sorry boss
shut up stulid alt, no one even mentioned consoles and watch your language.
£450 bulid - Intel cpu and using XP.
- Thread starter Failsafe
- Start date
shut up stulid alt, no one even mentioned consoles and watch your language.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
Step away from the Red Bull or Double Black Coffees chaps. Everyone around here seems to be so instantly tetchy lately. Chill out folks it will soon be spring........
Last edited:
watch your brain
If it's purely for gaming then yes, you will get better performance.
I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question ... but is 1600MHz the best choice for this combination? Will it work at that frequency? Intel site says that the correct RAM for this cpu is max 1333.
Could you please explain this choice ... again ... I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. I am obviously missing something.
Thanks
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 2,146
- Location
- South Shields
oops, didnt see mods comments :d removed before i get seen, soz!
however, what i was going to say was that i agree with stulid and dark about having a little less when gaming, rather than a lot less, 2gb compared with 3.3 or 3.5gb from a 4gb pack. And with WoW, i would have thought 4gb, or near enough 4gb would have been a lot better option?
however2, i think the thread creator said somewhere he was more than likely not to upgrade in the future? i think he was referring to the cpu more than the whole pc itself.
however, what i was going to say was that i agree with stulid and dark about having a little less when gaming, rather than a lot less, 2gb compared with 3.3 or 3.5gb from a 4gb pack. And with WoW, i would have thought 4gb, or near enough 4gb would have been a lot better option?
however2, i think the thread creator said somewhere he was more than likely not to upgrade in the future? i think he was referring to the cpu more than the whole pc itself.
Last edited:
I thought windows xp 32 accessed 3.5gb of ram max?
In which case it's still 1.5 gb more than 2gb and doesnt bottle neck you later for your planned upgrade.
To original poster. I'd go with stulids 1st build. Its worth spending a little extra not to be needing an upgrade in a year or two. It also means you can run other games if you so fancy it.
In which case it's still 1.5 gb more than 2gb and doesnt bottle neck you later for your planned upgrade.
To original poster. I'd go with stulids 1st build. Its worth spending a little extra not to be needing an upgrade in a year or two. It also means you can run other games if you so fancy it.
Can anyone confirm the Ram choice for this set up please?
Its the right choice, and is actually cheaper than 1333mhz stuff as its more common, it will work at 1333mhz speed as that is the default used by intel systems, the ram is rated upto 1600mhz and this can be achieved by overclocking and adjusting the the motherboard BIOS settings.
For christs sake please don't start this up again mate. LOL
ah fail. Didnt notice 2nd page.
Stulids intel sandy bridge 2400 build is the one to go for.
He might have been sarcastic & slightly rude in his replies but he's right and he helps A LOT of people out by specing them new systems. He's a national treasure on these boards!
great CPU and 4gb of ram is great. Sure you might only get just over 3 gig of ram on windows 32bit. But the price difference between 4 and 2 gig of ram is minor. 4gb is so cheap and future proof.
Windows 7 is excellent and very cheap also.
He might have been sarcastic & slightly rude in his replies but he's right and he helps A LOT of people out by specing them new systems. He's a national treasure on these boards!
great CPU and 4gb of ram is great. Sure you might only get just over 3 gig of ram on windows 32bit. But the price difference between 4 and 2 gig of ram is minor. 4gb is so cheap and future proof.
Windows 7 is excellent and very cheap also.