Author Topic: Post your PC's specs here! + Discussion about hardware (Read 133624 times)

JaisBane · « **Reply #100 on:** March 17, 2007, 05:10:22 AM »

Actually, I think This tops your dell. Just make sure you have 4 or 5 fully charged batteries as backup, this baby will drain 'em dry in just over an hour. Oh, and you might not want to set it on your lap, I imagine it gets pretty hot with two geforce go8800s. The 11.9lb weight doesn't sound too comfy either...

frblckstr1 · « **Reply #101 on:** March 17, 2007, 07:47:09 AM »

^ If those had the 20" monitor of the Acer's I might consider, sadly the Acer's has only a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo CPU... but still.

NAzu · « **Reply #102 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:38:40 PM »

Acer's laptops have crappy build quality. Too much cheap plastic and the chassis is not very rigid. When I compare my T41 to my dad's Acer it's like comparing shit to chocolate, I mean the quality is just so different.

nox_xie · « **Reply #103 on:** March 19, 2007, 04:12:30 AM »

Quote from: storyboard;329996

For some reason WD hdd always (well many times) fail on me. Every other brand of hdd i've used are still in good condition.

sorry.. me using wd for 3 year but change two time.. selling the older one to get a bigger one.. now my 36gb raptor only 5 month old and my 250gb cavier only 3 month old.. i always do like that to avoid hdd failure.. every year will sell old and buy bigger new one..

my old 40gb maxtor still ok.. buy it on 2001, still running right now in my home pc..

actually for me it not the matter of which is reliabile.. it maybe just luck.. i stated that becoz many of my fren hdd which is maxtoe died on them under one year.. maybe its their foul cause using 'cheapo' psu and not using avr in hostel room.. i'm using it and i can see such change of voltage when everyone switch on the light.. (evening-->night)..

frblckstr1 · « **Reply #104 on:** March 19, 2007, 07:06:36 AM »

^ Guys/girls check the latest longterm researches on the internet, MTBF (Mean Time between Failure) means just that: some fail early (within a year) most take longer, but all start to fail from 3-4years and up.

kakashi · « **Reply #105 on:** March 19, 2007, 08:34:23 AM »

my pc spec

Pentium D 2.8 GHZ
2 GB kingston rams 667
nvidia 7600GT graphic card
160GB sata hard disc ( donno what brand )

nox_xie · « **Reply #106 on:** March 20, 2007, 05:21:39 AM »

wha.. 2 gig of ram.. must be a gamer.. or ready for upgrade to vista?
if i not mistaken this pentium D imitate dualcore, is it right? still single core right..

off-topic, is that ur real pic?

thatguy · « **Reply #107 on:** March 20, 2007, 09:48:42 AM »

pentium D is dual core. it's the first of the dual-core desktop CPUs from intel, but the last of the old netburst microarchitecture. intel's naming convention switched during pentium D, which is why it might be confusing...
Pentium D 800 & 900 series AKA "Core Duo": dual core, netburst microarchitecture
"Core 2 Duo" (no "Pentium-" name): dual core, conroe AKA "Core" microarchitecture

i'd love to upgrade my workstation to 2gb ram, not for gaming purposes though. but im unfortunately still on P4/revB using DDR, which uncannily has yet to drop in price. as it is, 1gb of DDR2 ram is up to US$30 cheaper than a 1gb DDR chip...

-edit-
as for the hard drive discussion, i've had three drives fail on me so far: my first, a circa 2000 Maxtor 40gb which would get profusely hot, and considering it was my first self-built system, i had inadequate cooling to compensate. my second was an OEM WD that came in a LaCie external HDD, which was also inadequately cooled (but not my fault), and in similar fashioned gave up the ghost. my third now, which has actually come back into operation (though i suspect i should go ahead and back up the data and replace it), is actually a cheap refurb drive i got off of woot--and for that reason i expect it to perform like one.

none of my other 10 hdds (almost all WD) are giving me any problems. in my opinion, every hard drive will eventually die, regardless of the manufacturer. WD drives tend to generate less heat, so while it doesn't necessarily mean prolonged lifespan, it does give me one less thing to worry about.

nox_xie · « **Reply #108 on:** March 20, 2007, 03:43:33 PM »

whoaaaa... 10 hdd? must be very very big total hdd capacity..

Mayo · « **Reply #109 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:04:10 PM »

"Machine Name:   iMac
Machine Model:   PowerMac6,1
CPU Type:   PowerPC G4 (3.3)
Number Of CPUs:   1
CPU Speed:   1 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU):   256 KB
Memory:   768 MB
Bus Speed:   133 MHz
Boot ROM Version:   4.5.8f1
Serial Number:   QT3052P2NHX"

There's my effin' old G4 iMac (that I have to share. ¬¬) specs.

I want a black macbook for my own, though. *0*

chera · « **Reply #110 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:25:18 PM »

Quote from: Mayonnaise;334083

"Machine Name:   iMac
Machine Model:   PowerMac6,1
CPU Type:   PowerPC G4 (3.3)

Of all the iMacs, the G4 "desk lamp" iMac was by far the prettiest and most elegant. I'd gladly pay a premium for one if someone could fit a Core 2 Duo chip into it.

THUNDERDUCK · « **Reply #111 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:36:06 PM »

I got my copy of Vista in the mail today. I don't intend on installing anytime soon.

Kira-sama · « **Reply #112 on:** March 20, 2007, 07:54:04 PM »

My computer back at home, basic summary!:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (65W) Dual Core Socket AM2 2.1GHz, 2x512KB Cache, 2000MHz HT, 65nm
Mother Board: MSI K8N Neo4
RAM: 2GB OCZ Gold Edition Dual Channel
Graphic Card: Asus EN8800GTX/HTDP/768M nVidia GeForce 8800GTX Chipset (575MHz)
Hard Drive: Maxtor DiamondMax 320GB IDE 7200RPM 16MB Buffer

Mayo · « **Reply #113 on:** March 21, 2007, 04:21:07 AM »

Quote from: chera;334100

Of all the iMacs, the G4 "desk lamp" iMac was by far the prettiest and most elegant. I'd gladly pay a premium for one if someone could fit a Core 2 Duo chip into it.

Haha! That's the one I have even. ^_^

ahbeng · « **Reply #114 on:** March 23, 2007, 04:17:09 AM »

P4 2.8 ghz Prescott
Mobo : ASUS that I forgot the type ( its still AGP though)
VGA : HIS Radeon X1600XTpro 256
Ram : Geil 512 X 4 PC3200
HD : 160SATA + 120 ATA + 120 External WD HD (used to have 250GB and another 120...but both RIP)
Monitor : Samsung 19" 997MB
Speaker : Klipsch 2.1 Promedia
...

fbi86 · « **Reply #115 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:49:06 AM »

Cpu: qx6700
Mb: asus striker extreme
Ram: 2gig
Videocard: 8800 gtx

yea pretty much each, should of waited a bit longer, but i still think my comp sucs, and vista is lame

nox_xie · « **Reply #116 on:** March 23, 2007, 04:17:35 PM »

Quote from: Kira-sama;334230

My computer back at home, basic summary!:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (65W) Dual Core Socket AM2 2.1GHz, 2x512KB Cache, 2000MHz HT, 65nm
Mother Board: MSI K8N Neo4
RAM: 2GB OCZ Gold Edition Dual Channel
Graphic Card: Asus EN8800GTX/HTDP/768M nVidia GeForce 8800GTX Chipset (575MHz)
Hard Drive: Maxtor DiamondMax 320GB IDE 7200RPM 16MB Buffer

omg.. this is what i want right now.. an x2, msi mobo and 2gb ram.. PLUS 8800gtx.. u got money there dude.. :ONtantrum:

Quote from: fbi86;336248

Cpu: qx6700
Mb: asus striker extreme
Ram: 2gig
Videocard: 8800 gtx

yea pretty much each, should of waited a bit longer, but i still think my comp sucs, and vista is lame

can i know u use what type and wattage for psu?
quad-core + 8800gtx = power hungry rig.. :ONwahaha:

yippie.. celebrating my 200's post.. mada mada dane..

thatguy · « **Reply #117 on:** March 23, 2007, 04:32:06 PM »

actually the QX6700 isn't all that power hungry.

AMD 64 X2's dissipate 89W of heat
AMD 64 FX-62 dissipates 125W of heat
Intel QX6700 dissipates 130W of heat

of course the QX6700 consumes the most, but you have to keep in mind the significant performance advantage over the AMD64 platform, not to mention that even the FX62 is still only dual-core.

personally i would have gone with the new Q6600, which runs slightly slower at 2.4ghz, but drops the TDP to 100W.

considering that there are a good number of users that have an AMD64 FX + 7900-SLi-or-better setup, the PSU doesn't have to be anything particularly special. nowadays, the best way to treat your computer right is to get a mobo with at least 8-phase voltage regulators.

reine · « **Reply #118 on:** March 23, 2007, 04:45:31 PM »

Guys (and gals), anyone can recommend me a good video card that can run modern game well (max setting). I prefer Radeon as I had bad experience with NVIDIA chip a few times. I use LCD TV so the only resolution I'll be using is 1360x768 or 1200x1024. I haven't kept up with all up to date technology, so I'll appreciate any suggestion. Is the direct10 video card series worth waiting for?

thatguy · « **Reply #119 on:** March 23, 2007, 04:58:58 PM »

^
current directx10 cards (that is, the nvidia 8800 series) don't offer any performance advantage over top-of-the-line directx9 cards, but that's simply because there aren't yet any games that are coded to take advantage of directx10. depending on exactly what games you want to play, and how possible it is that you want to play new directx10 games as they come out, you might prefer one over another accordingly. keep in mind that nvidia is releasing the 8300 and 8600 low- and mid-range video cards very soon, so directx10 cards will be more available in lower price configurations.

besides price concerns, i can't really give you a recommendation without knowing more specifically what games you want to play. you could do well with either radeon or geforce cards... and the only things that come into mind are issues of budget and possible power consumption considerations (if your PSU has PCI-e GPU plugs, or enough juice on a rail for an adapter, etc).

with regards to your problems previously with nvidia, care to describe? people have had problems with both ati and nvidia before, and although the ball was in ati's court up until the radeon 9800 series, it'd be a shame to shrug off nvidia cards considering the performance is largely returning to nvidia (for now)... especially if it turns out to be a problem that can be easily fixed.