What Are Your PC Specs?

2»

Comments

  • Netbook:
    Intel Atom N470 1.83GHz
    2GB RAM
    217GB partition, 64GB partition
    Windows 7/XP x64 dual boot :D

  • @Windows 2000 said:
    Netbook:
    Intel Atom N470 1.83GHz
    2GB RAM
    217GB partition, 64GB partition
    Windows 7/XP x64 dual boot :D

    I am curious. What made you decide to use 64-bit on a system that small?

  • @nick99nack 64-bit works without any problems, plus, it uses less than a gigabyte of ram.

  • @nick99nack said:

    @Windows 2000 said:
    Netbook:
    Intel Atom N470 1.83GHz
    2GB RAM
    217GB partition, 64GB partition
    Windows 7/XP x64 dual boot :D

    I am curious. What made you decide to use 64-bit on a system that small?

    You do not have to have a large computer to run a 64-bit operating system. Form factors of computers really don't matter in terms of bits.

  • @JonathonWyble said:

    @nick99nack said:

    @Windows 2000 said:
    Netbook:
    Intel Atom N470 1.83GHz
    2GB RAM
    217GB partition, 64GB partition
    Windows 7/XP x64 dual boot :D

    I am curious. What made you decide to use 64-bit on a system that small?

    You do not have to have a large computer to run a 64-bit operating system. Form factors of computers really don't matter in terms of bits.

    I don't think he was referring to the physical size of the computer; instead he was referring to the amount of RAM (2 GB, at which the limitations of IA-32 don't really manifest themselves).

    XP x64 edition uses <250 MB idling on my HP Z600 workstation.

  • @win32 said:
    I don't think he was referring to the physical size of the computer; instead he was referring to the amount of RAM (2 GB, at which the limitations of IA-32 don't really manifest themselves).

    XP x64 edition uses <250 MB idling on my HP Z600 workstation.

    Ah yes, that does make sense. I figured he meant "small" as in the memory size and not the form factor of the computer. Never mind what I previously said then.

  • Yes, I meant small resource-wise. That wasn't the best choice of words. I was tired.

    32-bit OSes seem to run better than 64-bit on lower-end systems, at least in my experience (plus better compatibility). That's why I was curious.

  • @HontNog said:
    CPU: Intel Core i5-6300HQ CPU (2.3GHz)
    Memory: 8GB
    Motherboard: ASUS ROG GL552VX
    OSes : Windows 10 Home 64bit, Ubuntu 17.04 (i think 64-bit)
    Monitor: Doesn't have one, it's a laptop
    GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950.
    Primary Master: 128GB hard drive(don't know if it's hdd or sdd)
    Primary Slave: 1TB hard drive(again, don't know if it's hdd or sdd)
    Secondary Master: DVD / CD drive that doesn't work. yay.

    Just thought about updating this because:

    @HontNog said:
    Monitor: Doesn't have one, it's a laptop

    Laptops HAVE TO have a monitor. With that outta the way, enjoy.
    My computer is a ASUS ROG GL552VX.
    CPU: Intel Core i5-6300HQ CPU (2.3GHz)
    Memory: ONE 8GB stick of DDR4 RAM.
    OSes: Dual-booting Windows 10 Home 64bit and Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit (yes, i uninstalled ubuntu).
    Monitor: 15.6" 1920x1080 IPS Display Panel
    GPU: Intel HD Graphics 530 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (entered the wrong graphics card)
    Storage: 128GB SSD and 1TB HDD

  • edited June 23

    Inspiron 535s:
    Intel Pentium-DC e5300 @ 2.60ghz
    2GB RAM
    320GB hdd
    Windows 10 1809 x64

    Windows 10 is shit on it. Today it just stopped booting and threw an error. Am thinking to downgrade to 2000. Like i said on my thread about Win7 eol.

  • @VistaFan6002 said:
    Inspiron 535s:
    Intel Pentium-DC e5300 @ 2.60ghz
    2GB RAM
    320GB hdd
    Windows 10 1809 x64

    Windows 10 is shit on it. Today it just stopped booting and threw an error. Am thinking to downgrade to 2000. Like i said on my thread about Win7 eol.

    Oh now, don't be all pushy with Windows 10. It's a fine OS, but sometimes it may need a tiny bit of help. But there would definitely be no sense in downgrading that PC to something lower than Windows 7, though. But hey, that's your decision :p

  • edited September 21

    Time for an update:

    Desktop 1
    CPU: Intel Phenom II X6 3.2GHz
    GPU: nVidia NVS 300
    RAM: 8GB DDR3
    Storage: 500GB SSD and 1TB HDD (7,200 RPM)
    OS: Ubuntu 18.04LTS and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

    Desktop 2
    Dell OptiPlex 790
    CPU: Intel Core i5-2500 3.3GHz (quad core)
    GPU: Intel HD Graphics (Integrated)
    RAM: 16GB DDR3
    Storage: 1TB HDD (7,200 RPM)
    OS: Windows 2000 Professional

    Primary laptop
    Customized Lenovo ThinkPad T430 with classic keyboard
    CPU: Intel Core i7-3520M 3.5GHz
    GPU: Integrated (Intel HD Graphics 4000)
    RAM: 16GB DDR3-1600
    Storage: 500GB Crucial SSD, 250GB Samsung SSD in Ultrabay
    OS: Ubuntu 18.04LTS and Windows 7 Professional x64

  • edited October 28

    My main pc:
    Motherboard: Asrock N68-GS4 FX
    CPU: AMD FX 4320 (Quad Core)
    GPU: Sapphire ATI Radeon 4650 512 MB DDR2 (Yes DDR2, not GDDR2 or GDDR3)
    Storage: 1TB Toshiba DT01ACA100
    OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
    RAM: GEIL 2GB DDR3
    A old pc (it was not my old pc):
    CPU: Celeron 700/128
    GPU: Nvidia Riva TNT2 M64 16MB
    RAM: 256 MB
    Storage: Maxtor 8 GB
    Soundcard: Built-in AC97 (which company?)
    OS: I don't know, because i don't have matching power supply cable
    Edit: now celeron's amount of mhz is 700 and not 750 mhz because it's laptop only celeron

  • Also 64bit adds twice the number of registers and the registers are 64bit, so if you aren’t exceeding the limits of the system resources (using too much RAM, etc) then the 64bit code should run faster than similar 32bit code, even if you aren’t using (or don’t have installed) more than 4gb of ram.

    @win32 said:
    I don't think he was referring to the physical size of the computer; instead he was referring to the amount of RAM (2 GB, at which the limitations of IA-32 don't really manifest themselves).

    XP x64 edition uses <250 MB idling on my HP Z600 workstation.

  • funny thing is 64 bit programs are slower than 32 bit programs

  • 64-bit adds overhead as well, at least on Windows. Windows 7 x64 uses a lot more RAM on my machines than the x86 version does.

  • @megamanyoutuber said:
    funny thing is 64 bit programs are slower than 32 bit programs

    64-bit works quite fine for me. It's actually fast as heck compared to 32-bit, which is moderately sufficient.

  • edited November 1

    It's kinda hard to say. x64 native software does have the advantage of being able to use more than 3 GB of RAM per process, but I've usually been impressed with an x86 OS with full PAE as well, which doesn't have to deal with the burden of both x86 and x64 binaries.

    But I guess that could be because all of my games are DX8/9 and are optimized for 2000/XP (they tend to be slower if not less stable on Vista and above). They are primarily x86 without available x64 versions so no comparison can be made there.

    A few things that are available in both x86/x64 like Photoshop CS6, its extensions and browsers do yield a slight advantage to x64, but it is barely noticeable and not enough to completely switch over.

  • Problem with PAE 32bit is that processes are limited to 4gb.

    Not so much a trouble with many 32bit programs like Chromium browsers and whatnot, they'll just launch a dozen 2gb instances to suck up more ram than they need.

  • Most people that have bad opinions of 64bit vs 32bit performance are basing that on experiences from when 64bit X86 first came out. Those comparisons usually had all kinds of things wrong with them. First of all, lots of people first experienced 64bit on Vista, with systems that only had 1GB of RAM that ran XP or Vista 32bit OK. Then they were running a lot of 32 bit software, MS office, etc. 32 bit software on 64bit windows won’t give you any benefits, and may actually run slower because of WOW64. If you’ve got enough ram that you aren’t paging to disk all the time, and you are running native 64bit software, 64bit is faster. I did a quick test and booted a Core 2 Duo laptop I have with vista 32 and vista 64 and then ran the CPU-Z benchmark. The laptop has 4GB of RAM. I ran it 32 bit on 32bit windows, 32bit on 64bit window, and 64bit on 64bit windows. The 64bit version ran nearly twice as fast.

  • edited November 5

    Since the last time I posted my specs here, here are my updated specs. The bolded parts are what's changed.

    Motherboard: ECS H81H3-I/HDMI (V1.0) Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard
    CPU: Intel Core i5-4590S 3Ghz Quad-Core Processor
    Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Black 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
    Graphics: EVGA GeForce GTX 960 4GB Superclocked Video Card
    SSD: Kingston 480GB SSD
    HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
    OS: Windows 10 Pro (1809)

  • I posted my old Laptop's specs here before, but that computer broke beyond repair.
    Here are my new specs.
    Motherboard: MSI MPG Z390 GAMING PLUS
    CPU: Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90 Ghz - 6-Core CPU
    GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (i think msi overclocked it lol)
    RAM: 16GB of DDR4 2133MhZ Memory
    There's also 3 SSD's and no HDD's installed into the computer. (2M2's, 1 big sdd)
    I can't remember anything about the 2 M2's except the fact that they have 500GB of storage each and they are made by Samsung.
    The big SSD : Crucial MX500 1TB (Read/Write speed: 500MB/s)
    OS: Windows 10 Pro

Sign In or Register to comment.