Now that sp1 is out, even though not much seems to have changed according to a bit of reading on bit tech, it has made me interested in vista. I know/think you can install vista over the top of XP. Has anyone had any experience of this? The reason I ask is that I want to get vista, and I was just going to do a clean install as I know its best, but my current XP install is only 16 days old. I know there would be issues if my xp install was a bit messed up, but with a basically fresh one what would the outcome be. What I also wanted to ask was, how much better or worse will vista 64 bit run than xp 32bit on my system below. And is it work getting ultimate or is premium 64 bit the way to go? core2duo e8200 @ 3.4ghz 2gb of ocz platium @ 850 4-4-4-12 (I will probably get 4gb of 1066mhz so I can get my cpu overclock higher in a month or so) hd3850 512mb normally overclocked to 790/2000 gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L wd 80gb sata maxtor 250gb sata sony dvdrw
Is it worth getting 1066ghz or is it worth getting 4gb of some nice corsair 800mhz and clocking it, I only need about 950mhz so I can have a 475mhz fsb to get my cpu up to 3.8ghz, 3.6ghz would be fine, but to run that on my OCZ I have to loosen the timings to cl5 and pump up the volts to 2.2 and I dont think its 100% stable. I read a review somewhere that said when overclocking the e8xxx series and I assume this is true of all/most cpus that after 3.6ghz no real performance was gained in real world applications it was only the benchmarks that inproved, does that sound right to you guys? If I go 4gb of ddr 2 6400, I am thinking http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=767633 or http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=632574 The first look better and are slightly pricier, which I assume is just down to the heatsinks, they are the same sticks basically right? Does anyone know how high these will clock, I looked at overclockers for some reviews and someone said they had them at 1070 but dont say timings or voltages and could be lying
The only difference on those is the corasir DHX system that removes heat from the modules, its depends how high the modules can be OC'd to that may sway the heating system on the modules. i would rather get faster modules rather than fancy cooled slower ones, that being said it depends where your cpu has its limits.
I suppose I could go for http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=782925 I could clock that higher, and then change the fsb:ram ratio to get some seriously nice performance. But like you said, depends on cpu limits, I think the max overclock on the e8200 is 4ghz, and I assume thats with a better cooler than my arctic cooling 7 pro, though its doing a good job. My room is currently around 20c according to my uber digital clock/temp monitor (I am freaking freezing tonight). And my cpu is at 35 when oc'd to 3.4ghz, and thats with the fan at 1000rpm approx. So logically I dont want to go higher than 3.8ghz, as I can imagine my temps will be going nuts, 3.6ghz would be good for me. All I need for that is 900mhz ram, but I still want some good timings. And 950 for 3.8ghz. So if I ran 1066mhz I could change the ratio accordingly and get quite a nice overclock out of them. But I am pretty sure those corsair 800mhz would get to 950 at cl5. So I am not at all sure whether its worth the extra to go for 1066mhz. I am confusing myself, and I am bloody tired so that probably doesnt make sence. I think the time has just changed due to daylight savings, so even though this only took about 3 minutes on and off to write, it has taken me from 1:59 till 3:02. But bit tech seems to think its like 1am, I thought bit-tech was UK time. Edit: bit tech has just changed to say its 2am, but I am sure its supposed to be 3am
Well I suppose your right. BUT its all part of the fun. I have just found that ebuyer do my OCZ ram, so I might just get another 2gb of that, I was going to get it from overclockers because it was cheap as chips, but my feelings for overclockers are not so warm at the moment, plus they are only around £3 cheaper than ebuyer at the minute. So its either 3.4ghz and 4gb of OCZ for around £35 3.6ghz/3.8ghz if the cooler and northbridge cooler can take it and 4gb of corsair 800/1033 for around £64/£98. BTW atanum141, we seem to be having our own little post marathon tonight haha
Also just a note, P35 based mobos dont like 4 sticks of ram too much, and Oc'ing 4 sticks has its own issues. and yes about the posts, but its just ive been having trouble sleeping recently thats why im still posting. EDIT: also are you sure you want to spend more money for a extra 200mhz? sure go for more ram but for speed is there any use in such small numbers?
P35s and 4 sticks of ram not getting on, does sound like bad news. I will look into that a bit more and see if I can find any success stories with my specific set up. But if 4 sticks is going to be a problem I might aswell go for the corsair 2x2gb, as my friend says he will buy my OCZ off me for £20. I know what you mean about not being able to sleep, I have never been very good with getting to sleep, everyone says the same thing "well dont be on the PC so late" they dont seem to get that fact that I tried to sleep at a normal time and I cant so I have come onto the PC to give me something to do, and to hopefully make me tired. But this daylight savings has annoyed me, 3:20am, this is just way too late. Thats very true, but if my mate buys my OCZ, thats only £43 I am going to have to spend on the corsair 800mhz, which with free shipping from scan thats barely £10 more than buying more OCZ from ebuyer, and with that better ram I should be able to get a higher overclock anyway. Plus I get around the 4 sticks with P35 issue.
There have been documented issues of 4 sticks on P35 mobos that refuse to boot up, now dont quote me on how many but there have been afew. I dont think its widespread just a small niggle with some peoples mobos.
800Mhz of RAM should be enough... however it depends on what you are doing. If you are a gamer, nothing at a professional stag, and you can live width slightly less then HYPER EXTREME HIGH settings in games playing at 650fps, then it should not mater. [said in a joking fashion, not insulting anyone] 2Gb of RAM should be enough, however plan for 3Gb or more if you want to disable pagefile on the harddrive, and play game of memory intensive application and leave all Windows Vista default settings turned on. If you have a 64-bit CPU, I would just go with 64-bit if I was you. Even if you don't use 64-bit at the moment, it is nice to see the OS taking advantage of it, and of course use what you paid for (a 64-bit CPU), and not block it for no reason. Just remember that Vista 64-bit uses 32-bit version of it's applications for compatibility issue with codec and such. However right now it is totally or mostly resolved. Playing movies with Windows Media Player 64-bit edition, with 64-bit codec, it very nice! You do see a nice performance increase side by side with the same program and OS with 32-bit codec, and see the CPU usage drop a bit compared to the 32-bit codecs. And of course with Vista 64-bit you can handle over 128Gb of RAM I don't like the idea of overwriting OS's. Specially that Vista uses a new version of the NTFS format, I STRONGLY is against it. However, an alternative exists, it is performing a Vista upgrade. Unlike XP upgrade edition, it actually does a good job, however it does (it has no choice) copy the registry. So if your registry is not at 100% perfect or you had malware on your computer, or been a while you did not re-install WinXP on your machine, I personally strongly NOT recommend to perform a Windows upgrade as XP problems can move to Vista, or have a mal-functioning (or not as good as a fresh install) Vista. Also note, (I could be wrong here) that doing a "Vista upgrade" does not update the to the new version of the NTFS format. What is new on the new version of the NTFS format? Nothing visible, I think it allows you to enable "advance performance" (turned off by default) on the hard drive, but that is it. Vista is worth of an OS to take your time to backup your files, and install the OS. Vista takes on my system (see signature bellow), ~25min (from the moment you see "Loading setup" to when you see the task bar for the first time on your account. So it is significantly faster than XP. Add 5-10min to download and install all the update, 2-5min for the drivers, 5-7min for SP1 upgrade (if your copy of Vista is not SP1 already). Now add some time to install all your applications and configure Vista. I have to tell you the following, UAC will be annoying while you install your software, configure Windows, but it could be disabled (Control Panel>User Account>"Turn User Account on or off">"change check box state">restart computer), for the time you perform all this. Windows will bug you to turn it back on, and I suggest you do. Moreover, if you never touched Vista before, you might be a bit lost, as Vista folder structure changed a bit from XP (it is more organized now), and you might be lost a bit as options changed places. Take your time and be patient, you will be fine after a week or two, and you will prefer the new OS option layout. Now the decision that you have to face is "Home Premium", "Business", "Ultimate" edition. As a Vista Ultimate user, if you need help, just ask and I'll elaborate more on each edition than most sites.
Well that depends on your drivers and peripherals (printer). If everything has 64-bit drivers... it should not be bad to start with, as everything will work. I do have Vista 32-bit installed, but the computyer is significantly slower than the one bellow on my signature that runs on Vista 64-bit. [AMD Athlon XP 32-bit 2500+ OC to 3200+ model, Geforce FX 5900 S.E (Sucky Edition) 128MB of RAM, 1Gb of RAM, Nforce 2 with WinXP drivers]. So I can't really compare. But, a direct comparison XP and my Vista 64-bit (you could get similar results with 32-bit Vista) is FAR superior in performance than XP, to day to day computer usage. Sure Vista doesn't startup AS fast as XP, but do you really care? If i want to turn off my comp, I just put it to sleep. It works way better (perfect?!) than XP's sleep mode, and Vista doesn't cause issue after doing it 20 times. Vista starts application for their first time, far faster then XP, and with super fetch on your time, I have Photoshop CS3 load in less then 1second NO FREAKING JOKE! (however you need to show Vista that YOU REALLY USE IT). In effect your account loads nearly instantly after a month of usage. Vista explorer seams to be program mostly in asynchronous rather than synchronous mode, that means if you load a BIG file, explorer.exe doesn't "freeze" until the task is done like XP. Also, internet explorer is out of the folder system (back to Win95 folder style). If you type in a URL in the address bar, your default browser will open, so security is increased, and explorer response better when folder browsing than XP. Also with 64-bit OS, you unlock your CPU, and presents it's full potential, and run 64-bit drivers and software. 64-bit technology is far superior than 32-bit technology, and this is why, like many, purchased 64-bit CPU's and pushed CPU company to drop 32-bit only CPU's.
Thanks GoodBytes, thats basically answered all my vista questions. So it does look like a worthwhile upgrade. Now I just need to have a good think about the ram.
