• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i7 or wait

The thing is I can get XP to boot running around 32MB, nice and lean.

What does Vista consume as standard?

I see so many people now with 4-8GB of RAM and it just amazes me, I've never needed more than 2GB and even after 18 months my machine still flys!
 
okay i was thinking that but needed to be sure. looks like i wont be getting a i7 after all

@Edleake.....i think vista eats up 2GB
 
There is so much misinformation around Windows Vista it's absolutely shocking. You get arguments ranging from Windows Vista is a resource hog, User Account Control is nothing but a useless feature to it's the new Windows Millennium. Yet, if people had done their own research on the topic instead of following everyone else's misguided opinion, maybe Windows Vista wouldn't be trashed like it was and still is, to a certain extent.

The main problem with Windows Vista upon release was the compatibility side of things. However, these are now very far and few between. Now, In terms of the underlying technology, Windows Vista is miles ahead of Windows XP.
 
Last edited:
Well, when I "Alt-Tab" during a game on my Vista 64bit system with 4 gig ram, my pc sees about 1.5-1.7 left, depending So with only 2 gigs instsalled, i would be file swapping here i think.

As for original post, going from 4.6ghz e8500 to i7 920 LOL!!! (may even be a "downgrade" depending on use)


~Ant
 
Miss information? I've been in IT for 14 years, and no I'm not a support monkey.

We've got a few Vista test beds at work and on the same hardware as XP, they are slower.

We've had a massive Vista project shelved because we can't yet see any reason to migrate from XP.

My point about memory useage was that a lean OS makes for a fast OS, in stock form XP is by no means lean and Vista is even heavier handed, they both need tweaking.

I guess I just like XP, it works fine for me and always has. :)
 
Fire Wizard said:
In terms of the underlying technology, Windows Vista is miles ahead of Windows XP.
Click to expand...

Yes. And also, when setting up windows media centre to get my TV tuner working, i did none other than put my USB tv adaptor in, and Vista scanned this without any need for loading drivers in etc (got all channels working). Vista's mainly all good now, except for a few none 64 bit programs - and 2-3000 less 3dmarks (06):(


~Ant
 
i wont be getting a i7 now....i was thinking before the i7 was a much better CPU than the dual and quadcore but its all clear now from the new info i have been told that the CPU i have now is Running just as fast if not faster than a i7 right?
 
If you can get the i7 upto 4GHz or just over it'll be about equal... in games they'll be equal but so would a £120 AMD X3 720.

If games are your thing you are well positioned right now and have no need to upgrade your CPU, in fact if you kept upgrading your graphics card I would suggest your CPU would last some years yet.
 
thanks for all of the information guys cos i've been meaning to ask this question myself since i'm considering upgrading to an I7 also. Seems that AMD are going to release an octocore processor soon now also so i guess thats going to blow thing's wide open again, so the real question will be Intel Octocore or AMD Octocore.
 
Last edited:
mythrandyr said:
thanks for all of the information guys cos i've been meaning to ask this question myself since i'm considering upgrading to an I7 also. Seems that AMD are going to release an octocore processor soon now also so i guess thats going to blow thing's wide open again, so the real question will be Intel Octocore or AMD Octocore.
Click to expand...

Don't bother with Octocore just yet. Look at how long Quad's have been out (2 1/2 years?) and look how many programs support them (10%, if that?). Octocore doesn't mean you'll get 8 the processing power than a single core. You might have the POTENTIAL to get that, but until programs are able to split tasks and utilize those extra cores, they go to waste.

Very very few programs are going to support Octocore when it comes out, and those that do will probably only be either benchmarking programs, contribution processing (like F@H) and the occasional piece of expensive work software, like CAD, 3D, photoshop (although the difference will be negligible ecept for e-penor size) and such. Video encoding will gain a bonus, but unless you do a lot of that, the octocore will not be worth shelling out for.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the "soon to be" 8 core CPU's are server Xeon processors, and won't fit regular desktops.

Trust me, a tri/quad-GPU setup will do a lot more for you in gaming than Octocore ever will. And that, is where i7 will help, as a more efficient processor as well as better motherboards reduce the chance that they will bottleneck you. If you're going to go for i7, by all means do it, but I reckon the best upgrade path would be more/better GPU(s), if not both.
 
Last edited:
well it's not just gaming is it? its anything that isnt programmed to take full advantage of octocore processing technology. At the minute i think that they need to hang back on hardware research/development and allow software the time to catch up otherwise it's just more or less another gimmick. It's been more or less the same way also for 64 bit software. how many games are their these days though that support quad core? just out of interest?
 
I went to i7 on first release. For what I use it for I have noticed very little difference. That said I 'upgraded' from a QX9770 which in some tests is better than i7. Lucklily I didn't pay for this upgrade, if it were my money I certainly would not have made the jump as the differences are minimal apart from memory intensive programs.
 
sell the 4870 and get an X2, think you have more enough plus a little overkill till new generation i7's like westmere and sandbridge ;)

i think you convinced me to get a E8500 :D would be happy with a nice round 4ghz :)
 
DeathTyrant said:
Buy another 4870. That is what I would do if I had your rig. Either that, or buy something wicked fast, like a 4870X2/GTX 295.
Click to expand...

cant m8 PSU wont be powerful enough plus dont have enough Molex's PSU now only got 2 and i dont know if i want to go thur unpluging everything to hook up a new PSU and do cable management again
 
Dealz said:
Isnt the i7 a better and faster CPU than dualcore and quadcore? do you know what nehalem is? is there really going to be a Octcore?
Click to expand...

Do you know what Google is? At least do some basic research first...

i7 is not a worthwhile upgrade from a 4.6ghz wolfdale if you're purely a gamer.
 
Its faster sometimes to just ask people who knows i dont always have time to look at google plus you dont always find what your looking for and thats what the forums are for right to ask questions and to discuss things
 
Dealz said:
Its faster sometimes to just ask people who knows i dont always have time to look at google
Click to expand...

It's just lazy and a bit rude to be honest. Doing a bit of legwork yourself rather than relying on people do do all the work for you is basic forum netiquette. Of course you have time to research, just as you have time to post and read here. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom