Fastest PC Ever !!?

B

belmicah

Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
853
Recently Maximum PC has made another dream machine (#11). They are calling it the fastest pc ever. I was looking at the specs and noticed it had two 7900 gtx's in SLI. Now I know that those are fast, but don't you think that two 7950's would have to be run in order to call it the fastest gaming pc ever?

I want to mention that they acquired an Nvidia Nforce 590 SLi Intel edition motherboard, as well as the Core 2 Duo Extreme. Maybe Nvidia told them that they could have the motherboard for their machine IFF they did not try to use some hacked drivers and try to run quad SLi and then have it not work, adn make Nvidia look bad. Just my thoughts. What do you guys think?

Also, they had a Blu-Ray disk drive, two 150 Gb Rapotors in RAID 0, Three 750 Gb drives in Raid 1 (I believe, whichever makes one drive redundant), only 2 Gb of RAM, as opposed to the 4 Gb they had in their last dream machine, two 24" Dell monitors, because not many games support the resoution of the 30" screens and they would need quad SLi, as they stated themselves,etc.

What would your dream machine be, and why did they not implement quad SLi if they were going to spend $10,000 anyways.
 
My Dream machine would have the latest and greatest Cross-fire Setup, I dont want to mess with Quad-SLI wanna try cross-fire now :p
 
Mine would have a V5 6000 running with stable drivers... Water cooled! and a P3 700 overclocked to like 1.5 ghz
 
WIsh I had access to technology that wasn't out yet like websites and magazines do. If I did, I would probably have a lot better rig than this one.

I need an Nforce 590 SLI edition motherboard!!

Oh, and I would run Kentsfield, quad SLI, three Raptors in RAID 0, 30" Dell, 4Gb (2 x2Gb dual channel) RAM, Blu-Ray, etc.
 
too bad it will hae trouble running Vista in 6 months and game at the same time

might be about the best at the moment, but not alot of life in it
 
Anybody else read the article and have questions as to why no quad? Thought this thread would get a lot of attention due to the fact that a lot of readers of Maximum PC are here.
 
my dream pc, even tho it will be a while before the required drivers and chipsets and whatnot are released, would be a core 2 extreme watercooled and running at 3.5ghz, 4gb of ddr2 800, quad sli (also watercooled) running at 650/1400, 4 150gig raptors for 600gigs of storage, all contained in a custom lian-li or coolermaster :cool:.
 
GMoney42392 said:
my dream pc, even tho it will be a while before the required drivers and chipsets and whatnot are released, would be a core 2 extreme watercooled and running at 3.5ghz, 4gb of ddr2 800, quad sli (also watercooled) running at 650/1400, 4 150gig raptors for 600gigs of storage, all contained in a custom lian-li or coolermaster :cool:.
Click to expand...

need to wait until the Hybrid HDD's are out with 50+Mb of flash memory integrated into them, those Hybrid HDD's will practically be a must-have for Vista, other than that, looks pretty good, but i would also be waiting for R600/G80, i dont think a system i would consider a "dream machine" can even be built with what's available now
 
If you look at my signature it has the fastest pc ever for that Pentium 3 type...

If you re-read the article on Maximum PC, they *EXPLAIN* why they didn't use the 7950's...

Close thread, thanks :)
 
nobody_here said:
too bad it will hae trouble running Vista in 6 months and game at the same time

might be about the best at the moment, but not alot of life in it
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Trouble running Vista?
 
My dream machine? A single 7950 watercooled... Dual Opteron 165's, and 4 150gb Raptors in RAID 0.

That would pretty much do it... really.
 
TekSomniaK said:
What are you talking about? Trouble running Vista?
Click to expand...
The 7900's are not DX 10, and to be able to run vista to its fullest, you have to have a DX 10 vid card. But really, it would run vista *FINE*! Just without all the fance pantcy DX 10 stuff........
 
nobody_here said:
too bad it will hae trouble running Vista in 6 months and game at the same time

might be about the best at the moment, but not alot of life in it
Click to expand...

WTF, is that a real answer ?

You really think vista is going to make every pc on earth obsolete overnight ?

The majority of medium to highend pc's will be able to run vista and game without any major problems.

Also I am sure that there is a lot of life left in the pc they have built, it will still be uber capable for a long time after vista is released.
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
WTF, is that a real answer ?

You really think vista is going to make every pc on earth obsolete overnight ?

The majority of medium to highend pc's will be able to run vista and game without any major problems.

Also I am sure that there is a lot of life left in the pc they have built, it will still be uber capable for a long time after vista is released.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen what a resource hog Vista is? Almost 800MB of memory to run the damn OS? I really dont think Vista is going to be worth the upgrade over XP when it comes out.
 
But its not going to make highend pc's obsolete and make there lifespan shorter, so what if it takes 800mb or however much, just put in more ram, most mobos nowadays can handle 4gig, and with 4gig of ram vista and gaming will run just fine, it will even run fine with 2gig, the beta does and I can game with 2gig with the beta no problem.

So vista isnt the pc killer that ppl are making out, it just takes more resources to run than xp, thats it, but as i state, a medium to highend pc will cope with vista and gaming with hardly any problems whatsoever.

If XP was going to get dx10, I would stick with xp, but it isnt, so in order to game at dx10 levels of graphics then we must upgrade if we want dx10, but apart from that, vista has nothing that i want or need.

P.S. that website that shows and claims vista uses 800mb of ram, they have ram confused with pagefile.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2006/03/windows-vista-eats-up-800mb-of-ram.html

it only takes up 4-500mb of ram in that screenie, and that specific screenie is widely shown all over the net. In the pic he has 1 gig of ram, and he has 600mb left to use, yet claims that it has used 800mb of his 1gig of his ram....
 
That's a crappy "fastest computer ever."

I would take dual opteron 285's w/ SLI, 16gb of DDR400, and would use scsi drives.

I've noticed that whenever any sort of publication lists parts for a "dream machine," it's always using consumer-level parts made by major manufacturers.

It's just advertising disguised as an "article."
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
But its not going to make highend pc's obsolete and make there lifespan shorter, so what if it takes 800mb or however much, just put in more ram, most mobos nowadays can handle 4gig, and with 4gig of ram vista and gaming will run just fine, it will even run fine with 2gig, the beta does and I can game with 2gig with the beta no problem.

So vista isnt the pc killer that ppl are making out, it just takes more resources to run than xp, thats it, but as i state, a medium to highend pc will cope with vista and gaming with hardly any problems whatsoever.

If XP was going to get dx10, I would stick with xp, but it isnt, so in order to game at dx10 levels of graphics then we must upgrade if we want dx10, but apart from that, vista has nothing that i want or need.

P.S. that website that shows and claims vista uses 800mb of ram, they have ram confused with pagefile.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2006/03/windows-vista-eats-up-800mb-of-ram.html

it only takes up 4-500mb of ram in that screenie, and that specific screenie is widely shown all over the net. In the pic he has 1 gig of ram, and he has 600mb left to use, yet claims that it has used 800mb of his 1gig of his ram....
Click to expand...

I agree....

Do some of you folks really think that Microsoft is stupid enough to release an OS that is so strenuous that just about no one will be able to run it without massive upgrades? True, you will need a "Vista-ready" machine (that's what they are labeling them, right?), but if they make the requirements that crazy, no one will buy Vista- which would make MS a little sad and a lot bankrupt. They just ain't that dense.... I am not saying they don't make mistakes (they've had plenty.... remember ME....*barf*) or I love them (I don't!), but the company didn't get where they are by making ludicrous marketing decisions.
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
But its not going to make highend pc's obsolete and make there lifespan shorter, so what if it takes 800mb or however much, just put in more ram, most mobos nowadays can handle 4gig, and with 4gig of ram vista and gaming will run just fine, it will even run fine with 2gig, the beta does and I can game with 2gig with the beta no problem.

So vista isnt the pc killer that ppl are making out, it just takes more resources to run than xp, thats it, but as i state, a medium to highend pc will cope with vista and gaming with hardly any problems whatsoever.

If XP was going to get dx10, I would stick with xp, but it isnt, so in order to game at dx10 levels of graphics then we must upgrade if we want dx10, but apart from that, vista has nothing that i want or need.

P.S. that website that shows and claims vista uses 800mb of ram, they have ram confused with pagefile.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2006/03/windows-vista-eats-up-800mb-of-ram.html

it only takes up 4-500mb of ram in that screenie, and that specific screenie is widely shown all over the net. In the pic he has 1 gig of ram, and he has 600mb left to use, yet claims that it has used 800mb of his 1gig of his ram....
Click to expand...

I know how to tell the difference between used memory and a page file. From my personal experience, Vista takes around 750-800MB just running the OS.
 
Slartibartfast said:
That's a crappy "fastest computer ever."

I would take dual opteron 285's w/ SLI, 16gb of DDR400, and would use scsi drives.

I've noticed that whenever any sort of publication lists parts for a "dream machine," it's always using consumer-level parts made by major manufacturers.

It's just advertising disguised as an "article."
Click to expand...
I agree (except for the 16 Gb of DDR400 stuff). What could WE (the enthusiast with access to everything that is availbable) make? I mean, beta testing and all, what is possible to build right now that would set world records?
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
But its not going to make highend pc's obsolete and make there lifespan shorter, so what if it takes 800mb or however much, just put in more ram, most mobos nowadays can handle 4gig, and with 4gig of ram vista and gaming will run just fine, it will even run fine with 2gig, the beta does and I can game with 2gig with the beta no problem.

So vista isnt the pc killer that ppl are making out, it just takes more resources to run than xp, thats it, but as i state, a medium to highend pc will cope with vista and gaming with hardly any problems whatsoever.

If XP was going to get dx10, I would stick with xp, but it isnt, so in order to game at dx10 levels of graphics then we must upgrade if we want dx10, but apart from that, vista has nothing that i want or need.

P.S. that website that shows and claims vista uses 800mb of ram, they have ram confused with pagefile.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2006/03/windows-vista-eats-up-800mb-of-ram.html

it only takes up 4-500mb of ram in that screenie, and that specific screenie is widely shown all over the net. In the pic he has 1 gig of ram, and he has 600mb left to use, yet claims that it has used 800mb of his 1gig of his ram....
Click to expand...

when and on what machine did you install Vista on?

because on my old system, which was not low end by any stretch, Opty 165 @ 2.7Ghz, Mushkin BH5 Redlines running DDR560, 7900GT vid card and SATA 7200rpm 8Mb cache HDD, it ran somewhat acceptable, but nowhere near ideal, and i didnt expect it to, but all these claims of it running on a 700Mhz Celly with 512Mb's of ram are straight bullshit(or the user's definition of "acceptable" is painfully loosely interpreted)

i didnt spend alot of time tweaking and disabling services and whatnot, but right out of the box, it used 750Mb of pagefile sitting idle, 800Mb's idle after one of the AV solutions available were installed sitting idle, regardless whether it was actual physical memory or not, all i can tell you was it absolutely raped my HDD constantly, which it should not if it were using the available hardware efficiently

which brings me to my point

most of your enthusiast gamer types will want to run DX10 games on DX10 hardware, requiring Vista, and IMO, Vista requires a minimum 2Gb's of ram, a healthy CPU, and those Hybrid HDD's are going to be a must based on what i have experienced in how Vista utilizes the HDD's to a great extent

will XP/DX9 PC's become obsolete overnight? NO, will they be less than ideal overnight?, YES, do most gaming and enthusiast types want the best they can get?, YES, and Vista+Hybrid HDD's+DX10 hardware is going to be what fits that bill
 
I installed it on my main rig, I cant recall how much memory it used, but since its beta, i expected it to be not that great, but it wasnt no where near bad/slow as everyone says it is, and when it eventually does get released, it will probably be a lot more streamlined than what it is now.

I had no problems with the beta, ok it was slower than xp, but its beta, we cant expect anything else at this stage.

As for ppl running it on 700mhz p3's or whatever, well why would you want to, except to see if it was possible, then to never ever use that pc again with vista, as it will be total shite for doing so, but all the highend rigs they are selling at this moment in time is basically the same as my rig with the exception of newer vid cards, so by the time vista is released do you really think that it will totally and utterly make them less than ideal ? cmon...

amd will be making the same cpu's for vista as they are making now with 1 or 2 exceptions, so they must think it can run vista without any problems.

As for newer harddrives, well, they have been needed for a longtime and not just because vista is being released, harddrives are the slowest thing in your rig except the cd/dvd's and for us to be using the same speeds of drives for numerous years whilst everything else has been geting faster is just insane.

I for one cant wait til they release those new drives at a decent price and a decent size.

Bottom line is, the majority of all the pc's in my sig will run vista without any major problems, some may need things turned off sure, but vista isnt going to put that much of a strain on newer highend rigs.

At worst the highend rigs will benefit from some more ram and those new harddrives, and thats it and vista will be fine.

I also installed it on the other rig in my sig, the 2800, but for some reason, the login password failed and it would not let me into the OS, so i never really tested it on that, but it is still installed on it, but stops at the login screen cuz for some reason it wont accept the proper password ????
 
Crazylikeafox said:
i thought the fasted computer was DEEP BLUE?
Click to expand...

Its a PC, Which means Personal Computer. Not just the Fastest Computer, big difference.
 
to those that are complaining about how much memory vista takes...have you ever thought about why they call it a BETA OS???? There is a tremendous amount of debugging code running right alongside the rest of the OS components, which also takes up memory. So by default it will use more memory just because of the debugging and checking.

Don't judge a final product by a beta. Unless it's EA...they don't (usually) seem to have a final product that's better than the betas :p
 
Mine would be
Crossfire/Quad SLI
Dual Xeon 2.8 ghz
8 GB RAM
10 TB HDD
Dual Lite on DVD/CD Burners
Coolermaster Stacker
And thats it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top