• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is this a good gaming upgrade?

More then 3Gb of RAm on XP is a waste of money. The OS is unable to use a full 4GB of RAM. If you want to move up to Vista 64 or get Win 7 64 when it comes out then you'll be able to take full advantage of 4GB.

But everything else is fine. Should be a good improvment over your AMD system.
 
yeah i do plan to get Windows 7 64 when its SP1 comes out.

Will the E8500 last for two years before quads become demanded for gaming?
 
Originally posted by: Blain
DDR2 is so dirt cheap now... Go with 4GB even if you're currently running a Windows 32-bit OS.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo

I would go with this RAM instead of the Kingston.

G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2 800 $44.99

Also who knows if anybody's system will last 2 years. Things are going to be threaded for more than 2 cores in the future but for now, the E8500 will kick butt in almost every game. Right now there are very few games that take advantage of a Quad but in the future obviously the top games will more then likely make use of Quads.
 
Originally posted by: mpilchfamily
More then 3Gb of RAm on XP is a waste of money. The OS is unable to use a full 4GB of RAM. If you want to move up to Vista 64 or get Win 7 64 when it comes out then you'll be able to take full advantage of 4GB.

But everything else is fine. Should be a good improvment over your AMD system.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that only applies to 32-bit OS'.
 
Originally posted by: eryx24
Originally posted by: mpilchfamily
More then 3Gb of RAm on XP is a waste of money. The OS is unable to use a full 4GB of RAM. If you want to move up to Vista 64 or get Win 7 64 when it comes out then you'll be able to take full advantage of 4GB.

But everything else is fine. Should be a good improvment over your AMD system.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that only applies to 32-bit OS'.
Click to expand...

XP is a 32bit OS unless you're talking about XP64.
 
I'd save a little money and get an E8400 instead. Isn't the only difference between it and the E8500 167 MHz? An E8400, even on stock cooling, should be able to overclock well beyond that.

If there's some other difference, do tell, because it seems like there's not much point to getting the E8500.
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I'd save a little money and get an E8400 instead. Isn't the only difference between it and the E8500 167 MHz? An E8400, even on stock cooling, should be able to overclock well beyond that.

If there's some other difference, do tell, because it seems like there's not much point to getting the E8500.
Click to expand...

The only difference is e8500 has a .5 higher multiplier, which allows for slightly higher overclocks when you're limited by the stability of the NB FSB. In the majority of cases, it's better to save some $$ and go for the e8400
 
I'll chip in my two bits worth - e8400 is a much better deal. Should be a snap to OC to 3.6GHz (prob just set fsb to 400). Then cruise with that for at least the next year. Maybe at that time drop in a cheap Q9550 if they've dropped into the $150 range and/or quads are becoming more necessary for gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top