i run daoc dual accounts just fine on 3.2C, 1GB Dual DDR400, FX5600U 256MB, I approach the 1024MB mark at 1024x768 in heavy areas. 2GB would be MORE than enough.
With 512mb ram you will be using your paging file (a lot), if you only have 1 HDD that will be a big bottleneck, just getting a cheap 30 or 40 gb drive (on a separate channel than the boot drive) for this will give you a big boost.
Recommendation, keep the 512, add (2) 512 sticks of the same mem type and add an additional hdd (if you have only 1) to load balance the loading of Os/Apps/page file
Total outlay, +/- $300 and the 3ghz rig will be substantially faster than it is now
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,940
- 4,529
- 126
My thoughts:
1) I hadn't heard that canterwood was stuck at PC2700 for 1 GB sticks, but all the major OEMs switch to PC2700 when equiping a P4 with 1 GB sticks. So that means it is most likely true.
2) I cannot picture anyone productively playing two games simultaneously on the same PC - but I guess some people can try to do it. I won't probe any further on this.
3) Very few games even come close to using 1 GB (And the few games that can use 1 GB really don't show much improvement in speed when going from 768 MB to 1 GB) - so the chance of you having two games each needing 2 GB (total 4 GB) is quite slim.
4) Most likely what is holding you back is the fact that two games are sharing one processor and one video card. Going dual Xeon or dual Opteron would very likely solve your problem without needing more than 2 GB of memory.
5) Windows cannot handle much more than 3.5 GB - so if you are using Windows forget about actually using all of that 4 GB.
6) Can I emphasize again that dual Xeon or dual Opteron would be a better solution?
7) What is wrong with running the multiple games on two computers? Get a KVM switch if you want. In fact there are places that sell cases that hold two complete computers in one case for exactly the purpose you mentioned. One keyboard, one mouse, one case, but two computers.
1) I hadn't heard that canterwood was stuck at PC2700 for 1 GB sticks, but all the major OEMs switch to PC2700 when equiping a P4 with 1 GB sticks. So that means it is most likely true.
2) I cannot picture anyone productively playing two games simultaneously on the same PC - but I guess some people can try to do it. I won't probe any further on this.
3) Very few games even come close to using 1 GB (And the few games that can use 1 GB really don't show much improvement in speed when going from 768 MB to 1 GB) - so the chance of you having two games each needing 2 GB (total 4 GB) is quite slim.
4) Most likely what is holding you back is the fact that two games are sharing one processor and one video card. Going dual Xeon or dual Opteron would very likely solve your problem without needing more than 2 GB of memory.
5) Windows cannot handle much more than 3.5 GB - so if you are using Windows forget about actually using all of that 4 GB.
6) Can I emphasize again that dual Xeon or dual Opteron would be a better solution?
7) What is wrong with running the multiple games on two computers? Get a KVM switch if you want. In fact there are places that sell cases that hold two complete computers in one case for exactly the purpose you mentioned. One keyboard, one mouse, one case, but two computers.
Are we talking a server for internet/LAN games, or running multiple games on one PC? (where you can switch between them and actually play them)
Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
You want to run multiple games simultaneously on one PC?I think you'd get better performance and it'd probably cost about the same to just build a pair of machines, rather than try to force everything onto one machine. That is, it's cheaper and you have better performance with 2 AMD AMD 2100+ w/Radeon 9600 Pros and 1 GB RAM than a single P4 3.0C w/9800 XT and 4 GB RAM trying to run 2 games at once.
I have many computers already. But it's a pain in the ass to have them all. I just want to run them on as few computers as possible. Bumping my best machines up to 2GB of RAM made a big difference, but I want more power so to speak.
- km
Originally posted by: magomago
top secret government stuff
As for your site
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller4522.html
seem to have been good in the past- but the past 6 months they seem to have tanked a little
after reading more on the thread....
AMD said it would support the current socket940 and produce chips for both so don't worry
Yeah super top secret stuff. Hahahah. No nothing of the sort. I just want to run a few things simultaneously.
Even if AMD say they will still support the current socket, I won't be buying the 64 until the new socket. Intel kept making Socket 423 chips for awhile after the 478 came out but why bother. It's only a matter of months so I won't be pouring any $$ into a system that AMD has decided has no future.
There's no way I'll be buying from those turkey's mentioned above. I'll have to find someone else.
- km
I thought that, but then my (P4 1.8,2GB RAM,9500 PRO) runs nearly as good as my (P4 3.0C,2GB RAM, 9800 PRO) so maybe not. Dual CPUs could make a huge difference with 4GB of RAM but doesn't the different programs and such have to know you have 2 CPUs to be able to take advantage of that?
- km
For me it's not. I need more. If the 2GB chips weren't so insanely expensive I'd go for and 8GB system.
- km
You know I thought that too about the HD. But once everything's loaded, the HD hardly does anything. I've seen no performance gain from the WD SATA Raptors than from regular ATA100 IDE drives. Raid would surely help loading times and boot up etc, but apart from that, I'd rather spend the $$ on where I really need the performance gains to be and seems to be RAM. So far 2GB isn't enough. I've also tried increasing the swap file but that doesn't make any diff either. Windows normal calculation is (Total RAM * 1.5). I tried changing that to 2.0 and even 3.5.
- km
Nice points you mention above. I'm running more than 2 games on a computer. Going from 512MB to 2GB made a big difference. But I want more power. Dual CPUS whether it's Xeon's or Opteron's sounds great. But doesn't the applications you are using have to know you have 2 CPUs to be able to use them? Or does XP sort it out. I tried the KVM switch but it was not to my liking.
I keep hearing everone saying get an Opteron. I'm interested. Tell me more? Is it just the dual version of the Athlon 64 or FX? What socket is it, and will it be effected by the Athlon 64 changing it's socket? Does it use regular RAM unlike the FX?
Sure $$ is an issue but only to a point. If something is going to work and be a monster then I'll go that route, whether it's a Xeon, FX, Opteron, P4 or whatever.
Put forth more suggestions. This is great. I'm learning a lot here.
- km
ohhh, hmm i think you're right. after all its *symmetric* mulitiprocessing.
alright so what are you waiting for. go getyour memory. muskin.com, directron. com, newegg.com.. anyplace reputable. tell us results after you get em.
If you're running multiple 1-CPU processes, they should be scheduled onto different CPUs. Even if you don't, the OS will run on one and your process on the other, saving you numerous context swaps and greatly improving cache efficency. The "symmetric" part of SMP means that all the processors are the same (as opposed to something like distributed computing, where many different types of CPUs might be contributing to your overall computational efforts).
You seem to be trying to run several large, RAM and CPU-hungry applications at once. Telling us what the games actually *are* might help improve the suggestions you get, as some games are more constrained by memory, processor time, video card speed, etc.
*This* is a place where lots and lots of RAM will help you immensely. Any time you're forced to go to virtual RAM (the paging file on your hard disk) for game data, performance will *tank* -- this is why your 512MB system just gets crushed by the 2GB one, even with a much faster CPU. Adding a better HD for the swapfile is like repaving a one-lane road when you need a superhighway. By adding more physical memory, you prevent your system from having to do go to disk at all. *Once you have enough physical RAM* (I think 2GB ought to be enough, but hey, try 4GB if you've got the cash), your processor is going to be the limiting factor. This is where a true SMP system comes in -- a single physical processor is less efficent running multiple programs at once than multiple processors are.
Desktop MP solutions basically come in three flavors now: Pentium Xeon DP (expensive, pretty fast), Athlon MP (somewhat slower, probably cheaper now that A64 is out), and Opteron (moderately to very expensive, moderate to extreme speed). The Xeon is basically a multiprocessor version of the P4, and the Athlon MP is a multiprocessor version of the Athlon XP. The Athlon64 and Athlon FX are AMD's desktop versions of their new 32/64-bit server chip, the Opteron. The Opteron 2XX chips (and 4XX/8XX, but they're even more expensive) support 2-way SMP, and would probably be your best bet for ultra-high performance if paired with an appropriate motherboard (one that takes Dual Socket 940 CPUs). If that's out of your budget, I would try for an Athlon MP solution -- performance is on par with the Athlon XP and the price should be more reasonable now that the Opteron is replacing it.
I personally think it would be *way* more cost-effective for you to get 2 or more systems running side-by-side, but if you really have to do this in one box, that's the way to do it.
You seem to be trying to run several large, RAM and CPU-hungry applications at once. Telling us what the games actually *are* might help improve the suggestions you get, as some games are more constrained by memory, processor time, video card speed, etc.
*This* is a place where lots and lots of RAM will help you immensely. Any time you're forced to go to virtual RAM (the paging file on your hard disk) for game data, performance will *tank* -- this is why your 512MB system just gets crushed by the 2GB one, even with a much faster CPU. Adding a better HD for the swapfile is like repaving a one-lane road when you need a superhighway. By adding more physical memory, you prevent your system from having to do go to disk at all. *Once you have enough physical RAM* (I think 2GB ought to be enough, but hey, try 4GB if you've got the cash), your processor is going to be the limiting factor. This is where a true SMP system comes in -- a single physical processor is less efficent running multiple programs at once than multiple processors are.
Desktop MP solutions basically come in three flavors now: Pentium Xeon DP (expensive, pretty fast), Athlon MP (somewhat slower, probably cheaper now that A64 is out), and Opteron (moderately to very expensive, moderate to extreme speed). The Xeon is basically a multiprocessor version of the P4, and the Athlon MP is a multiprocessor version of the Athlon XP. The Athlon64 and Athlon FX are AMD's desktop versions of their new 32/64-bit server chip, the Opteron. The Opteron 2XX chips (and 4XX/8XX, but they're even more expensive) support 2-way SMP, and would probably be your best bet for ultra-high performance if paired with an appropriate motherboard (one that takes Dual Socket 940 CPUs). If that's out of your budget, I would try for an Athlon MP solution -- performance is on par with the Athlon XP and the price should be more reasonable now that the Opteron is replacing it.
I personally think it would be *way* more cost-effective for you to get 2 or more systems running side-by-side, but if you really have to do this in one box, that's the way to do it.
When you are running every game you want to run on your 2gb machine, is it hitting the hard disk at all? If not, adding even more ram will probably not help you one bit (except reduce load times).
Are these 3d or 2d games? If they are 3d, the video card may be a limiting factor. I doubt it though since i think when you switch from one 3d game to another it completly unloads one game from the video card and loads the other, meaning long switch times but no video card limited performance loss. Not sure about this though.
Also, it would help if you could describe the performance problems you are having. Generally low framerates? Occasianal bad stuttering? Slow switching betwen games?
I would guess you are cpu limited but its hard to say. As has been said before, you really need to tell us exactly what games you want to run.
Are these 3d or 2d games? If they are 3d, the video card may be a limiting factor. I doubt it though since i think when you switch from one 3d game to another it completly unloads one game from the video card and loads the other, meaning long switch times but no video card limited performance loss. Not sure about this though.
Also, it would help if you could describe the performance problems you are having. Generally low framerates? Occasianal bad stuttering? Slow switching betwen games?
I would guess you are cpu limited but its hard to say. As has been said before, you really need to tell us exactly what games you want to run.
If you're going to run multiple games at once, I'd suggest dual processors. Even though a game might not be designed for SMP in mind, running 2 instances, the OS will schedule the tasks evenly. The main thing thats expensive with dual procs is the motherboard, as the CPU's for AMD and Intel arent that far off from their single processor version. With some of the higher end boards, you can get over 10GB of total memory easily.
Another consideration is a fast I/O subsystem. A PCI-X U320 15K SCSI Raid 0+1 system will be very fast, even if you're paging.
Another consideration is a fast I/O subsystem. A PCI-X U320 15K SCSI Raid 0+1 system will be very fast, even if you're paging.
What matters with paging is the access time. No hard disk is going to get much under 5ms seek and a few hundred MB/s of transfer, whereas even total crap PC2100 memory is well under 10 NANOseconds random access and transfers at 2-3 GIGAbytes per second. We're talking multiple orders of magnitude slower.
Although his games will load *REALLY* fast with that setup.
Although his games will load *REALLY* fast with that setup.
Originally posted by: Matthias99
If you're running multiple 1-CPU processes, they should be scheduled onto different CPUs. Even if you don't, the OS will run on one and your process on the other, saving you numerous context swaps and greatly improving cache efficency. The "symmetric" part of SMP means that all the processors are the same (as opposed to something like distributed computing, where many different types of CPUs might be contributing to your overall computational efforts).
You seem to be trying to run several large, RAM and CPU-hungry applications at once. Telling us what the games actually *are* might help improve the suggestions you get, as some games are more constrained by memory, processor time, video card speed, etc.
*This* is a place where lots and lots of RAM will help you immensely. Any time you're forced to go to virtual RAM (the paging file on your hard disk) for game data, performance will *tank* -- this is why your 512MB system just gets crushed by the 2GB one, even with a much faster CPU. Adding a better HD for the swapfile is like repaving a one-lane road when you need a superhighway. By adding more physical memory, you prevent your system from having to do go to disk at all. *Once you have enough physical RAM* (I think 2GB ought to be enough, but hey, try 4GB if you've got the cash), your processor is going to be the limiting factor. This is where a true SMP system comes in -- a single physical processor is less efficent running multiple programs at once than multiple processors are.
Desktop MP solutions basically come in three flavors now: Pentium Xeon DP (expensive, pretty fast), Athlon MP (somewhat slower, probably cheaper now that A64 is out), and Opteron (moderately to very expensive, moderate to extreme speed). The Xeon is basically a multiprocessor version of the P4, and the Athlon MP is a multiprocessor version of the Athlon XP. The Athlon64 and Athlon FX are AMD's desktop versions of their new 32/64-bit server chip, the Opteron. The Opteron 2XX chips (and 4XX/8XX, but they're even more expensive) support 2-way SMP, and would probably be your best bet for ultra-high performance if paired with an appropriate motherboard (one that takes Dual Socket 940 CPUs). If that's out of your budget, I would try for an Athlon MP solution -- performance is on par with the Athlon XP and the price should be more reasonable now that the Opteron is replacing it.
I personally think it would be *way* more cost-effective for you to get 2 or more systems running side-by-side, but if you really have to do this in one box, that's the way to do it.
thanks for your input. I can't tell you what games I'm playing exactly but they are online ones and don't require insane FPS scores. Mainly just being able to play without lag is what I'm after. I very much like the idea of Opterons. Though i don't think I can manage to get one of these beasts just yet. I have multiple computer systems. Too many in fact. I want to spend the $$ to be able to have as few systems as possible. So if it means putting 4GB of ram into one and it runs 4-5 games ok then I can get rid of one of my systems.
- km
No my system doesn't really touch the HD much. These are 3D games. But I havn't seen that much of a difference between my ATI 9800 Pro and my 9500 Pro. They both produce about the same speeds. So it's not too graphic intensive in the sense of some psycho fragfest FPS game.
What I'm experiencing are really lag and stuttering. It isn't lag due to slow inet connection as I have 2 separate cable connections. Switching between games is instant. CPU speed could very well limit things but as I've said before my P4 1.8 with 2GB of RAM runs near the speeds of my P4 3.0 with 2GB of RAM.
I can't tell you exactly what games I'm playing. They are online role playing games.
- km
I will get a dual system next year I think. Probably an Opteron. I don't need a SCSI Raid system. Once my games are loaded the HD hardly doesn't anything. Sure they will help loadup times, but I'd rather spend the $$ on RAM.
- km
Well I'm close to a descision. Right now it's looking like an Athlon FX system. I've heard they are changing the socket soon, but I did read today (can't remember where) that they might not be. Even if they do change the socket the system I have will still kick ass.
So, so far I have the following in mind.
COOLER MASTER ATC-201B-BXT Case
SilverStone Tech. 400W Power Supply Model SST-ST40F
Leadtek K8NW ATX Motherboard for AMD Opteron/Athlon 64 FX
AMD Athlon 64 FX51
Transcend PC2700 1GB DDRAM ECC (x4)
POWERCOLOR ATI RADEON 9800XT
Zalman CNPS7000A-AlCu Aluminum + Copper CPU Cooler
I'm not sure about using an ATI video card in a nForce3 Pro 150 chipset motherboard. So then I was thinking maybe I should get a 5950 Ultra. But then I did read somewhere on newegg in the user ratings about someone having the same doubts as myself and how it worked flawlessly. I use Apple's 22" & 20" Cinema Display LCDs and they run beautifully on ATI video cards so I'll stick with what I'm happy with.
So what do you think? I think this will make a pretty kickass system and hopefully enable me to do what I've been trying to achieve. Comments anyone?
- km
So, so far I have the following in mind.
COOLER MASTER ATC-201B-BXT Case
SilverStone Tech. 400W Power Supply Model SST-ST40F
Leadtek K8NW ATX Motherboard for AMD Opteron/Athlon 64 FX
AMD Athlon 64 FX51
Transcend PC2700 1GB DDRAM ECC (x4)
POWERCOLOR ATI RADEON 9800XT
Zalman CNPS7000A-AlCu Aluminum + Copper CPU Cooler
I'm not sure about using an ATI video card in a nForce3 Pro 150 chipset motherboard. So then I was thinking maybe I should get a 5950 Ultra. But then I did read somewhere on newegg in the user ratings about someone having the same doubts as myself and how it worked flawlessly. I use Apple's 22" & 20" Cinema Display LCDs and they run beautifully on ATI video cards so I'll stick with what I'm happy with.
So what do you think? I think this will make a pretty kickass system and hopefully enable me to do what I've been trying to achieve. Comments anyone?
- km
y not just get more ram for your current setup?? you just stated everything works fine compared from your slowing cpu , to ur faster one. so y get a fx?
i guess you have money to burn
btw, you need registered memory, did a check on newegg, transcend does not sell registered memory.
i guess you have money to burn
btw, you need registered memory, did a check on newegg, transcend does not sell registered memory.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter