.jpg

 

It's got a triple chin. I wouldn't want that.

[caseys]

Bottom line is:

 

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-computer-more-rams-field.jpg

 

Not RAMS! BEES!

 

(see post 80)

[Matt H]

It's got a triple chin. I wouldn't want that.

 

You're right. Chin fail

[Scott]

*sigh* OK I'll bite again.

 

Does it sound like CJ wants to spend £2k on an uber fast PC? No?

 

I'm trying to recommend the best bang for buck improvements to his current spec. To me that is a cheap upgrade adding another 2GB and a second hand graphics card from someone who is upgrading to the latest generation. Yes faster memory would be an improvement, but that would mean more cost and ditching his existing memory. As CJ is unlikely to be overclocking his PC and pushing bus/memory speeds then the faster memory is not going to be as big a speed boost as it could be.

 

 

Of course it's going to be big. The processor is being choked by the memory speed. I'm not talking about overclocking the system, i'm talking about bringing the memory speed on par with the processor speed.

 

You commented saying that putting faster memory in the computer will make next to no difference, then on the other hand say that doubling the RAM will make a difference.

 

800mhz processor with 2GB 800mhz ram vs 800mhz processor with 4GB 400mhz ram.

 

I'd LOVE to see a comparison of those bench results.

 

The link I posted is an absolute bargain for what you are getting. Fire the Ram you have on ebay for a tenner and thats a tenner saved. Throw in a cheap GFX card and the job is a goodun. Modern day £30 cards will play most games fine as long as you aren't looking for the full on multi monitor HD experience.

[Thorin]

You commented saying that putting faster memory in the computer will make next to no difference

 

No I didn't

 

The link I posted is an absolute bargain for what you are getting.

 

Yes it is, but it's also another ~£30-£40 more cost.

[Scott]

Sure there are faster memory modules but you wouldn't see any huge difference IMO as you'll not be pushing the speed.

 

Yes you did.

 

The memory is £57.

 

He can sell his own memory easily for £10 - £20. The one he linked to is £25 already.

 

Nowhere near the savings mentioned, compared to the gains available.

[Thorin]

Yes you did.

 

Oh sod off moron.

 

Does "not a huge difference" = "next to no difference" now? Go boil your head.

[Scott]

Oh sod off moron.

 

Does "not a huge difference" = "next to no difference" now? Go boil your head.

 

Want a peddle to go backwards with?

 

I do believe the person who suggested adding slow ram to a reasonably quick system would be classified the moron.

 

Of course, if that's your job... I'm not really sure what that says about your employer.

[Thorin]

I do believe the person who suggested adding slow ram to a reasonably quick system would be classified the moron.

 

No, adding more of the identical type of memory already fitted to the PC, is what I suggested. Please don't misquote me again.

 

If CJ had a budget in mind rather than trying to spend as little as possible for the best improvement, I would have other suggestions.

[Scott]

No, adding more of the identical type of memory already fitted to the PC, is what I suggested. Please don't misquote me again.

 

If CJ had a budget in mind rather than trying to spend as little as possible for the best improvement, I would have other suggestions.

 

More slow RAM though. It still doesn't solve the issue. The speed of the RAM will be what is holding the system back.

 

Your suggestion will pose virtually no improvement. The bottle neck is the rate of the RAM... not the size of it.

 

CJ would be like a kid at Christmas with no presents if he wasted his money on more slow RAM.

[CJ]

Is it safe to pop my head above the parapet?

 

OK, after looking through all the replies I have decided to change the goalposts slightly as I now have a new plan which may (or may not) change the advice on new hardware .

 

I have a 32" LCD TV that I have always wanted to use as a monitor but, to be honest, I was never sure how to do it exactly.

 

The reason for this is that my TV has 2 x HDMI inputs, 2 x scart and also red, yellow, white phono (I cannot remember the correct term for these) inputs. Now, my PC only has VGA output and so connecting them together was not as easy as i would have liked. But, if I changed the graphics card am I right in assuming that I could could connect direct with a HDMI cable? If so, which graphic card would suffice?

 

Sorry for all the questions but I really am clueless with this type of thing.

[imi]

Look what have you done CJ.....

 

 

 

 

Most LCD TVs have a VGA input too - I would suggest checking your LCD screen again.

 

Yes you do get graphics cards that have a HDMI output, failing that ones with DVI output and you can simply use a dongle to convert to HDMI,

[CJ]

Look what have you done CJ.....

 

 

 

 

Most LCD TVs have a VGA input too - I would suggest checking your LCD screen again.

 

Yes you do get graphics cards that have a HDMI output, failing that ones with DVI output and you can simply use a dongle to convert to HDMI,

 

I have checked and my LCD definitely does not have a VGA input.

[imi]

I have checked and my LCD definitely does not have a VGA input.

 

sounds like one of the newer flashy ones

[Morpheus]

If I changed the graphics card am I right in assuming that I could could connect direct with an HDMI cable? If so, which graphic card would suffice?

 

Absolutely all of them can be connected. All the newer ones will have HDMI but if you bought one it would say in the specs.

 

Phono is the correct term. Yellow is composite video and of course, red and white are right and left audio respectively.

 

You can use a stereo Phono to 3.5mm Jack plug Y cable from the green 3.5mm audio jack on the pc back or front panel directly to those on the t.v. for sound, though better quality I'm sure with your hifi or surround system etc.

 

Then use a VGA adapter (15 pin D-Sub, the blue trapezoidal shaped one on the p.c.) to DVI for the picture. All older cards come with a DVI to VGA adapter (or two) and you probably have one already somewhere. I've got several unused ones.

[CJ]

The problem I may have is getting the bits shipped to Kos. This ebay seller will ship. Is this card suitable or would I be better off going for this one?

[CJ]

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/142382 - £57.18

 

Twice as fast as the generic RAM you have at the moment and twice the capacity. This will make your PC FLY!!!

 

I really should have looked at the speed of the RAM you currently have. That will be a HUGE bottleneck for you.

 

Would these be as good?

[stevie_b]

The problem I may have is getting the bits shipped to Kos. This ebay seller will ship. Is this card suitable or would I be better off going for this one?

 

I'm no expert with graphics cards but I haven't heard of Peak. Asus are a big name, so they're more likely to have decent driver support. On that basis, I'd go for the Asus one.

 

When installing graphics card drivers, you can either download a driver for the chipset (e.g. ATi Radeon 5550 for the two you linked to), or from the card manufacturer (Asus or Peak). In my experience, drivers from the card manufacturers can be a bit more fit-for-purpose than the chipset drivers.

[Morpheus]

CJ, what are you looking to do with the pc? I may have missed a meeting.

 

If games are your thing, occasionally of course, you could do a lot better for the money than that card, adequate as it is for general stuff but onboard graphics chips are too. Infact, these days they're pretty good.

 

All that matters with today's graphics cards is the ram being above 640-768MB (per board if it's a dual one like the ATI 3870X2, Nvidia 9800GX2 etc.) if you want to use AA (anti-aliasing) and the GB/s bandwidth figure.

 

Clock speeds in MHz etc. are where the final GB/s number comes from, so forget them when comparing cards. GB/s goes up with the core clock speed and memory speed. It's the only number to use when comparing 'frames per second' performance except when using AA and quality settings when memory capacity is critical, since you're buffering 16 frames per displayed frame in memory for example.

 

Then it uses memory more and it has to be above 640MB so 1GB is great. This card probably has only 40GB/s memory bandwidth though (if that) and for the money, you could get one with twice that and more. Mine are 136GB/s for example and now cost about the same as this 5550 second hand but in perfect condition.

 

Seriously, you'll get a stonking card for the same money and if the seller has 100% feedback (as a seller mind) with say a hundred items+ sold then obviously you'll be fine, even if something should go wrong. That's why ebay works - feedback. So if you looked at second user cards, you'd get far better value.

 

So what would it be used for most? Sorry if it's already been discussed.

[Morpheus]

Would these be as good?

 

Yep, Kingston are one of the best by all accounts. Not perhaps as good value as Scott's OCZ suggestion but if postage is an issue and taking into account that we're talking Euros now, look at the second and third on the list for 38 Euros each 2GB Pair. Not sure what D2 and B1 mean though. Can be looked up. Maybe Thorin knows? Proper good stuff though.

 

I'll let someone else say that it all looks Greek to them!

 

DOH!