The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official] - Page 1562 - Overclock.net

BlackOmega · 05-16-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

Hey, Black Omega, did you see my previous post about the cheap temp monitor, that we were talking about earlier?

Also, my dual Socket A, Athlon XP3200+ server box was for the win...

I did tator, sorry I didn't reply I had to run really quickly. Thanks for finding that though, I'm going to see if I can find any more specific information about it like how it attaches and whatnot.

Thanks again man

Tator Tot · 05-16-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackOmega

I did tator, sorry I didn't reply I had to run really quickly. Thanks for finding that though, I'm going to see if I can find any more specific information about it like how it attaches and whatnot.

Thanks again man

If you look at the pictures.

Their are two cables with little brown plastic tabs, you just tape those to, or slip them under what you want measured.

And those monitor the temps.

The Apevia X-Qpack, & X-Master cases have small LCDs in the front that have those temp monitor wires attached to them, so you can measure you're CPU temp.

blitz6804 · 05-16-09

Yeah; like most temperature sensors, you power it with a floppy connector, and then tape the probes with the included double-sided tape to what you want monitored. Some people will attach one to the side of the IHS. I personally have mine right now sitting in the middle of the duct going from the outside of the case to the CPU fan; this will give me a real-time look at case ambient whenever I want it. Since mine has the ability to control fan speed in relation to temperatures, I have the thermometers near their respective fans. For example, another thermometer is next to the hard drive.

**thlnk3r** · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Of the Windows 4 generation, I believe Win95 was the best.

Blitz, I always thought out of the 4.x generation that Windows 98SE was the better of the four. I can't really say Win98SE was stable all the time though. I had to do a reformat at least once a Month

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

But by the reception of many, and it being known as 7, they'll go with that.

Tator, I agree. I can't imagine any other reason why Microsoft would not use "Windows 7". I'll wait for the first service pack before purchasing the OS.

Good luck

**txtmstrjoe** · 05-17-09

Question: When does one "need" 64-bit computing at the present time? I ask not to be provocative, but only because I'm in a state of complete ignorance right now. I've never run a 64-bit OS, have never run any application that requires a 64-bit OS, nor have bought any flavor of 64-bit OS.

I'm with thlnk3r vis-a-vis Windows 7. I will admit, though, that this is the first and only Windows OS that I am actually excited about. Hopefully it's fairly solid out of the box, and so won't require a Service Pack update from the outset (i.e., be in desperate need of dramatic improvements due to a flawed initial release). I'm thinking about moving on from S939 no earlier than May 2010, and if Windows 7 is a must-have OS, that will be the OS of choice for my first post-S939 machine.

**thlnk3r** · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by txtmstrjoe

Question: When does one "need" 64-bit computing at the present time? I ask not to be provocative, but only because I'm in a state of complete ignorance right now. I've never run a 64-bit OS, have never run any application that requires a 64-bit OS, nor have bought any flavor of 64-bit OS.

Joe, I think the justification/reasoning for a 64-bit OS is purely on the user end. I see no need for it at this time.

Who here running 64-bit XP/Vista is running any 64-bit applications? Whats the performance like?

Thanks

Tator Tot · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

Joe, I think the justification/reasoning for a 64-bit OS is purely on the user end. I see no need for it at this time.

Who here running 64-bit XP/Vista is running any 64-bit applications? Whats the performance like?

Thanks

The pure and simple, is 64 bit apps that I run (Maya, 3DsMAx, & Adobe CS4) get an easier and better path to using the amount of RAM they use.

Some 32bit apps, by the way they are coded, can only use up to 4GB of RAM. But when you run their 64bit counter part, they can use up to 128GB (I think that's the 64bit limit...not 100% sure.) And in the case of Maya, 3DsMax, & Adobe CS4; the performance increase is stellar.

The programs load up faster, they render quicker. And you can store more data in the RAM instead of having to use your Page File. Which equates to quicker access time.

FYI, most 64bit Window's apps come in .msi installers, instead of .exe.

But more or less, it comes down the ability to better utilize your RAM. And Multi-task.

Some people say that 64bit Vista is more stable than 32bit, and from running both on the same hardware, I can say that I got a higher stable OC in Vista 64bit. (Not higher than XP 32bit) And had a better user experience.

Though, I am currently on Windows XP 32bit, because of some issues I was having with Vista & Hardware.

My current temporary NIC doesn't have "official" drivers for Vista, thus I'm using some user made ones.

The reason I'm using such an old NIC is because my board's NICs went bad.

Long story made short, I rolled back to XP 32bit. While I loose obvious performance in some Apps, its not enough to warrent my computer having driver related crashes while on the internet sometimes.

BlackOmega · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by txtmstrjoe

Question: When does one "need" 64-bit computing at the present time? I ask not to be provocative, but only because I'm in a state of complete ignorance right now. I've never run a 64-bit OS, have never run any application that requires a 64-bit OS, nor have bought any flavor of 64-bit OS.

I don't think that at the moment there is a need for a 64 bit OS unless you're doing 3D rendering like tator .
I would probably use a 64bit OS if it was given to me. But I'm not in any rush to go out and buy one. Once games become 64 bit required, I'll probably switch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

The pure and simple, is 64 bit apps that I run (Maya, 3DsMAx, & Adobe CS4) get an easier and better path to using the amount of RAM they use.

Some 32bit apps, by the way they are coded, can only use up to 4GB of RAM. But when you run their 64bit counter part, they can use up to 128GB (I think that's the 64bit limit...not 100% sure.) And in the case of Maya, 3DsMax, & Adobe CS4; the performance increase is stellar.

That friend of mine that had the dual P3 machine used to use Maya and 3Dstudio max. I recall some of his models would take 24 hours to render on that machine

And I do recall reading that the 64 bit OS's can utilize up to 128GB RAM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

Though, I am currently on Windows XP 32bit, because of some issues I was having with Vista & Hardware.

Long story made short, I rolled back to XP 32bit. While I loose obvious performance in some Apps, its not enough to warrent my computer having driver related crashes while on the internet sometimes.

This is exactly the reason why I'm not in any rush to go out and get Vista.

Xp does what I need it to and best of all it was free. (given to me)

Tator Tot · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackOmega

That friend of mine that had the dual P3 machine used to use Maya and 3Dstudio max. I recall some of his models would take 24 hours to render on that machine

That would be more related to CPU most likely, and not RAM. Because I'm considering he atleast used 2gb of RAM.

If not...well...I need to do unspeakable things to that man.

blitz6804 · 05-17-09

If I remember right, under Vista x64, 32-bit applications can use a maximum of 2 GB of memory; 64-bit applications have a substantially higher amount. Very few of the applications I use ARE 64-bit.

However, the big thing is RAM. With my Toledo and an HD 3850, I could run x86 no problem; I had access to about 3.5 GB of RAM. (3.25 GB with the PCI-E flavor.) However, as the graphics card uses more RAM, you have less system RAM available. Unless I am mistaken, my present sig rig would get only 1.75 GB to play with in a 32-bit operating system.

Now, this may or may not be a problem. I know personally, in a 32-bit OS, I use upwards of 3 GB of memory, so that would be a problem. Note though, in a 64-bit OS I use upwards of 4 GB of memory. So really, if you need more RAM, got o 64-bit. But, you will use more RAM. Every single x86 program ran in x64 uses more memory. I have yet to find an exception to that yet. The x64-optimized programs tend to use less than the x86-optimized programs. Further, they sometimes work faster.

Also note that a downside of Vista, regardless of the number of bits in your flavor, cannot run 16-bit software. If you use 16-bit programs (which I do) you need to keep an XP rig around, dual boot, or run a virtual machine.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > AMD > AMD - General
The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)