ID:181444
 
With 4GB RAMs you'll have to use 64bit OS, if you install 32bit you'll have only 2GB or even less.
yes i already know that xD,
ill see what i can do about the video card o:
any further comments?

Edit: so the second
build is a better one i guess?
In response to Starmenas (#1)
Yes, second looks better to me.

But make sure your PSU can handle GPU. Some take over 500W
Ripiz wrote:
if you install 32bit you'll have only 2GB or even less.


No, this is wrong, so please stop spreading it. Don't you learn?
In response to Airjoe (#3)
RAMs are pretty much last, the more memory GPU has, the less RAMs will. That GPU has 700 MB more than mine, so that PC will have 700 MB less RAM.
In response to Ripiz (#4)
Ripiz wrote:
RAMs are pretty much last, the more memory GPU has, the less RAMs will. That GPU has 700 MB more than mine, so that PC will have 700 MB less RAM.

Uh, no. Again, please stop spreading this. Video cards use their own memory on the card itself. They do not steal memory from the motherboard. It's not even the same type of memory that is used on the motherboard, although it is based on it. If you have on-board video, it will use some of the main memory, sure, but nowhere near 700MB- more likley 64 or maybe even 128, maybe.
In response to Airjoe (#5)
It doesn't steal memory, it's 32bit OS limitation, only 4GB memory can be, CPU Cache, HDD Cache, GPU memory, RAMs etc. Some is lost when it goes over 4GB, because 32bit can't map addresses.
In response to Ripiz (#6)
In response to Stephen001 (#7)
If you think copy/pasting from somewhere it true, then believe it. I'll believe myself.
In response to Ripiz (#8)
Okay boy, here's how giving advice works. Some guy comes along, and would like to do something (build a PC), but feels he doesn't quite know enough about it to make important decisions, so he asks for a bit of advice before he goes ahead with it.

Some people who have the necessary knowledge in the area he's asked advice for come along, and provide some pointers on what may or may not be an issue with his decisions. These are people who've perhaps worked with the manufacturers of the thing advice is needed on, has read their documentation on it's capabilities, and generally has an awareness of what is going on in the guts of the thing. Their knowledge is in turn backed up by other similar such people, in a community of trust.

Generally speaking, cowboy advisors with no such experience or grounding are an unwelcome intrusion, and contribute only FUD.
Ripiz wrote:
For games I'd say even Dual Core is enough, but Quad surely will be better.
But I think you might need little better Video Card, it's kinda low on bits =/

Please keep in mind, with 4GB RAMs you'll have to use 64bit OS, if you install 32bit you'll have only 2GB or even less.

Uhhh, no. I have a 32bit OS, and I'm staring at 3GB of RAM. Don't you test this before you say it?
In response to DivineTraveller (#10)
Where does it say 3GB?
When I had 4GB and 32bit Win7, in Computer Properties it was saying 4GB (2.7 GB usable) also in Task Manager total memory was 2731 MB or something.
In response to Ripiz (#11)
Ripiz wrote:
Where does it say 3GB?
When I had 4GB and 32bit Win7, in Computer Properties it was saying 4GB (2.7 GB usable) also in Task Manager total memory was 2731 MB or something.

....
Windows 7 32-bit can only access 3 GB of RAM, period.

Anyway, I suggest if you're looking to build a desktop for real, check out http://www.overclock.net/ and post your build. They'll be able to tweak it and give you the best bang for your buck.
In response to Ripiz (#11)
Do you still not get it? There is no arbitrary, static usable RAM limit (like '2GB') for 32bit OSes (or 64bit for that matter). It depends on how much other memory shares the same 4GB address space. The maximum limit also varies by OS (and version).

More importantly, quit derailing this thread about this. If you do wish to continue pointlessly discussing this, then you should either start a separate forum thread about it (perhaps the mods could split this one), start a blog post about it, or maybe use the already-contaminated blog post of Spunky_Girl for that (since it's dead anyway).
It's not entirely your fault, but it would've been far more beneficial for this thread and the OP if readers (such as Stephen001, Airjoe, etc) didn't have their attention diverted from answering the topic to correct (many times... also incidentally including outside of this topic) your well-meant but uneducated advice.
In response to Ripiz (#4)
You're confusing virtual address space and physical RAM. Stop it.
In response to Jp (#14)
I'm not confusing it. 32bit can map only 4GB, if you have more than 4GB in total, something will be lost.
In response to Ripiz (#15)
That would be relevant if pointers at the system level were 32 bits long, but they're not.

You are confusing virtual address space - the space a single application running on the OS can access, which is 4 GB in size in 32-bit windows (And significant chunks of it are taken up by bits of windows), and physical address space, the space the OS can access, which can be larger. Or smaller.

In response to Jp (#16)
I don't know what size pointers are at system level, but it doesn't really matter, since 32bit OS won't be able to access anything past those 32bits, even if BIOS has ability to read more.
In response to Ripiz (#17)
Pointers can be any size at the system level. That's what I'm saying. And in some 32-bit versions of windows (And in 32-bit linux and BSD), they're larger than 32 bits. They're often 36 bits in size, using that PAE thing I linked to. You probably should have read that wikipedia page.

The amount of memory an individual process can access has no relation to the amount of memory the system can access. The two are not related in any way. Virtual and physical address space are not the same thing.

The amount of memory the BIOS talks to is an entirely different issue again.

(That said, according to the interwebs most 32-bit windows don't use the address space extension features of PAE because graphics card drivers are terrible. Regardless, the PCI hole needn't be as large as you seem to think it is, and it isn't an inviolable law of 32-bit OSes with virtual memory).
In response to Jp (#18)
But it's still OS which allocates memory, your 4GB + VRAM are useless since OS can't access it all, means it can't store anything there. Therefore you'll need 64bit OS to use it all.
Page: 1 2