ok, im using a 775 format processor given to me to build a new desktop and will have to buy a new OS....... so, prob goin with windows 7 and wondering should i get 32bit or 64bit? does it matter? thanks doug
I'm not familiar with that processor, but the 32/64 bit option is dependent on what processor you have. Look that up, and you will have your answer.
775 is an Intel Socket from a few years ago. Guessing it's a Core 2 Duo processor? I would go 64-bit. I am running @in7 x64 on an E6550 and it's great.
yes, its a Core 2 Duo e7500 or e7600[cant remember the speed] Wolfdale and specs do indicate that it is 64bit compatable, thanks doug
If you aren't running more than 4 gigs of RAM, there is no need for 64bit, so make sure the motherboard you buy can handle more than that. Sent from my DroidX running CM74GB using Tapatalk
Err no, that's wrong. What you are referring to are the technical limitations of 32bit architecture. Meaning you can only run up to 4gb on 32bit. Having under 4gb of ram is not a reason to pick 32bit over 64bit. The min specs of Win7 64bit is 2Gb of ram and for 95% of window users 4GB is more then enough. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements The only real reason(for home users) you would pick 32bit over 64bit is because you have a really old PC(mainly single core pc's from 2004 or earlier) or the CPU doesn't run x64.
My 02c; Put Linux on it..... 64 bit, *rock* solid, fast and free! Ubuntu is highly regarded right now. Cheers, Ian
Re-read my post again Speedcore . (I've been toying with 64bit OSes since XP 64bit) I wasn't saying that he couldn't run 64bit on less than 4 gig, but that if you don't have atleast 4 gigs of ram, there is absolutely zero reason to be running the 64bit version. To this day I still run into problems trying to run some programs on 64bit OSes... IIRC, the single biggest reason for the switch to 64bit was to support more RAM. So I was just implying that he should get for >4gigs of RAM to take full advantage of the processor. In any case, buying Windows 7 gives you both the 32bit and 64bit versions, so at a minimum Boxer could try both of them. If he is using any software that doesn't play nice with Win74 64bit, he can always install the 32bit version.
You should go 64-bit unless you have a compelling reason not to. Such reasons include: * Need to support devices that do not have 64-bit drivers. Generally these would be non-mainstream devices that control external devices. If you are a typical home or business user you won't have to worry about this. * Need to support legacy software that doesn't "play nice" under 64-bit. Again, these are generally very custom software systems to meet industrial needs. (My company, for example, uses an image manipulation software development toolkit that has problems under 64-bit.) For 99.99% of the Windows computer user, moving to 64-bit is generally a positive experience. Note that, if you do go with 64-bit, always install the 64-bit versions of software packages if you are given the choice between 64-bit and 32-bit. Most 32-bit software packages will install and work fine under 64-bit, but you won't get all of the performance benefits that you would have gotten if you had installed the 64-bit versions of the applications.
Cockrill pretty much nailed it. The only thing I will add is that if you buy Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate you can run your old 32 bit apps in Windows XP Mode out of the box. You have to jump through a few hoops to run XP Mode in Home Premium...
I run Windows 7 64 bit and have have no issues. You can install 32 bit apps with no problems since they install in a different programs folder.
win7 64bit runs great on my 4 year old duo-core gateway laptop ,ive got 32bit on an office computer i built last year and its slower and can't see the full 4gb of ram[only uses 3.2gb,
The terms 32-bit and 64-bit refer to the way a computer's processor (also called a CPU), handles information. The 64-bit version of Windows handles large amounts of random access memory (RAM) more effectively than a 32-bit system.
Thanks guys I have this build all together now cept for the software... gigabyte mb intel e7500 core 2 duo zalmuth(spelling?) copper pipe cooler 2x4gig ram ddr3 500 gig hd 160 gig hd galaxy 1gig ddr3 GTS 250 nvidea video card 2x optical drives (1 lightscribe) now a question...... Cooler master case has room for.... Top fan- Should it flow air in or out? There is actually space for two on top but the copper pipe cooler wont let one fit so just one on top Rear fan- flow out (currently) side of case fan- should it flow in or out? Front case - from factory it is flow in thanks doug hunt
Generally speaking, when I used to build my own machines I would try for CFM In = CFM Out for optimum airflow. Top and Rear should always be Exhaust; Front Intake. It isn't always easy to pick the directional flow for the side fan. Try to figure out which way the CPU fan is blowing the air. If it is blowing down onto the heatsink, then go with an intake on the side, if it is blowing away from the heatsink, use an exhaust on the side. The big thing is to try to minimize and stationary air pockets. You want good consistent airflow that moves through the entire case.
OK, the cpu cooler has a large radial copper finned surface and the fan is flowing to the rear, the instructions indicated to place its output towards the rear exhaust fan and as its installed it sits about 4 " from the rear exhaust fan, and for that reason i was thinking of having the top fan as an intake [5"-6" forward from the cooler] which would pull outside air in and then across the coolers copper top and then out thru the exhaust. if i do this then im thinking side will be exhaust,as this would equalize cfm [2 intake/2 exhaust] plus the side fan is positioned close to the video card and as an exhaust could pull the heat off it. there is actually a place for a fan on the bottom , but with the bottom mounted power supply[thermaltake 750WATT modular], i need to source a smaller fan the the 120mm ones i bought when i ordered the case. i will take a pic when i get home today, i have all the cables pretty well routed to the motherboard side to minimize blocking the airflow, it came out really well. thanks again doug hunt
Interesting... I haven't seen a bottom mounted power supply before. Very odd placement to me, considering a 750Watt PS is going to generate a whole huge amount of heat... and heat rises. In this case, having the Top fan as in intake to try and keep the heat generated from the PS down away from the other components is probably a good call.
Funny this thread came up, just started putting together my second homebuilt pc today. The case I got has a bottom psu as well.
heres a pic of the almost finished build, im one fan short [goes on the clear part of the side case] cause one of the 120mm fans i ordered was missing the screws , newegg is sending me another, and i have a hdd cooler that was a freebee with a newegg order , im gonna pirate its 80mm fan for that bottom spot. note that bigass copper cpu cooler! Image Unavailable, Please Login
N-i-c-e! Is the M/B still ATX form factor? [Or am I way our of date here!?] Makes zero sense to me to put the PSU at the bottom of the case though - Why'd they do that? I also assume (the mother of all screw ups as we know) there's a fan buried inside that copper cooler? I haven't built a PC for a few years now, but my local Frys has some very cool stuff - Glowing cables, liquid cooling units and all kinds of bizarre **** seems to be the norm - Even some of the cases are border line scary! Cheers, Ian
thanks i am a biomed tech and like to build these i really dont care for store bought pc's i got a deal on a older dell mini box with the duo core cpu and its a step up from my current p4 box the reviews for the E7500 core2duo is really good so i figured i would give it a try most of the cases i looked at online these days seemed to have the powersupply on the bottom. The motherboard is a micro ATX ATX and microATX are still popular and i didnt need a lot of pci slots as modern boards have onboard LAN and modems are almost a thing of the past theres a PCIe x1 i could use for a card reader or 3.0 usb theres another version of this board that has 3.0 but i was trying to buy the cheapest "good" components i could find i dont even "need" this thing but wanted a nvidea based video card etc etc etc just fun i guess i just cant justify what a i5/i7 cpu costs plus the board to run it just dont use them that way plus this cpu supports ddr3 memory and this board has good software to play with Yes there is a fan inside that copper cooler instructions indicated to push the air towards the rear cooler so i got the biggest fan that fit for the exhaust Doug
SWEET!!!! Looks like a xigmatek Gaia or similar cpu cooler? What motherboard are you using? Dont tell me, i will want that setup next ;-) it never ends doug
It's a hyper 212 EVO, Asus P8P67 Pro, getting a Nvidia 560 ti for Xmas and another a few months later for sli.
Biggest gains you can make versus insane overclocking is using SSD's. Not that I am trying to take away from your plans of pushing a chip to crazy speeds. That works too, but your biggest bottle neck is disk IO. Something that's SATA 3 compatible, Samsung 830 series or the latest Intels should do the trick. Use the SSD for OS and your apps, keep your data on a spinning disk and in the cloud for backup. Last checked the upgrade is in the low $200 range, totally worth it. I would skip on the PCI SSD's that go direct to the PCI bus for now. They are probably one generation away from being a full stable and viable product. Right now OCZ rules the roost in that area but I wouldn't use it for something super critical. But yes 64 bit all the way, 8-16gig should do you fine. If you're getting into heavy VM use or visual studio or any of the adobe creative suites then go for 16. You can do 16 these days for 70-100 bucks.
