• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Conroe fast enough for Vista?

L

LordJezo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
471
I am thinking about upgrading from an XP 2100+ to a mid range Conroe system, but, with DX 10 and Vista just around the corner is it worth upgrading?

I know, I know.. "something better is always around the corner and if you wait you'll never upgrade", but, normally it's just a little silly upgrade or a new card or a new chipset that is not that big of a deal.

Vista and DX 10 is the next revolution. It's pretty much setting the stage for PC gaming for many years to come. If I lock myself out of that by getting an underpowered system I'll be kicking myself later. Microsoft is going to force us all on to the new platform and I want to be ready for it. It would be like buying an Xbox the day before the Xbox 360 comes out. Sure, I'll get a lot of use out of it but eventually everything will be only on the 360 and the original will be left in the dust. I'd rather sacrifice another 6 months of sub-par PC performance than jump the gun and be locked out for years to come.

Anyone? I have been reading about how Vista will have system requirements higher and faster than most people own today. If you want full features you'll need a pretty high rig to get it all running. That's why I ask.
 
"Conroe fast enough for Vista?"

Sorry, no. The fastest CPU available is not fast enough for Vista. :p
 
No , you need an Altix 3700 like NASA has. :rolleyes:

columbia_topview.jpg
 
Yeah, that's pretty much my worry, I know its sarcasm but its sarcasm rooted in truth.

From what I've been reading Vista is going to have a needed system spec sheet higher than almost everyone has. The GUI alone is going to require a top of the line video card, just imagine how hardcore of a system you'll need to run games on it.
 
That is absolutely 100% false.

Where do people still keep coming up with this garbage? Just go look at any major news site and you can clearly see the minium requirements for Vista....which is really not steep at all.
 
LordJezo said:
From what I've been reading Vista is going to have a needed system spec sheet higher than almost everyone has. The GUI alone is going to require a top of the line video card, just imagine how hardcore of a system you'll need to run games on it.
Click to expand...
False and false. Most mainstream CPUs from the last 2-3 years are fast enough to run Vista. MS recommends 1GB for "Premium Ready PCs" but I'd say that more like 1.5GB to get the same responsiveness in Vista as with 1GB in WinXP.

The GUI requirements are modest: hardware PS2.0 (DX9) and 64MB memory for up to 1280x1024 or 1440x900, -or- 128MB memory for up to 1920x1200, -or- 256MB for over 1920x1200. Even a FX5200 card or GMA 950 integrated graphics runs 3D accelerated Aero. You don't need anywhere near a "top of the line" video card to run full Aero.

I've been running Vista betas since December on various PCs. Even a Celeron D with 1GB can run Vista decently. And before MS disabled work-arounds on 3D Aero, my GMA 900 ran the GUI pretty decently.

I agree many people probably don't have PCs with 1GB memory and/or lack hardware PS2.0 (or have a GMA900, which has PS2.0 but is unsupported) to run Aero. Neither are "required" and Aero Lite still looks pretty good. Running Vista with 512MB would be pretty horrible, IMO. Adding memory is pretty cheap and video card upgrades are readily available, even for those with only PCI slots (6200 PCI).

It's not hard for someone building his own system to configure it to run Vista well, even on a budget. And that's especially true of someone willing to buy a Conroe. I can see it now: I bought a E6600 and am using a MX4000 PCI card since I didn't have enough left over for a new video card. :p Not very likely, and even so it's not Vista's fault.
 
|CR|Constantine said:
That is absolutely 100% false.

Where do people still keep coming up with this garbage? Just go look at any major news site and you can clearly see the minium requirements for Vista....which is really not steep at all.
Click to expand...

Vista is one millimeter away from being unuseable and looks like complete doo doo on a system with M$'s minimum specs, XP is "useable" with 128Mb's of memory, but it's not worth using IMO with less than 512Mb's

based on my personal Vista experience to date, a system would have:

skt775 Conroe or AM2(dual core) CPU
2Gb's memory
DX9 vid card
HDD's are nearly going to need to be those new upcoming hybrid drives with flash memory integrated (50+Mb's)

the memory amount and HDD performance seems to be more important than the CPU
 
nobody_here said:
Vista is one millimeter away from being unuseable and looks like complete doo doo on a system with M$'s minimum specs, XP is "useable" with 128Mb's of memory, but it's not worth using IMO with less than 512Mb's

based on my personal Vista experience to date, a system would have:

skt775 Conroe or AM2(dual core) CPU
2Gb's memory
DX9 vid card
HDD's are nearly going to need to be those new upcoming hybrid drives with flash memory integrated (50+Mb's)

the memory amount and HDD performance seems to be more important than the CPU
Click to expand...

Pro
That last line is very important but the guy I saw playing only had a WD KS2500 like I use with a 16MB cache. 2GB is Fine but 4GB rocks, unless having to install more means slowing it down, *cough AMD/nForce cough*. His 930 and nothing to write home about X850XT wasn exactly high end either.

Con
I think I'll stick with WinXP and Star Dock :) Unless MS changes, this is my last MS-OS. Limiting DX-10 to Vista put me over the edge. No more, it ends there.
 
and what abt when all the newest games/media functions require vista?

linux? well.... not unless you are a nuclear scientist.....
 
Guys I hear Vista actually won't run on any current or next-gen CPU's, it will require us to wait about five years before it will install. True story. The beta2 that recently went up for download on MS's site.. Nobody can use it. All of the "screenshots" are just artist's renditions of what they think Vista might look like.

Strangely, much like other MS OS's, since no PC exists that can run it, MS can't test it. So it's just going out in whatever condition it's in when they think it's ready.
 
if you guys want to see the major bloat in vista just go download it, and people saying 512 is minimum is wrong 1 gig is minimum, upon boot with a little tweak (noting serious) i have 600+ meg allocated, with a couple of ie windows and wmp playing songs it's up around 900 meg, so even 2 gigs won't be enough when the next large mem (bf2) game comes out.
 
Bigjohns97 said:
if you guys want to see the major bloat in vista just go download it, and people saying 512 is minimum is wrong 1 gig is minimum, upon boot with a little tweak (noting serious) i have 600+ meg allocated, with a couple of ie windows and wmp playing songs it's up around 900 meg, so even 2 gigs won't be enough when the next large mem (bf2) game comes out.
Click to expand...


You do realize that it's a BETA right? More than likely it'll be more optimized when it's released, hopefully. Also.... even with XP you get different "flavors" for the setups that you are running. I've ran XP Pro on P3 Laptops with 256mb of RAM. I just turned everything visual down and it didn't run that bad. Same thing goes with Vista. If you have a "budget PC" then don't go out and buy the Vista EXTREME edition and expect to run all the visuals maxed out. You buy the "home" edition and adjust the visuals for performance. That's one thing that's nice about Microsoft's OS.... you can tailor it for your PC and it's capabilities.
 
I thought I'd just pop in and mention that I've got Vista Beta 2 64-bit running on a Sempron 3400+ with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce 6100 integrated solution here at work, and it works just fine, Aero included.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
and what abt when all the newest games/media functions require vista?

linux? well.... not unless you are a nuclear scientist.....
Click to expand...

I'll be screwed! Then I'll play the old ones until I'm just totally burnt out. I'll then just get an PS3 or XBox360.
 
Donnie27 said:
I'll be screwed! Then I'll play the old ones until I'm just totally burnt out. I'll then just get an PS3 or XBox360.
Click to expand...

lol so much for anti-microsoft.
 
pxc said:
Poor RAM starved system.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's very interesting, Vista runs fairly well on 512MB of RAM. It's better than XP on 256MB. It seems as though Vista handles I/O and task management better. I've read that they have done optimizations in this area, but it honestly "feels" like Vista hitting the HDD page file vs. XP hitting the HDD page file is a bit "smoother" in day to day usage. It is entirely subjective, however, and I still think 1GB is the minimum I'd be comfortable with, but I can't deny that 512MB isn't as bad as it could be.
 
vista bet a 2 ran smooth and responsive on my systems


Dual core 820D
2g DDR2666 ram

and a PCI gf 4 440mx 64mb vid card.....


So for all those bashing it - who said you have to buy it? who says you have to use Aero?

For those who can, why not make use of that $500 video card while on the desktop to make your computer experience more pleasent, for most people.
 
MrGuvernment said:
vista bet a 2 ran smooth and responsive on my systems


Dual core 820D
2g DDR2666 ram

and a PCI gf 4 440mx 64mb vid card.....


So for all those bashing it - who said you have to buy it? who says you have to use Aero?

For those who can, why not make use of that $500 video card while on the desktop to make your computer experience more pleasent, for most people.
Click to expand...

So have you heard how much the gamer version will costs?
 
Chris_Morley said:
I thought I'd just pop in and mention that I've got Vista Beta 2 64-bit running on a Sempron 3400+ with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce 6100 integrated solution here at work, and it works just fine, Aero included.
Click to expand...


"just fine" is different for each person though, Vista Beta 2 was much less responsive than XP Pro, my idle XP install uses 200Mb +/- of memory, VB2 used 750Mb's sitting idle, 800Mb's idle one TM PCCillin was installed, 850Mb's with IE7 open, which left only 150Mb's free to run anything else

and it nearly continually raped my HDD's, i would hate to see your HDD activity light with 512Mb's of memory, probably a three way gang bang goin' on in the HDD cage :eek:
 
nobody_here said:
"just fine" is different for each person though, Vista Beta 2 was much less responsive than XP Pro, my idle XP install uses 200Mb +/- of memory, VB2 used 750Mb's sitting idle, 800Mb's idle one TM PCCillin was installed, 850Mb's with IE7 open, which left only 150Mb's free to run anything else

and it nearly continually raped my HDD's, i would hate to see your HDD activity light with 512Mb's of memory, probably a three way gang bang goin' on in the HDD cage :eek:
Click to expand...
I'm just telling you it's not that bad.
 
probably a three way gang bang goin' on in the HDD cage
Click to expand...
:p





I don't know... If Conroe ISN'T fast enough, well what other options do we have? I don't forsee VIA or AMD releasing a significantly better processor than Intel's latest creation, at least not in the near future. (Course, when Vista DOES go retail, you know... in 2010 or so, we might have something to talk about).
 
Conroe will be fast enough to play UT3K9, Doom 6 and Daikatana all at once without a video card, make you breakfast, do your homework, and kill your enemies all while having sex with your mother.

I'm sure Vista won't be a problem.
 
nobody_here said:
"just fine" is different for each person though, Vista Beta 2 was much less responsive than XP Pro, my idle XP install uses 200Mb +/- of memory, VB2 used 750Mb's sitting idle, 800Mb's idle one TM PCCillin was installed, 850Mb's with IE7 open, which left only 150Mb's free to run anything else

and it nearly continually raped my HDD's, i would hate to see your HDD activity light with 512Mb's of memory, probably a three way gang bang goin' on in the HDD cage :eek:
Click to expand...

My next system will have 2GB and I have the DDR2 800 waiting for Mobo and Processor. Yet, what you're saying is partof the reason I don't want Vista. I'm running a hacked or modded version of it on WinXP now. Thanks to Star Dock, DesktopFX, Object Dock, Windowblinds and etc....
 
MrGuvernment said:
Not sure i want to know, but now that i have my x1900 XT.....
Click to expand...

I'm trying to get a bud to sell me his X1800XL that's really an XT. Don't look like I'll get it though. It's kind of cool of him to let me test it out! Might have to get something Cheaper, geesh! I hate I missed that sale.
 
Chris_Morley said:
I'm just telling you it's not that bad.
Click to expand...


yeah, thats my point though, running it on the system in my sig was borderline acceptable to me, but the fact that all i could really do with it on that system was surf the web and email, forget gaming or anything that would need more than 200Mb's of memory......well, thats entirely unacceptable to me

when a system that is arguably top tier today can barely pull off running the OS alone and cannot even run any serious apps without chugging......thats not a good thing any way you slice it, Vista is going to be best used on hardware not available yet
 
My next system will have 2GB and I have the DDR2 800 waiting for Mobo and Processor. Yet, what you're saying is partof the reason I don't want Vista. I'm running a hacked or modded version of it on WinXP now. Thanks to Star Dock, DesktopFX, Object Dock, Windowblinds and etc....
Click to expand...

But isn't DX 10 going to be Vista only? Will we even have an option not to upgrade?
 
The jury is still out on the release dates of titles that will use DX10. Plus nobody ahs really shown us the actual gameplay differences between DX9 and 10. I've seen some concept stuff, but when the devs done't eve have silicon to test on, It's hard to show off. I'm sure we can see screenshots of actual gameplay today- running in emulation, probably at seconds/frame :)

It appears that I can use a first gen DX10 card to heat my house in winter, if what I've read is true. The first gen of a DX silicon has always been inferior comapred to second gen as far as features. Maybe this launch will be differnt due to the fundamental changes. I hope they have teh features, and second gen is /faster/smaller die/cheaper/cooler.
 
Whenever I see posts about something being "fast enough" for the latest and greatest OS and apps, I just chuckle a bit. I run W2003 Enterprise on PIII 500 Xeons. Yeah, it's pretty slow, but runs stable and gets the job done. So yeah, Core2 will be more than enough for Vista.

What is everyone worried about with Vista and DX10? Will be at least a couple of years before both of these become the standard.
 
Rocco123 said:
Whenever I see posts about something being "fast enough" for the latest and greatest OS and apps, I just chuckle a bit. I run W2003 Enterprise on PIII 500 Xeons. Yeah, it's pretty slow, but runs stable and gets the job done. So yeah, Core2 will be more than enough for Vista.

What is everyone worried about with Vista and DX10? Will be at least a couple of years before both of these become the standard.
Click to expand...


well, considering the audience, i would say alot of people here want to know these things, many people here don't wait for anything to necessarily become a "standard", things like SLI, Crossfire, and other bleeding edge technologies are not what i would consider a standard, yet many people here want to be on the bleeding edge, it's all about having the latest, in March of 2007 when Vista is officially out and a few DX10 game titles are out, bet your ass a bunch of people here will have or want to have a very fast system to run Vista & DX10

as of right now, i would say there is no system in production that will run Vista as well as we are running XP, of course, that should be the case considering Vista isn't actually due till Q1 2007, but by then these hybrid HDD's i keep reading about should be available, which should make a big difference, i really think that one piece of hardware is going to make a huge difference in Vista because of the way it is made to run, at least as of now, it runs off the HDD all the time, a 7200rpm 16Mb cache HDD will be a bottleneck by then

as far as the CPU, i think the latest now is plenty, but then again, i think the CPU is much less important than memory speed/amount and HDD performance
 
Rocco123 said:
Whenever I see posts about something being "fast enough" for the latest and greatest OS and apps, I just chuckle a bit. I run W2003 Enterprise on PIII 500 Xeons. Yeah, it's pretty slow, but runs stable and gets the job done. So yeah, Core2 will be more than enough for Vista.

What is everyone worried about with Vista and DX10? Will be at least a couple of years before both of these become the standard.
Click to expand...



i got server 2003 standard on 4 comps here, 2 are 1ghz single chips, 1 is a dual PIII 733 system - is actually an exchange server with 1g of ram and soem SCSI drives and it actually runs dam good! considering it also has the domain controller and Active directory on the same system (i know i should but had no choice)
 
Ok let me tell u something. I ran vista on this computer, and it ran not super fast, but fast enough to use it:

AMD 1500+
1GB
NVIDIA FX5200
POS Motherboard

Put it this way, if i can run vista at a nice speed with that POS, conroe will run vista perfectly. :D
 
Now the DX10 issue has me more worried than the Vista one.

It seems like MS is forcing people into Vista and there will be no stopping it. As soon as games require DX10 we're all screwed, at least with the DX9 games all I needed was a video card upgrade and I was good to go for a little while longer. Now it's a whole new OS, major system upgrades, and massive video card changes. Hell, most people still dont have DX9 cards and they are already forcing an upgrade.

PC gaming is going to become like console gaming with major upgrades required every few years in order to keep playing, entire new systems will need to be built just to get the latest games. Them completely throwing out XP already is horrible.
 
I ran vista on a secondary box, Dual AthlonMP 1.2’s with 1Gb PC2100 and a 250Gb 8meg cache western digital drive. It ran great.
 
Arcygenical said:
:p





I don't know... If Conroe ISN'T fast enough, well what other options do we have? I don't forsee VIA or AMD releasing a significantly better processor than Intel's latest creation, at least not in the near future. (Course, when Vista DOES go retail, you know... in 2010 or so, we might have something to talk about).
Click to expand...

Vista will be available to volume buyers like Dell in November, 2006. Shelf stores will have them in Jan, 2007. According to a recent mass meeting, MS staff said, the RAM memory will be mainly for prefetching to boost PC performance. It will be much faster than XP. It learned your habit and prefetch at the back ground b4 you startup your favorite applications.

I have got a copy of the Vista Beta 2, I am waiting to have my HDD delivered and get it loaded and then try.
 
Sam Ontario said:
Vista will be available to volume buyers like Dell in November, 2006. Shelf stores will have them in Jan, 2007. According to a recent mass meeting, MS staff said, the RAM memory will be mainly for prefetching to boost PC performance. It will be much faster than XP. It learned your habit and prefetch at the back ground b4 you startup your favorite applications.
Click to expand...

XP supposedly already did this, but its prefetch is just useless crap. I'll believe Vista's version being any better when I see it.
 
Wasn't Vista supposed to have different modes of running? like some game mode, where the system resources could be controlled and directed? Something like this: the moment you launch a game, Vista minimizes and gives away some of it's share of memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top