Elysian Shadows

Recently I have decided that it is time for me to buy a new gaming desktop, due to outdated hardware in my current machine. I have attempted to upgrade the GPU, but for some reason it seems to be rejected in general by the machine, most likely an unsolvable problem as I have tried everything that I can possibely do and everything nVidia customer service could suggest. So, I've built a spec. on a website and wanted some feedback as to what you think about it, since I have very little experience in buying an entirely new machine. Here are the specs:

Processor: AMD ATHLON II X4 620 SOCKET AM3 (2.6GHz/2MB CACHE) (Quad Core)
Memory: 4GB Dual-DDR3 1600MHz
Motherboard: ASUS® M4A785TD-V EVO: DUAL DDR3, S-ATA II, 2 x PCIe x16, 1 x PCIe x1, 3 x PCI
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (32-bit)
Hard Drive: 1TB, 16MB Cache (7,200rpm)
GPU: 1GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GT240 PCI EXPRESS

Along with some extra cooling and a 600W PSU. Comes to £651, not sure what that is in USD. So, any suggestions to change this in any way?

I certainly hope you plan on using a monitor.

TheFinalFanatic wrote:Processor: AMD ATHLON II X4 620 SOCKET AM3 (2.6GHz/2MB CACHE) (Quad Core)
Memory: 4GB Dual-DDR3 1600MHz
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (32-bit)

Is there a reason that you want 32-bit Windows 7? The version I got came with a 32 and 64-bit disc, so the price certainly isn't different. Not to mention, you'll only get 3-gigs of RAM out of a 32-bit OS - you'd be wasting money. Other than that, everything looks good to me. Also, it doesn't specify, so I'd make sure the HDD is SATA.

JaxDragon wrote:I certainly hope you plan on using a monitor.

I definetly do

aamesxdavid wrote:

TheFinalFanatic wrote:Processor: AMD ATHLON II X4 620 SOCKET AM3 (2.6GHz/2MB CACHE) (Quad Core)
Memory: 4GB Dual-DDR3 1600MHz
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (32-bit)

Is there a reason that you want 32-bit Windows 7? The version I got came with a 32 and 64-bit disc, so the price certainly isn't different. Not to mention, you'll only get 3-gigs of RAM out of a 32-bit OS - you'd be wasting money. Other than that, everything looks good to me. Also, it doesn't specify, so I'd make sure the HDD is SATA.

32-bit OS's have much less compatibility issues with software, or so I've been told. Plus, I'm pretty sure 32-bit handles 4GB of RAM. The website states that the HDD is ATA, but is that the same as SATA?

1. Since Vista, 32bit will handle a max of 4gb

2. ATA/SATA, same difference, I have seen them both written the same way, not sure why personally.

3. 64bit compatibility issues have been on the vast decline the last 4 years as it's no longer so 'new'. I had issues with XP 64bit, a lot less with Vista 64bit, and even less with Windows 7 64bit, so you'll probably be fine. Any old software can probably be run in some sort of compatibility mode or maybe even have a patch for 64bit if it's popular enough, or will just simply ignore the fact that the OS is 64bit in some way. Vista/7 both have to Program Files folders, one is called Program Files(x86) which seems to default for non-64bit specific programs that I use, but I'm not 100% on all of that.

I'd go 64bit especially with desktops since they're so easy to upgrade and you'll be limited with 32bit.

TheFinalFanatic wrote:The website states that the HDD is ATA, but is that the same as SATA?

Yes, I'm pretty sure they are the same thing.

TheFinalFanatic wrote:Plus, I'm pretty sure 32-bit handles 4GB of RAM.

Read this: http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions and info. I've decided that a 64bit OS is probably the way to go. As Trask said, it would make upgrading in the future much easier. I'm pretty sure all of the rest is fine. I'm geussing the GPU would be good enough as well? I've never bought a 200 series GeForce card before, I'm just geussing that these are a step up from the 9 series cards?

I don't know about the gt 240, but i know the gt 220 is pretty good. I would assume the 240 is better than the 220, and as such, I am going to make the assumption that it is indeed a good card.

ATA:


SATA:

I thought that first pic of ATA was an IDE connection?

I just installed Windows 7 32x with 4gb of RAM installed and I'm only given 3.5gb.

Trask wrote:I thought that first pic of ATA was an IDE connection?

(P)ATA == IDE

JaxDragon wrote:

TheFinalFanatic wrote:The website states that the HDD is ATA, but is that the same as SATA?

Yes, I'm pretty sure they are the same thing.

No, they're not. ATA == PATA. PATA != SATA. Parallel != Serial.

All the new stuff is SATA, by the way.

A 64 bit OS is definitely the way to do. I wouldn't be too concerned about compatibility issues these days. Most Windows 7 systems are actually shipping 64-bit actually.


And just to clarify, the 4gb limit has nothing to do with the development of the OS but rather the 32bit architecture. A 32bit OS has 2 to the 32nd power (2^32) of addressable space for ALL memory (cpu, gpu, RAM, etc..). So while the 2^32 actually gives you about 4.29Gb of total adressable space, the actual RAM being used will generally fall somewhere between 3 and 4Gb. Also worth noting, a 64-bit OS does not give you twice the amount of addressable space, it actually gives you WAY MORE. 2^64 to be exact. Thats about 18,446,744,073Gb.

JaxDragon wrote:I don't know about the gt 240, but i know the gt 220 is pretty good. I would assume the 240 is better than the 220, and as such, I am going to make the assumption that it is indeed a good card.

That is exactly what they want you to think and it's not true in general

The GTX260 is a good compromise between power and price.