An OS question.

I'm thinking of buying the following for my new system but I'm not sure what OS I should slap down considering I only use windows really to game. Cedega isn't quite up to any multiboxing as far as I can figure out(unless some one wants to tell me otherwise)... Any how This is some of the guts:

FI LANPARTY DK 790FX-M2RS ATX AMD Motherboard

MSI GeForce 8800GT NX8800GT 512M OC Video Card x2

AMD Phenom 9850 BLACK EDITION 2.5GHz Socket AM2+ 125W Quad-Core Processor

So what OS should I go with to 4 box on this computer... Xp or Vista?

Also, this is after chatting with some one while I was xping, would it be better for pvp to hay one system, or to have
2 systems running inline, I figured personally that having everything on the same system buss would lower lag vs relying on a network. I really want to have least lag for pvp.

I'd like to know some opinions before I go sink a few k into this.

Couple questions:

1) Are you dead set on AMD? The Q6600 is very easily overclockable to 3.0GHz+ with only air cooling, has 8MB of L2 cache instead of 2MB, is faster in every gaming benchmark I've seen and is cheaper. Just sayin...

2) How much RAM? If you're doing 4GB, there's not much point in spending more money and suffering the potential driver/software headaches of 64-bit. If you're doing >4GB, definitely need 64-bit to even recognize it.

[hijack]
Don, Q6600 still good if not overclocked? I don't dare fuck with overclocking things but that's the processor I'm eyeing for my upgrades atm; and what's a good model mobo to go with it? I've only really used AMD setups before so intel models and socket names are newish territory :P
[/hijack]

XP = win, Vista = fail; 4gb = 32bit as Don said, over 4gb, go 64 but beware driver issues, XP64bit was the "first" 64bit windows so it's got some shortcomings/compatability issues, Vista64's more prepared for it but it's still Vista, so ew. :P

Just cuz you CAN SLI doesn't mean you SHOULD ;p Get an 8800GT imo, the 9x series doesn't run as well for some technical reason or another, and gives no performance increase over an 8800GT which is overkill anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61023 #post61023

Couple questions:

1) Are you dead set on AMD? The Q6600 is very easily overclockable to 3.0GHz+ with only air cooling, has 8MB of L2 cache instead of 2MB, is faster in every gaming benchmark I've seen and is cheaper. Just sayin...

2) How much RAM? If you're doing 4GB, there's not much point in spending more money and suffering the potential driver/software headaches of 64-bit. If you're doing >4GB, definitely need 64-bit to even recognize it.

---

I do love AMD, been using them since I won one at a give away when I was like 13 or something. I'm not planning on hitting overclocking hard. I meen should I? will it help much?

I was planing on having 4 gigs of memory also, why is going over that bad? (Seriously I'm a windows NUB on anything past 2k it seems)

And ya I remember compiling 64 bit Kernal stuff on my Optron server back in the day and crying over Linux driver problems I'd hate to see windows one's even thouh I'm sure they have some fixs al-be-it dirty ones.

Vista 64. Do not listen to any Vista naysayers.

He won't convert it to mac and we have a handful of mac'ers(poor bastards), I doubt he'll convert for linux either lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Eteocles',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61027#post 61027

[hijack]
Don, Q6600 still good if not overclocked? I don't dare fuck with overclocking things but that's the processor I'm eyeing for my upgrades atm; and what's a good model mobo to go with it? I've only really used AMD setups before so intel models and socket names are newish territory :P
[/hijack]

---

I use a Q6600 2.4GHz (not overclocked) to run my four 'backup' characters on my team of five (the main being on its own system). The computer has 2GB of memory, a GeForce 7800GTX 256 or 512MB video card, and Windows XP. It runs the four clients just fine, though if it's very busy in Shattrath City it swallows up the 2GB of RAM and the system slows to a crawl, but that isn't the CPU's fault.

PS- I am a fairly old school overclocker (started with 486 CPUs) but these days I rarely bother because the processors tend to be fast enough for what I am doing. There is definitely an itch to try it, since some Q6600s can overclock to 3.3GHz with the default heatsink and some e8400s (dual core, 3.0GHz) can get as high as 4.5GHz without exotic cooling. But maybe I'm too old or too apathetic, or just happy with current performance levels. :)

PPS- Switching between AMD and Intel shouldn't be difficult, for the most part the setups are the same and today's motherboards and BIOSes take nearly all of the work out of getting them set up. Drop in the CPU, attach the HSF, turn it on, and you are set. I use either CPU brand depending on what's available and what costs I'm willing to incur, and have been happy with both companies' products. Same with video cards. I don't mind rooting for sports teams, but I'm not fanatical about hardware companies. :)

Yeah the only thing I'm concerned about switching from AMD to Intel processors is the slot names on mobos so that they're compatible; I had enough trouble figuring it out amongst AMDs various slots when I had to replace my last mobo(had an oooold slot that isn't supported anymore and like 5-8 slots had come out since then all with 3digit numbers besides the AM2 slots); interested in what Intel's slot-naming convention is and which ones're compatible with the Q6600 :p

Intel has been kind in not changing they're Socket 775 in a number of generations. 99% of the Intel processors out there will use this socket. Don't be scered.

What advantage do you think you will achieve from a 64 bit OS? Aside from future proofing... MS has already addressed this with their Easy Upgrade, allowing any Vista user to upgrade their OS online, and for a small upgrade fee. I am disappointed with my Vista64, and am eagerly awaiting the day when all my applications have native 64bit support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61023 #post61023

there's not much point in spending more money and suffering the potential driver/software headaches of 64-bit

---

QFT!!!

I downgraded to 32-bit a few weeks back and won't go back, as for the OS I think people will be using XP right through to vista's successor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Eteocles',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61027#post 61027

[hijack]
Don, Q6600 still good if not overclocked? I don't dare fuck with overclocking things but that's the processor I'm eyeing for my upgrades atm; and what's a good model mobo to go with it? I've only really used AMD setups before so intel models and socket names are newish territory :P
[/hijack]

---

Yep, it's a solid performer and currently outperforms the Phenoms in most non-synthetic benchmarks that I've seen. YMMV for specific models. OC'ing a Q6600 is dirt simple and requires nothing more than a mobo that can do it and a CPU fan/heatsink that's not the cheap-shit one that comes with the retail processors (the Zalman 9500/9600 series are excellent).

For motherboards, I'm using a Gigabyte GA-X38-DS4 with zero issues. Excellent heat-pipe chipset cooling support, SLI support, Socket 775, on-board RAID/eSATA/1394/etc. and fail-over redundant BIOS support = WIN. And the BIOS support for tweaking memory timings is superb. If you did decide to go this route, I can walk you through tweaking it up to snuff quickly. ;)

Mkay then...I'll see about oc'ing if I feel up to it when I get to that bridge...till then, go take a look at my hardware forum thread if you don't mind Don, made a reply with the gear I'm eyeing ;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'd0z3rr',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61081#post61 081

Vista 64. Do not listen to any Vista naysayers.

---

I had this big rant typed up about reasonable consumer expectations but half of it is stuff I can't talk about yet and the other half should be obvious. I'll simply leave you with the suggestion that you post a list of your recommended fully-compatible hardware and driver versions so people aren't disappointed when Vista64 doesn't magically make them coffee the next morning after installation.

I'm not sure why people are experiencing so many headaches with Vista64. I have used many different peripherals with Vista64 with no issues. 3 different keyboards, 1 steering wheel, 3 different mice, many different games, many different apps, etc.

Also Microsoft is not in control of manufacturer's drivers. Vista has been out for about 2 years, so the manufacturers have had enough time to develop drivers for Vista. So if your Super Fragger Keyboard Xtreme from Acme Company doesn't work in Vista64, blame Acme Company.

I guess it helps to not be a total retard too. So basically it goes like this:

if Total Retard=1
then XP;
end if

if Total Retard=0
then Vista64;
end if

:|

It's not a question of being retarded, it's a question of why bother?

Vista 64 runs WoW in a 32 bit sandbox through a thunking layer and uses 64 bits per pointer.

Vista 32 runs WoW in 32 bit mode natively with no thunking layer and uses 32 bits per pointer.

So Vista 32 runs WoW faster and is less memory hungry.

So unless you have more than 4GB of RAM there is NO reason to go Vista 64.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'd0z3rr',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61155#post61 155

I'm not sure why people are experiencing so many headaches with Vista64. I have used many different peripherals with Vista64 with no issues. 3 different keyboards, 1 steering wheel, 3 different mice, many different games, many different apps, etc.

Also Microsoft is not in control of manufacturer's drivers. Vista has been out for about 2 years, so the manufacturers have had enough time to develop drivers for Vista. So if your Super Fragger Keyboard Xtreme from Acme Company doesn't work in Vista64, blame Acme Company.

I guess it helps to not be a total retard too. So basically it goes like this:

if Total Retard=1
then XP;
end if

if Total Retard=0
then Vista64;
end if

:|

---

I'm sure I won't be alone in taking a little umbrage at your assertion, even given its clever form. I suppose I could respond with something like:

If VistaFanboi=1 then
Vista;
else
XP;
endif

or

If MyPersonalExperienceLeadsMeToBelieveXPIsSuperiorFo rGaming=1 then
XP;
else
WhoKnows?;
endif

but instead I will just suggest to you that perhaps your 3 mice and a steering wheel aren't the final metric by which everybody measures driver stability, or ultimately, OS desirability.

Lastly, if I've personally had a lesser experience with Vista than XP, I don't care who's at fault, I'm going with XP. It's not a matter of blame, it's a matter of which is going to work better for me. Right now, that's XP. When Vista works as well, I'm there.

XP64 for me.

64 because the addressable memory space limitations in ANY 32-bit operating system make it hard for this little multiboxer to deal with lag in major cities and such.

XP because like many others, I've had issues with Vista and plan to avoid it for the time being until it --- for whatever reason --- works better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bovidae',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61103#post6 1103

Intel has been kind in not changing they're Socket 775 in a number of generations. 99% of the Intel processors out there will use this socket. Don't be scered.

---

There is an issue with the nVidia 6 series mobos and the latest Intel 45 nm CPUs though. For the greatest future potential be sure to get a 7 series board.

I think AMD is ahead of Intel in the quad department, check this video......
http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1443714282

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'd0z3rr',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61081#post61 081

Vista 64. Do not listen to any Vista naysayers.

---

Oh come on! Do you really believe that people are going to listen to someone who says "ignore them! but i give you no arguments why to ignore them!"
There's tons of reasons why not to use Vista. And poor WoW performance is definitely one of them. Since this topic is almost only about performance, it's the single greatest reason why XP is a better choice at this moment.
XP (with an nVidia geforce card) performs far better than Vista(more than 30% in my case). Even Linux runs WoW faster than Vista, while WoW is a Windows program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Rakadazan',index.php?page=Thread&postID=61828#pos t61828

I think AMD is ahead of Intel in the quad department, check this video......
http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1443714282

---

It's true about the pipeline, but that says absolutely *nothing* about performance in games. The CPU cache on the AMD is a lot less than on the Intels and cache really makes a difference.
[edit] Actually, the fact that they share a pipeline - and thus the cache - means that it doesnt constantly have to copy from one cache to another when it's moving the callstack of a program (which could happen constantly for each program).

Being able to put multiple video cards is:
- also possible on other systems
- rediculously expensive

One can be faster than the other, but it depends a lot on what you are using it for.

Also, I tend to be very skeptical about movies that are obviously sponsored. Did you see the amount of AMD logos in there?
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against AMD. I'm just saying that it's not per se an overall superior system. Same goes for Intel.