View Full Version : Speccing up a new PC, advice please.
In the next month or so I'm going to be buying a complete new PC. My Shuttle is starting to strain now and it's time for a change.
With advice from a friend who's just bought some bits, I've specced up the following:
2 x OCZ 2GB (2 x 1GB) PC2-6400 Dual Channel Platinum (total 4Gb)
Samsung SpinPoint T HD501LJ 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache
Asus P5N-E SLi nForce 650 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard
Lian-Li PC-7 PLUS Midi-Tower Case
Antec TruePower Trio 650W PSU
BFG GeForce 8800 GTS OC 640MB GDDR3 HDTV/Dual DVI (PCI-Express)
Intel Core 2 DUO E6700 LGA775 Conroe @ 2.67GHz
Noctua NH-U12F HSF
I don't need an optical drive as I bought a new Samsung Lightscribe drive a couple of months ago and I'm not bothered about a floppy drive.
How does that look? I want it to be reasonably decent and last me for a while.
"Reasonably decent" hehehe!
Other than perhaps a different drive setup (RAID1 for the OS disk and a smaller SATAII storage disk) and me not really liking nvidia cards that much, thats quite a beast :)
Agree with DRZ, with the cost of storage so cheap, if you can afford to splurge on that sort of setup then you should also consider a RAID option, be it for redundancy or performance (I opt for the latter, as I backup religiously anyway).
So long as the Core 2's are happy with 4 DIMMS (I honestly dont know), then it looks good to me :)
Stan_Lite
04-03-2007, 20:16
Impressive spec dude :)
I like the Samsung spinpoint drives - nice and quiet and (so far) reliable.
I'd be interested to hear how you get on with the 8800. All of the high end cards I've had have been ATI and I had toyed with the idea of trying one of those beasts for size.
My XPS M1710 has the Geforce GO 7900 GTX in it and is very, very good - so although I was waiting for the R600 cards from ATI before my next build, I'm not a "fanboy" and would quite happily SLI a couple of those babies if they are up to the task.
Also interested in the Noctua HSF - never heard about it before but the reviews I just Googled look favourable.
All in all, a top notch machine (better than my current best rig ;)). I look forward to hearing how you get on with the build.
That's a damn sight better than decent and should keep you going for a long time.
Stan :)
Great, thanks :)
Performance would be the reason, I'm right at my cash limit so I'd either have to drop to 2Gb or reduce the CPU, I think dropping memory would be the best option as I don't have the hassle of removing and replacing the CPU later.
Not up to speed on RAID these days, got any specific suggestions?
Well if your mobo is half-decent you can just use the onboard "fakeraid" for the RAID levels you would want to be using - if you are looking for uber-fast windows performance a couple of Raptors in RAID1 (so mirrored) would be the best tradeoff for me (writes slightly compromised but absolutely blinding read speed), and if you couldnt stretch to Raptors perhaps just a couple of Seagate Barracuda 160Gb SATAIIs, again in RAID1 would give you faster than a single big disk (much much faster). I would probably then just add a single 320Gb version of the disk you were already going to buy and leave it at that.
I am currently running Vista with 2Gb ram and its positively rapid with 2Gb of RAM - assuming you arent running vista (else you wouldnt be picking an NVidia card ;)) then there is no benefit in choosing more RAM over a significant boost in HDD speed :)
2GB (2x1GB) CorsairTwinX XMS2 Dominator,DDR2 PC2-6400,240 Pins, NonECC Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12, EPP £144.64 £169.95
LN17713
Asus P5NT-WS SLI, NF680i SLI, 775, PCI-E (x16), DDR2 533/667/800, SATA II, SATA RAID, ATX £132.00 £155.10
LN15742
200 Gb Seagate ST3200820AS Barracuda 7200.10, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 8MB Cache, NCQ £39.29 £92.33
LN14639
400 Gb Samsung HD400LJ Spinpoint T, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 8MB Cache, 8.9 ms, NCQ £56.99 £66.96
LN17688
640MB BFG Technology 8800GTS Overclocked PCI-E(x16) Mem 1600MHz GPU 550MHz 96 Streams HDTV/2 x DVI-I £223.29 £262.37
LN15050
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Socket 775, 2.67 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB Cache, Retail
et Total £914.59
Carriage £11.74
V.A.T. £162.11
TOTAL £1,088.44
Obviosly not included HSF/PSU/Case etc but as a ballpark, is that about what you had in mind?
I may be running Vista, not 100% sure yet. It all depends on the prices really and whether I can get the OS at a good price or via work, which would be a very good price.
Anyway, from what I see, the motherboard doesn't have a raid controller anyway so the raid is a moot point.
Part of the reason behind wanting 4Gb is to have a dedicated partition for a certain disk intensive game and to run a decent sized cache using SuperCache II® and SuperVolume® just on that partition and still have enough memory for the system to speed along.
Not sure what your references to Vista and nVidia are about?
And what's fakeraid?
well, its software raid emulation through a hardware interface that has "some" functionality - no different do setting up a software raid array in windows, ultimately.
As for the whole nvidia/vista thing, I think I am right in saying that they are a bit behind in getting something stable together for their cards. Being an ATI man I am not 100% sure but I have heard it a couple of times now that the drivers arent quite there.
Looks like a nice spec to me.
I'm also an ATI man, which is why I wasn't bothered with SLi in my brand new (as in built yesterday) system. I'm also not so keen on ASUS stuff having had a few support issues with them in the past, so I went Gigabyte this time (yes, I know they used to have a bad reputation).
So far, so good with mine.
semi-pro waster
05-03-2007, 00:28
It is good but I'd make a couple of changes aside from what has already been mentioned. The Corsair 620w PSU or even the 520w version would be fine for that system, very solid and modular, built by Seasonic as a combination of the best points of the S12 and M12 ranges but to even higher standards.
I'd also change the 6700 to a 6600 for the simple reason that it costs a lot less but will almost certainly overclock to the same degree, particularly with a good cooler such as the Noctua.
I might also consider getting a fast pendrive to take advantage of Vista's usage of flash memory for the page file, can't remember what it is called at the moment but someone else might be able to give you the name of that feature. :)
What size is your monitor? If the resolution is less than say 1600x1200 then you might be as well getting the 320mb version of the 8800GTS as the performance is little different until you get to high resolutions.
.
I might also consider getting a fast pendrive to take advantage of Vista's usage of flash memory for the page file, can't remember what it is called at the moment but someone else might be able to give you the name of that feature. :)
ReadyBoost ;)
I'd also change the 6700 to a 6600 for the simple reason that it costs a lot less but will almost certainly overclock to the same degree
i agree with that 100%
It is good but I'd make a couple of changes aside from what has already been mentioned. The Corsair 620w PSU or even the 520w version would be fine for that system, very solid and modular, built by Seasonic as a combination of the best points of the S12 and M12 ranges but to even higher standards.
The 620w Corsair is more expensive than the one I've listed, what's the benefit of that over it, and would the 520w be enough as a 600w is recommended.
I'd also change the 6700 to a 6600 for the simple reason that it costs a lot less but will almost certainly overclock to the same degree, particularly with a good cooler such as the Noctua.
I'm not planning on overclocking as I've not had much luck doing that for quite a long time now.
I might also consider getting a fast pendrive to take advantage of Vista's usage of flash memory for the page file, can't remember what it is called at the moment but someone else might be able to give you the name of that feature. :)
ReadyBoost ;)
Oooo, hadn't heard of that - Looks like a great idea, thanks :)
What size is your monitor? If the resolution is less than say 1600x1200 then you might be as well getting the 320mb version of the 8800GTS as the performance is little different until you get to high resolutions.
Running two screens, one at 1680x950 (or whatever the exact widescreen resolution is) and the other at 1280x1024. Both are likely to have fairly intensive graphics on them at the same time which is why I went for the higher memory version. I don't want to find memory being a limiting factor.
did you get the ram back?
I did, thanks :)
semi-pro waster
05-03-2007, 11:34
The Corsair is modular so makes it easier to keep the case tidy but that might not be a big issue to you, particularly if you don't mess around inside the PC much. The main thing that sways it for me is the fact that is it Seasonic quality+ and it has a 5 year warranty which is unheard of in the PSU market. However since many people dump their PCs after a couple of years it is probably academic.
The Core2Duos seem almost ridiculously easy to overclock but if you don't want to then fair enough. The 6700 does cost around £150 more over the 6600 for not that much extra speed though even at stock.
The 640mb version of the 8800GTS is probably the better bet for you then as with one screen alone you'd just about be on the cusp of the benefits from the higher memory anyway. :)
Couple of notes on ReadyBoost:
The theory is that it helps your boot times, and in reality it does, though not as much as we were lead to believe. Where it does help though, is with application launch times - as an extension to prefetch cache, ReadyBoost will make the system seem a lot more responsive. It doesn't make a great deal once the application as started though - batch encoding MP3's or resizing pictures wont be any quicker in real terms - but it is worth doing. Also, benchmarks show that ReadyBoost works better still if the USB stick is formatted NTFS. No good if you plan to stick it in other devices, but if not then there's extra benefit to be had there.
They say you should have a 1:1 ratio pagefile:ReadyBoost, but I doubt that'd be practical with 4GB physical memory.
Personally I like to have more than 1 physical harddrive. I can then keep all my data on a separate drive/parition, and use a nice fast smaller (ergo cheaper) drive as my boot partition.
If you're bothered with RAID then yes that's also very good, but frankly for me it's over kill and SATA drives now are so fast that unless you need the redundancy (which I don't as I backup regularly) there's not much point in doing it IMO. But the boys here know more about home rigs than I do - servers are a different kettle of fish. :)
To me that looks like a great rig.
Just to let you know my home "powerful" system which I use for most things, scored 4.7 on the Vista performance scoring, 5 is the highest you can get. So I reckon yours will hit 5 with ease - actually it'll be way over 5, as my PC is about 2years old. It boots up in 30s flat once loaded things are almost instantaneous. Not sure if I like it yet - but I'm giving it a go. :)
If you're bothered with RAID then yes that's also very good, but frankly for me it's over kill and SATA drives now are so fast that unless you need the redundancy (which I don't as I backup regularly) there's not much point in doing it IMO.
All depends on what you're doing dude ;) I virtualise quite a bit and need the disk bandwidth, but regardless, I like 3 hard drives in a rig. 2 striped for bandwidth, 1 for backup. At home I have that plus the 500GB external for a second backup. And 2 extra external hard drives if I need them.
Yeah of course it depends on your requirements. But I have similar to yourself, external drive for major backup, and a 2nd drive for data storage, and my OS system partitions are on a separate disc so that I can kill them without any data loss as I keep all important data separately.
Striping does make it nice and fast I agree though. :)
Well if your mobo is half-decent you can just use the onboard "fakeraid" for the RAID levels you would want to be using - if you are looking for uber-fast windows performance a couple of Raptors in RAID1 (so mirrored) would be the best tradeoff for me (writes slightly compromised but absolutely blinding read speed), and if you couldnt stretch to Raptors perhaps just a couple of Seagate Barracuda 160Gb SATAIIs, again in RAID1 would give you faster than a single big disk (much much faster). I would probably then just add a single 320Gb version of the disk you were already going to buy and leave it at that.
I am currently running Vista with 2Gb ram and its positively rapid with 2Gb of RAM - assuming you arent running vista (else you wouldnt be picking an NVidia card ;)) then there is no benefit in choosing more RAM over a significant boost in HDD speed :)
2GB (2x1GB) CorsairTwinX XMS2 Dominator,DDR2 PC2-6400,240 Pins, NonECC Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12, EPP £144.64 £169.95
LN17713
Asus P5NT-WS SLI, NF680i SLI, 775, PCI-E (x16), DDR2 533/667/800, SATA II, SATA RAID, ATX £132.00 £155.10
LN15742
200 Gb Seagate ST3200820AS Barracuda 7200.10, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 8MB Cache, NCQ £39.29 £92.33
LN14639
400 Gb Samsung HD400LJ Spinpoint T, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 8MB Cache, 8.9 ms, NCQ £56.99 £66.96
LN17688
640MB BFG Technology 8800GTS Overclocked PCI-E(x16) Mem 1600MHz GPU 550MHz 96 Streams HDTV/2 x DVI-I £223.29 £262.37
LN15050
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Socket 775, 2.67 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB Cache, Retail
et Total £914.59
Carriage £11.74
V.A.T. £162.11
TOTAL £1,088.44
Obviosly not included HSF/PSU/Case etc but as a ballpark, is that about what you had in mind?
Nvidia drivers are OK atm for vista. I have no real issues with them at present.
Missed that, but yes I agree. There are still a couple of minor niggles (enabling second screens on Laptops can be a bit funny for example), but it's largely ok now I hear. They were awful during the beta period though, no doubt.
I'm still leaning very much towards Vista - Is there any real specific reason I shouldn't buy an OEM copy of the 64 bit version of Home Premium?
64 bit has (significantly) worse driver/app support compared to 32 bit. If you can put up with that until things get settled then no, there is no reason not go go for the x64 version.
Again, 64 has been ok for me. Progs which work:
Power DVD
Daemon Tools
Kaspersky
Teamspeak
Ventrillo
Getright
Firefox
Thunderbird
CCleaner
Diskeeper
It isn't as bad as people say - it's not perfect but it's ok.
I use almost all those - So do 32 bit apps just not work or is there a compatibility mode doofer thing?
32 bit apps should work. It's the drivers you may have problems with. :)
All the bits in the PC - check
Mouse - check
Erm.
That's about it!
64 bit has (significantly) worse driver/app support compared to 32 bit.
I'd agree with you on drivers, but not apps. Incompatibility is the exception these days, not the rule. So long as the software's reasonably up to date and isnt closely tied with any hardware, it should be fine. No guarantees though etc etc.
I use almost all those - So do 32 bit apps just not work or is there a compatibility mode doofer thing?
That's a list of what works :D
Hmmm, now here's a thought.
Drop the CPU to the 2.4GHz one, and add a pair of 36Gb Raptors. RAID them as the boot/OS device and use the other one for everything else.
If I do that, which drive should have the swap file on?
Makes bugger all difference to the overall price.
Tbh if you overclock the best cpu is the 6300/6400. They do 2.8ghz as standard really.
semi-pro waster
05-03-2007, 20:47
The Raptors, particularly the 36gb versions aren't that much quicker than the Seagate 7200.10s and tend to cost at least twice the price for half the storage. If you want to do so then by all means go for it but I don't think it is a valuable use of funds. I'd still switch to the 6600 (2.4ghz chip) anyway though and save the cash, if you want to overclock then with PC6400 Ram you should be able to get to 3.6ghz (assuming a good clocking chip and adequate cooling) due to the 9x multiplier, 3.2ghz is a more realistic target however but that is still far in advance of the 6700 at stock. :)
Stan_Lite
05-03-2007, 21:11
I'd still switch to the 6600 (2.4ghz chip) anyway though and save the cash, if you want to overclock then with PC6400 Ram you should be able to get to 3.6ghz (assuming a good clocking chip and adequate cooling) due to the 9x multiplier, 3.2ghz is a more realistic target however but that is still far in advance of the 6700 at stock. :)
Mine does 3.2 at stock volts with hardly a twitch in temperature. It will do 3.6 with naughty volts but I wouldn't dream of Folding 24/7 at that.
Even if you're not comfortable overclocking it, the E6600 is blisteringly fast at stock speed.
Stan :)
They are that fast? Christ!!
Yup, they are.
If I can convince myself to give clocking a go, I might. The trouble is I know precisely nothing about the subject and I treat BIOS settings with extreme caution. I can't afford to have a broken system.
The other bit that makes me reluctant is that I also have no hardware monitoring bar the BIOS (which isn't much use if you want to load test) as the Linux kernel guys are only just adding thermal monitoring support for C2D chips now and I can't use the latest kernels anyway due to broken drivers.
I'm still toying with raid 0, however after seeing the sustained read speeds that some of the guys on ocuk forums have been getting... I think I will go raid 0.
The WD AACS seem to be the daddy's however I wouldn't want 2*500gb in a raid 0. Of particular interest should be post #7
http://forums.ove*************.uk/showthread.php?t=17696862
Even with bargain basement 40gb drives, just look at the sustained read!! I would look at the 200gb 7200.10 drives that nearly match the raptor performance for a lot less and then stuff them in a raid 0.
The main reason is 74gb isn't much to play with nower days but the main difference is if you play games & want the access times
I've long since decided RAID 0 isn't for me. I use real honest to goodness RAID 1 in the server box (though I suspect fakeraid would be faster now).
I've long since decided RAID 0 isn't for me. I use real honest to goodness RAID 1 in the server box (though I suspect fakeraid would be faster now).
I have 3* raid 1 partitions at the moment in different boxes. Raid 1 is meant to have redundancy but speed up the read speed at the same time.... does it hell. I will probably have the OS&games installed on a raid 0, backup up onto a raid 1 partition when I upgrade.
RAID-1's just an availability solution, doesn't really give any other benefits. If that's what you need then great, but most people just need a backup solution.
semi-pro waster
06-03-2007, 17:45
I have 3* raid 1 partitions at the moment in different boxes. Raid 1 is meant to have redundancy but speed up the read speed at the same time.... does it hell. I will probably have the OS&games installed on a raid 0, backup up onto a raid 1 partition when I upgrade.
At first I thought it didn't do anything to speed up the system then I heard that it improved read speeds, apparantly it is only on some Raid controllers that it might as in theory at least it could, rpstewart over there who knows shedloads about such things doesn't know of any that do improve read speeds though. All of which mean I'm now back to my original position of saying that it has no impact. :)
I've pretty much made a final decision now.
Which is everything I originally listed, but with the 6600 CPU instead of the 6700, with a 2Gb USB key to use with ReadyBoost and a copy of Vista Home Premium x64.
If you're sure all hardware has the required drivers, then that will be a very impressive system indeed :)
It all looks like it is. The usb key I've ordered is this (http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=119936) one which is claimed to be one of the fastest available :D
I'm all excited now, I'll probably be ordering this lot on Friday :D
Only difference is that I've added a SATA Samsung DVD writer, the SATA version of the one I'm currently using. Figured it's best to keep it on the same bus as the hard drive.
SH-S183A perchance? They're good those (haven't tried writing yet but they're fast and quiet reading). I got one too for the same reason. Avoids using the crappy JMicron controller.
Same here!! I'm using the ICH8 controller totally now (3 hard drives and the sammy).
SH-183L I think it is. The Lightscribe version.
Yup, that'll be the one. I passed on Lightscribe for this one as this PC is in Linux land (I haven't even figured out CD writing in Linux never mind whether Lightscribe is possible).
I'm still humming and hawwing over 32 vs 64 bit though.
Dont worry so much about the software (though there's a little niggle there for sure), it's all hardware. You say the core system is covered, but what about any printers you have or will buy soon (common problem I've seen)? Any cameras or whatever that connect directly via USB, or provide extra functionality above what a standard SD card can give you? Any webcams? Wireless adapter? Scanners?
Those sort of peripherals are still very much on the back foot with x64 support.
You're already putting yourself on the bleeding edge with Vista, at the moment I think that's probably far enough. 64bit will probably only make your life harder, in terms of things 'just working'.
[edit]Whoops, edit!=reply
64-bit will take best advantage of the hardware, particularly in combination with more than 2GB of RAM. Once you get about 2GB, things tend to get a bit flaky with 32-bit, and there are various reports of users seeing between 2GB and about 3.5GB on systems with 4GB installed RAM. Indeed, the 4GB memory address space useable by 32-bit versions of Windows appears to include the RAM on your graphics card, so, for example, if your graphics card has 512MB onboard, then Windows can't use more than 3584MB system RAM. There are other overheads that will reduce this further.
The simple answer is, if you don't have any software or hardware that is incompatible with 64-bit Windows, then you should go 64-bit to take full advantage of the hardware. Older hardware, and especially, as Daz pointed out, printers and USB devices, are prone to driver trouble. Old software is too (anything originally designed for systems pre-Windows XP SP2, and especially anything pre-Windows 2000, should be viewed with caution)
If, however, you are concerned with compatibility, then you might need to re-think your memory order before you risk being disappointed with 32-bit.
The 4GB point is one I'd overlooked, and an important one. Windows will also subtract the size of your page file from the total amount of memory it can address.
Given the amount of memory you want to use, I'd be looking at 64bit after screening my applications and being very certain about my hardware.
Didn't know about the swap file. Didn't know about the graphics either until I googled it. But, having battled with Linux over high memory support I knew to look. :)
Applications I'm sure are fine, there's nothing I need to do immediately that I won't be able to.
The printer is a good call. However if needed I can save stuff as an .eps and print it from another PC on the network.
x64 then, ta :)
This is true. As you have more than one PC, then unless you have specific driver issues with the new hardware (unlikely), x64 is worth the risk. Worst case you can always use another PC.
Now I'm grumpy as I ordered today and one of the critical items is out of stock :(
Where did you order from? Please not the stoke shop :(
Of course not!
Although I just checked and they have the item but I'm not a) splitting the order and b) ordering from them.
I did split the order, and did order one piece from them, but only because that's the one piece they were significantly (as in more than the P&P) cheaper on. The rest was cheaper elsewhere.
I know I probably sound like a broken record...but their returns system is crap - end of.
Try:
www.microdirect.co.uk
www.dabs.com
www.chillblast.co.uk
www.kustompcs.co.uk
www.ebuyer.co.uk
www.scan.co.uk
What part do you need?
Most of it came from Scan. Just the memory from there. I usually try them, Dabs, eBuyer, and Scan, and take the cheapest.
semi-pro waster
16-03-2007, 15:15
I quite like Aria to order from as they normally have a good selection of parts, almost all are in stock at any given time although I can't recall if I've ever had to RMA anything to them so that might be a bit of a question mark I suppose. :)
It was Scan and the part that wasn't in stock has come in during the day, but because it was out of stock earlier I didn't tick the 'saturday delivery' box so although it's now been despatched, it won't be delivered until Monday anyway.
Ho hum.
Well it's all here, it's built and it's quick!
Having some memory issues though, it looks as though it's a major pain to get all 4Gb working in this board. I'm running 3Gb now with custom memory settings and will try the 4th tomorrow.
Not got the USB key yet, another week or so before that turns up.
I like Vista. It's very nice, and I've not had any compatibility issues yet but I've not tried installing anything odd.
Gonna buy Test Drive Unlimited tomorrow :D
(oh - geek mode on. I picked up the stuff yesterday evening on my way home and ended up going to bed just before 04:00 today! Good job I booked the day off)
http://www.ocukroguesgallery.com/feek/index.jpg
Nice one :D
I don't envy you at all, honest ;)
Nice score - nearly maxed out! (5.9 is max)... My gfx card is crap so I only get 4.9 on the 3D games setting (but I don't care about that :p), our Grpahics for Aero, HDD and CPU are very similar - I have to say I'm quite liking Vista when I do use it - I seldom use the "aero window shuffle" gizmo thing as it doesn't really help - looks cool though :D
After a few more tweaks that PC is going to be kick ass! Enjoy it! :D
Mine's 5.3 - as my lowest score is my HD at an obvious 5.3 - max is 5.9 which is my 8800GTX.
Right, overclocking time already!
I've increased the fsb to 1185 which gives me a clock speed of 2.67GHz, I think that's the way to do it as I can't change the multiplier.
Been running the Orthos CPU stress test overnight which passed with flying colours and today I'm running the CPU/RAM test.
Temps on load settled at around 48C.
What's a sensible maximum temp to run this CPU at? I had it briefly at 3.0GHz last night and it hit around 51/52C on load and not knowing what's good or not I backed it off.
I've set the memory timings as 4-4-4-15 which is what it says on the memory box, but there's another field I don't know, which has auto, 1t or t2 as the settings. I've left this on auto.
What's this one all about?
Stan_Lite
21-03-2007, 09:42
Safe temperatures are pretty much the same as any other CPU, anything below 60C won't hurt. I try to keep mine below 50 as I run them all at 100% F@H 24/7. I have a few running at 50+C 24/7 with absolutely no problems.
If your system is stable at 3.0 GHz, there should be no problem running it at 51-52C (I assume you won't be running it fully loaded 24/7).
Stan :)
semi-pro waster
21-03-2007, 17:41
Are you still on stock cooling? If so 51-52C is fine at 3ghz but obviously swapping for a good aftermarket cooler should lower that a bit. //edit just re-read and noted the cooler you ordered, I thought you would be a bit lower than that, what RPM is the fan at?
I think the 1T and 2T is to do with running the Ram in sync but I'm not totally sure of that, if you had 4 sticks on the A64s you needed to run 2T because it didn't cope so well with all slots filled. :)
Fan speed is about 1300rpm. The PC itself is in the warmest room in the house, standing on the floor which has all the heating and water pipes below it so I always expect temps to be a little higher than they may be otherwise.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.