Picolini Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 Yes it would. In fact it would probably burn the nearest one down since that's a turbofan jet. You wouldn't want to use anything that functions like that to cool something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I only recently got a PCI Express mobo, BFG's nForce4 with 939 socket, allowing dual core and some overclocking too... though not much. I tried to format a 20G HDD with XP Home and Pro but with no real luck, then I stuck the drive on another mobo (Shuttle mentioned here) and formatted with Win98. What's up with that, eh?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 What is the highest amount of RAM available to a PC (Or Mac) at the moment? I mean like in normal computers, not the super computers that NASA use... If you have a 64bit CPU, you are limited by what your motherboard allows. Highest I've seen supported is 64GB. Most 64bit motherboards, however, will cap you at 8GB. 1 GB a slot upto 4?? I assumed, sorry to DP again, I will get a ban so no more of that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 So, back to the topic of benefits to running 64-bit OS, are there any other than higher RAM capabillities? From what I've heard 64-bit Linux is really touchy, so I haven't tried any 64-bit OS yet. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew1g Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 when I tried installing a 64bit ubuntu on this pc, it gave me loads of trouble to install, and after installing it wouldn't even boot. 32bit linux for me kplz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primer43 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 when I tried installing a 64bit ubuntu on this pc, it gave me loads of trouble to install, and after installing it wouldn't even boot. 32bit linux for me kplz Yeah, same here. And Gentoo was a pain in the ass to install anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 JIGGAWHAT? http://www.news.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Thanks for the tip, Svip. Good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 JIGGAWHAT? http://www.news.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Thanks for the tip, Svip. Good read. Hummhmmmhuhwhhaaaa?!?!? That's a over a year old as well... I wonder if they're still on track with it. They said their 80 core prototype is running at 3.16 per core, totalling 252.8Ghz all together... holy sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 JIGGAWHAT? http://www.news.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Thanks for the tip, Svip. Good read. Hummhmmmhuhwhhaaaa?!?!? That's a over a year old as well... I wonder if they're still on track with it. They said their 80 core prototype is running at 3.16 per core, totalling 252.8Ghz all together... holy sh*t. Yeah! Fold that @ home, bitches! I suppose we should give 64 a miss and go straight to 512. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 If you were thinking of getting Intel's Penryn, there is report of evolution above and beyond that short term generation of CPUs, so keep that in mind, it will be at least a year or two out though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA3Freak-2001 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 @Svip: lols @matthew1g: Well I already have Assassin's Creed on Xbox 360, but really I honestly don't see how it could use more RAM than Crysis, unless it's poorly coded. @GTA3Freek-2001: Windows Vista 32-bit cannot be upgraded to 64-bit. It has to be a clean install. Also, OEM versions of Vista only come with one or the other (either 32-bit standalone or 64-bit standalone.) Windows Vista Retail versions have both the 32-bit and 64-bit editions included. ? I bought Vista and it only came with a 32-bits version. Hmm, wait, I think it's because it was an update, the ones that you install over WinXP. Even though I had to ask for a new DVD with the 64-bits version of Vista, all I paid was the shipping. And I didn't need WinXP to install it. Now I have both DVDs Yes, OEM versions and upgrades only come with one or the other but you can order the 64-bit version as explained here. The retail of Ultimate has both x86 and x64 versions, not sure about the other ones though. Well I have Vista Ultimate Retail or OEM not sure sitting around, (don't ask it was "given" to me by this truck that drops stuff off its back ) if its Retail then it has both 32bit and 64bit installs? Otherwise OEM means its 32bit only? Ok gotcha.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutuz Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 JIGGAWHAT? http://www.news.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Thanks for the tip, Svip. Good read. Hummhmmmhuhwhhaaaa?!?!? That's a over a year old as well... I wonder if they're still on track with it. They said their 80 core prototype is running at 3.16 per core, totalling 252.8Ghz all together... holy sh*t. You don't add the Ghz per core together, as Processes use the single core (Eg, a game using one core at 2.5Ghz) and even if they use more than one, its still not the equivalent of a 5Ghz CPU (Keeping the dual core 2.5Ghz CPU in mind) And that 80-core Intel uses different coding to x86, its much more efficient, and can be used with current heatsinks. (x86-x64 (Current coding style for PCs) sucks ass, we need a new type of core!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 But say you're using a Duo core at 2.5Ghz. If it's running at 100% wouldn't it be putting out a total of 5Ghz of processing? What's the difference between that and a 5Ghz CPU? Never really understood that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutuz Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 But say you're using a Duo core at 2.5Ghz. If it's running at 100% wouldn't it be putting out a total of 5Ghz of processing?What's the difference between that and a 5Ghz CPU? Never really understood that... It would be putting out around 5Ghz of Processing, but more than one program would be using it, than say, a single core CPU running at 100% from one program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 Ok, so it's got to do with the order of processes? Like in a single core if I start to run a program it goes first in line of the processes. Then if I click to maximize a different program, that goes next in line, and so on. But with a 2+ core CPU if I clicked to open a program it would go first in line on one processor, and when I clicked to maximize another program that would jump to first in line on the next processor? Correct? If so, then 80 cores @ 3.16Ghz would be much, much quicker at multitasking than a single core 252.8Ghz CPU since it can do 80 different processes at any given moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yeah. Picture it more like two dudes running. Having two dudes doesn't increase the speed that they run, but the work they output. ... or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) I get what you mean. It's a pretty good analogy. Basically if you had two oxen pulling a cart, instead of one oxen as strong as two . It distributes the work load across the two so they each don't have to work as hard (or in this case, have higher Ghz ratings). Edited January 22, 2008 by Picolini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutuz Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yep, thats exactly right. And Ghz doesn't matter to speed, except in comparing the same line anyway. So that would be 4 Cathy Freeman as one runner (Intel's core 2 Extreme X6800) compared to a hobo as another (The Celeron E1200) in this case, you can compare the Celeron, Pentium Dual Core and Core 2 Duo as they are the same CPU, with just some cache disabled. (thats just for future reference, I really need to keep it in my sig on Overclock.net, people keep saying "Intel is better cuz its speeds higher!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now