Another Computer thread

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm fairly ignorant about core usage on windows, does Windows XP/Vista handle multiple cores properly? I'm fairly certain Windows 7 does well enough but it's hard for me to accurately test since I'm too cheap to buy more then a Core2Duo for my PC.

I didn't have a multi-core system until Vista64 (and now Win7-x64), and at work all the multi-core machines were server OS so they worked fine. As for XP, I only know what I read and that was all flavours would work with multi-core but only XP-Pro was actually able to take advantage of multi-core with the few apps which were multi-core aware.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Hanni

I'm not an expert but my understanding is that all updated versions of XP/Vista/7 can handle multiple core processors. Specifically, 32bit versions can handle up to 32 cores and 64bit versions can handle up to 256 cores.

The biggest limitations are:
1) 32bit versions of windows (more specifically 32bit processors) cannot utilize any more than 4gb of ram. Whereas 64bit supports some ridiculous number.
2) Although 64bit is slowly becoming the standard, most applications (including SC2) are still designed for a 32bit environment. Meaning if you have a high end system it still won't be utilizing what you have.

Intel had a hack on servers that would allow applications aware of it to address >4GB of ram (Physical Address Extension - PAE), but it was a huge pita. I had an Oracle server, and the way it would work was depending upon how much memory above 4GB you had, you would create a window below 4GB used to access the memory above 4GB. It was complicated, no fun to set up and of questionable utility (I think I figured you needed > 6GB to start coming out ahead with all the overhead).

But none of that helps Malcolm.

But hey, I installed the Original SC on Win 7 64 the other night and it is nice to see that it still runs great.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by raekwon

he is asking for computer advice, not sound advice . . .

wah wah

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

But hey, I installed the Original SC on Win 7 64 the other night and it is nice to see that it still runs great.

I did that earlier this year too. Really odd on a 25" Widescreen monitor. The zerglings were HUGE.

[malcolmk14]

Just got back from Memory Express, and I put together a new system. Thanks for all the advice everyone.

I swapped out the Corsair RAM for something else, kept it at 4GB DDR3 though.
Swapped the hard drive for a 1 TB SATA III WD Black.
Also swapped out the power supply for the Corsair Gaming Series, 600 Watts.

All told after GST it came to $1,055.

Got the 64 bit Windows 7 as well.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

The Overmind will be pleased by this purchase.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

lol 1 cent below $1200

win

PS : Linux!

Still below $1200. The original question was "what would you change?" I answered honestly. He said he wanted PC and I said that was great, that works for him and that is fine. It was the PC fanboys with their inferiority complex that turned it into a Mac/PC thing. Glad you got your system anyhow.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hanni

The biggest limitations are:

2) Although 64bit is slowly becoming the standard, most applications (including SC2) are still designed for a 32bit environment. Meaning if you have a high end system it still won't be utilizing what you have.

This is very incorrect. SC2 as a 32 bit application is limited to < 3 gigs of RAM (not 4 GB as others incorrectly state), but running it on a 64 bit system means all that other RAM gets used for superfetch, disk caching, etc. So while SC2 itself has no additional resources running on a 64 bit system, all of the supporting OS resources around it are beefed up.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Just got back from Memory Express, and I put together a new system. Thanks for all the advice everyone.

I swapped out the Corsair RAM for something else, kept it at 4GB DDR3 though.
Swapped the hard drive for a 1 TB SATA III WD Black.
Also swapped out the power supply for the Corsair Gaming Series, 600 Watts.

All told after GST it came to $1,055.

Got the 64 bit Windows 7 as well.

Good job, looks like you basically went with the newegg bundle that I showed you and you price matched the whole thing @ MemEx with some modifications. Not bad for a first timer! :P I hoped my PM advice helped.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

This is very incorrect. SC2 as a 32 bit application is limited to < 3 gigs of RAM (not 4 GB as others incorrectly state), but running it on a 64 bit system means all that other RAM gets used for superfetch, disk caching, etc. So while SC2 itself has no additional resources running on a 64 bit system, all of the supporting OS resources around it are beefed up.

Since we have so many builds focusing on Starcraft, keep in mind that SC2 can only take advantage of two cores or a quad i5 or i7 that can turboboost. My Q6600 has two useless cores in SC2.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

This is very incorrect. SC2 as a 32 bit application is limited to < 3 gigs of RAM (not 4 GB as others incorrectly state), but running it on a 64 bit system means all that other RAM gets used for superfetch, disk caching, etc. So while SC2 itself has no additional resources running on a 64 bit system, all of the supporting OS resources around it are beefed up.

I think you misunderstood, I think the general statement was that a 32bit system can only recognize 4gb of memory. You're right that a 32bit application will only utilize 2gb of memory, the rest is set aside for system processes.

That being said, my point remains, 32bit applications in a 64bit environment will not utilize what you have. I have 6gb of ram on a 64bit system, when running SC2 under heavy load the highest my memory usage has every gone is 3.6gb. With 2gb being used by SC2 and 1.6 used by the rest of the system. I could achieve this performance with a 32bit system, whereas if SC2 was a 64bit application the performance would be much higher.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hanni

I think you misunderstood, I think the general statement was that a 32bit system can only recognize 4gb of memory. You're right that a 32bit application will only utilize 2gb of memory, the rest is set aside for system processes.

That being said, my point remains, 32bit applications in a 64bit environment will not utilize what you have. I have 6gb of ram on a 64bit system, when running SC2 under heavy load the highest my memory usage has every gone is 3.6gb. With 2gb being used by SC2 and 1.6 used by the rest of the system. I could achieve this performance with a 32bit system, whereas if SC2 was a 64bit application the performance would be much higher.

I think you are confused.

The maximum addressable memory space for any 32 bit operating system (that doesn't use messed up workarounds) is 4GB. That 4 GB space is where (in Windows XP at least) all your IO devices, BIOS, internal/external devices etc have their addresses allocated.

In Windows XP, this leaves about 3 GB of RAM left (I think it is a bit less actually) so your computer cannot physically use any more than that because it won't be addressed.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hanni

I think you misunderstood, I think the general statement was that a 32bit system can only recognize 4gb of memory. You're right that a 32bit application will only utilize 2gb of memory, the rest is set aside for system processes.

That being said, my point remains, 32bit applications in a 64bit environment will not utilize what you have. I have 6gb of ram on a 64bit system, when running SC2 under heavy load the highest my memory usage has every gone is 3.6gb. With 2gb being used by SC2 and 1.6 used by the rest of the system. I could achieve this performance with a 32bit system, whereas if SC2 was a 64bit application the performance would be much higher.

No. All unallocated RAM goes towards preloading DLL’s and disk caching. Having more RAM than an individual process requires will still be beneficial. Obviously with diminishing returns, but beneficial none the less.

This ignores the other benefits that are more marginal, but still contribute to improved performance, such as reduced memory fragmentation - if I ask for a contiguous chunk of RAM, its far easier to find a chunk of a given size if I have lots of under utilized RAM, or RAM dedicated to disk caching that I can flush and re-use at a moments notice.

If SC2 was a 64 bit application the performance would NOT be hugely better other than having access to a greater number of CPU registers, which does result in a modest performance boost. The game uses what it uses, making an app 64 bit does not automatically make it faster.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Since we have so many builds focusing on Starcraft, keep in mind that SC2 can only take advantage of two cores or a quad i5 or i7 that can turboboost. My Q6600 has two useless cores in SC2.

Except that SC2 is not the only thread of execution active on your system while in the game. Those extra cores are not wasted - there are numerous kernel and system threads that need cycles outside the boundaries of SC2.

Does that mean most people need an 8 core monster? No. 90% of the population already has more CPU than they need. But modern operating systems, Windows included, are pretty good at scheduling threads across multiple cores to ensure that threads that are ready to execute get to run on the next available core.