Which of these 2 setups? - Would you go with

King Imp · 04-03-2003, 06:54 PM

I'm getting a bunch of conflicting reports as to which is actually better. I'm hoping some of you can shed some extra light on the matter.

I'm getting a new system soon and it's mainly going to be used for gaming. I'm on somewhat of a budget so I have to cut back on one major component, either the processor or the memory.

Which of these two setups would you go with for a gaming system:
2.4 GHz system with 1GB RDRAM or 2.8 GHz system with 512MB RDRAM?

Jack · 04-03-2003, 07:01 PM

The one with a Gig of ram. Processor speed right now makes no relevance. There is no software that really takes advantage of it. Its just cool to say you have a machine that fast.

The ram on the other hand will make a huge difference in the system.

Goatweed · 04-03-2003, 07:04 PM

Also, assuming the 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's are interchangeable, you can always upgrade to the 2.8 down the road when it'll be cheaper, and use the 2.4 in another system or sell it on EBay afterwards.

King Imp · 04-03-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:The ram on the other hand will make a huge difference in the system.

That's exactly my feelings, but you wouldn't believe how many people have told me no one really needs more than 512MB RAM unless you work with professional graphics, video editing or if you're running a server.
I've always been one of the belief that RAM makes the system, not the processor speed but lately I'm getting conflicting reports. Undecided

Goatweed · 04-03-2003, 07:19 PM

If you play a lot of 3D games, if you have a large (over 60 gig in my opinion) hard drive, RAM is your best friend. 512 is quickly becoming the standard amount to have - Hell, M$ even says it recommends 512 meg for XP Pro - and based on how M$'s operating systems have evolved, do you really think the next version will need the same amount or less? It won't hurt to have "too much" because these days "too much" quickly becomes "not enough".

Also, RAM is dirt cheap again, so not getting a load of it is just plain silly.

Gooch · 04-03-2003, 07:22 PM

I disagree. Go with the 2.8 processor. You can ALWAYS add RAM (add later when you got spare $$). But you are stuck with that processor, which in a year or two will be outdated somewhat. Prcoessor speed DOES make a difference. Don't beleive the hype. The difference is seen down-the-line, not right now. Someone who bought a 800mhz and a 1ghz sees a bigger difference these days, and those were both sold not that long ago.

King Imp · 04-03-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:You can ALWAYS add RAM (add later when you got spare $$).

Problem with this Gooch is it's RDRAM PC-1066 and from all reports I've read RAMBUS is dead or is slowly being phased out. I may not be able to find this memory a year or two down the line if and when I'll really need it.
In a perfect world I'd be able to afford the 2.8GHz system and the 1GB RAM, but unfortunately I don't have that kind of money. :-(

Goatweed · 04-03-2003, 07:43 PM

Gooch, he won't really notice all that much in speed between these two processors - the gig or RAM will definitely be noticed over the 512 megs.

If the 2 processors were miles apart in speed I would agree.

Jack · 04-03-2003, 07:44 PM

Go with an AMD setup and get DDR instead. MUCH MUCH cheaper and you get the same if not better performance. You are correct about Rambus. It costs too much to make.

HollywoodJewMoses · 04-03-2003, 08:27 PM

kurt rambis was a funny looking bball player :thumbs-up:

Goatweed · 04-03-2003, 08:32 PM

wrong forum - you still looking for players?