Depends on whether or not you want to upgrade again in the future. Seeing as you said that it's a socket 775 motherboard, i'd suggest that you upgrade the CPU, motherboard and RAM all in one go. There isn't a point buying more DDR2 RAM as it's usually more expensive now, and if you are going to upgrade, you should at least upgrade to LGA 1150.
Also, an LGA 775 CPU won't be compatible with a newer board. Save the money for the new RAM a bit longer then buy a new motherboard, RAM and CPU with it. 4 GB is enough for Minecraft, you'll be able to get by with a 270 + the current CPU & RAM in the meantime.
That's what I was thinking. I've already bought the card, so I don't have to factor that into savings. I figured my best bet is to buy a cheaper MSI/Gigabyte/Biostar 1150 board, which I can get for about $60, which is wonderful if I want to budget. I could probably find a good i5 processor on eBay, but regardless, it'll only run me about $200 brand new anyways, so that'll be fine. Then I can go with the Team Vulcan memory I found previously, which was only about $70 for 8 GB. That would still leave me room to upgrade further, if I really wanted to.
I'll still reformat and install Windows, a friend of mine offered to help me out with that. That way I can take advantage of the full 4 GB and more than 1 GB heap size for Minecraft.
With all three of those parts, I'm looking at about $327.38. Due to having other expenditures, and having spent money on the video card, I'm a bit lower in money now; just before October 20th (which is when my 10% discount on buying the Wii U expires), including the fact I won't get a paycheck next week due to medical leave, I'll have $787 in the bank after bills. Should be enough for everything I want, surprisingly. Minimum wage is garbage, but I'm happy I can at least pull this off. And that's excepting the possibility of finding these parts on eBay for less somehow.
Only one last question; I have an inland (I hate that brand but it was given with the rest of the PC) PSU, 600W with 36A on the 12V rail (20A on the 3.3V, and 28A on the 5V, if it matters). With the card, mobo, CPU, and RAM I have listed in this post, will that be good enough? I'm pretty sure I should be in the clear, but I'm not 100% sure, so I thought I'd double-check with you guys. I know a little bit about technology, but my memory is quite rusty since I haven't had time to study or brush up on it.
Alright guys, just snagged an R9 270 for $81, so maybe that eBay thing isn't too bad after all. Plus it's got a money back guarantee, so if it's not up to my expectations, I can always return it and try something else. Nbd. I'm glad this was suggested, and I had a friend help me out to find it, so that's awesome.
Now, one question. Turns out I have four 1 GB sticks, so upgrading is a bit more work. Do I try to find a deal for four 2 GB sticks, or would it be better just to find a couple 4 GB sticks and leave room for upgrading later? I'm mainly trying to budget still, so the less I can spend, the better.
Edit:
Actually, the price isn't too different based on what I'm looking around at. With all the options available, plus the fact I could potentially just leave two of the 1 GB sticks in if I added two 4 GB's, I'd have 10 GB -- even if I didn't leave them in, I'd have 8, plus room to upgrade later if I wanted.
However I've run into another problem. It seems my motherboard is a DDR2 RAM based board. Cheapest I can find 8 GB of DDR2 RAM is over $100. I can grab a couple 2 GB chips and bump up to 6 for only about $60, but since my processor is a Socket 775, I can probably move everything over to a new board. However, I'd need to make sure everything I have is compatible.
If you are currently enrolled at a school or college, it may be worth checking with the IT dept. to see whether or not they are involved with the Microsoft DreamSpark program and whether you can access it. Alternatively, if you have an education email address (.edu etc), you may be eligible anyway.
If you can access DreamSpark, you can access Microsoft products for free under a student license (ie, Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc). Not sure whether Windows 7 is included in the program, but honestly, I don't see why you wouldn't go with Windows 8.
I used to be against Windows 8 before I actually gave it a trial run over a week or so, but have since changed my mind entirely. Once you install StartIsBack/Start8/ClassicShell (it's worth paying for StartIsBack, it's the one I ended up with) and do away with the stupid 'Metro' (or whatever they call it) interface, it's identical to Windows 7 with a fair few improvements with Windows Explorer and Task Manager, as well as performance. You can even change the 'This PC' layout back to what it looked and functioned like in Windows 7 with a simple registry tweak.
In short, Windows 8.1 is identical to, if not better than Windows 7 if you give 5 minutes for setup.
Afraid I'm not. Just moved to the state I'm in as of December, so I'd still be charged out-of-state tuition fees. Aside from that, I don't have much reason to want to pay an arm and a leg for college. I'm settling for CompTia certifications (A+, Network+, and Security+ primarily). I do know about DreamSpark though, but yeah, I don't think I have any way of obtaining it, unless I asked my uncle if he'd mind purchasing it for me if I sent him the money to do so.
Also, if it's possible to entirely change the UI and get rid of the Start Screen / Metro interface altogether, I wouldn't mind. I absolutely despise Metro UI. And hell, based on the financial reports, I think Microsoft actually publicly stated Windows 8 was a financial failure. It is a little faster, but the changes to design and user interaction were absolutely horrid, enough so that a lot of people had issues with it. I can use it, but I'd prefer not to ever have to. If you can tell me what to search for in order to go back to the Aero + Classic shell, or at least get rid of Metro, I'd be willing to consider the upgrade.
I recently upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1, I tried both out on a pretty low spec computer and Windows 8.1 seemed quite a bit faster than 7. Both of these were clean installs.
If I were you I would upgrade to Windows 8.1 and an AMD R7 260x. That will run you about $200. Then if you want upgrade the ram to 8gb.
Is the R7 260x actually a significant enough difference over the 7770 without costing a whole lot extra? I actually haven't looked up the card so I don't know the price point nor the performance difference. I'm assuming it's more powerful, but how much more?
You don't need an extreeeemely high-end computer to run any Minecraft related programs... I mean heck, I use a 12 inch Macbook Air from late 2012 and I don't run to badly at 720p and medium settings..but in the long run getting something that you know can run your modpacks for a while without you having to upgrade your computer...that's a good thing to have. A 64 bit system would definitely help, and the HD 7770 is a beast of a graphics card from what I've seen..and you could snag it off Ebay fairly cheap if you do some researching... and 4 gb of ram should do fairly well unless you're planning to record videos..(if you're doing that then you might want to upgrade to 8) And also, be careful with what graphics card you get, if you're getting those lag spikes, it COULD be your CPU. But it's doubtful!
Yeah, I can run Tekkit Classic wonderfully, no lag whatsoever. I'm even able to run a few other games ridiculously well. Amusingly, I never trust requirements that much, because I was able to run The Old Republic on my last computer which only had a Pentium 4 (Socket 478) on it. Granted it was on minimum, but if your computer's optimized properly, it can usually exceed what people would expect of it. Mine admittedly isn't optimized that well right now, since I'm really low on hard disk space (I'm consistently below 5% free space) and I have so many things cluttering the resources. So a reformat would absolutely be nice regardless.
I do intend to record videos, so I've already established upgrading to at least 8. I have two 2 GB sticks right now, so I could either buy two more and sit at 8, or two 4 GB's and end up with 12 GB. Either way, I need the extra memory just for performance's sake.
Yeah... I don't know about the beast part. It's average at best. The eBay part is correct though, provided you know what you're doing.
I'd say it's still a little above average. It is slightly outdated, but not so much so that it's not a viable card. Definitely a lot better than my current GeForce 210. Hell, I think my Radeon 9250 was more powerful than this thing, but I can't say for sure. Besides, it was an AGP card anyway, so I couldn't use it if I wanted to.
Usually Pro is more expensive than Home Premium. Don't see any reason to get it unless you're needed to use Bitlocker and the other features Pro uses.
The main differences between Professional and Home Premium that I prefer to still have access to are the ability to run my computer as a server for RDP access, even if TeamViewer is a reliable application most of the time, as well as Windows XP Mode and dynamic disk volumes. Otherwise, admittedly, it's not that important to me. Those few features are rather important to me, enough to justify the difference. I'd like Ultimate, but unfortunately, I've never had the money to afford it -- I have the OEM version of Professional 32-bit since my father got free copies of it through work.
Regardless, $100 is quite a bit to spend. I'm looking at around $300 for the OS, a couple memory sticks, another drive, and a decent video card. Not too bad for the upgrade it'll be giving in the end, but when that's nearly an entire month's check (after bills), it's gotta wait a little while.
Once again, I greatly appreciate the feedback. Also, thank you Blues for the link, wasn't aware Newegg sold copies of Windows 7 still, so that's bookmarked so I can purchase it instead of having to upgrade to Windows 8 (which I really don't like, honestly.)
/3GB merely switches the allocation of Virtual Address space from 2GB User and 2GB Kernel to 3GB User and 1GB Kernel space. However, the only applications that will have this Virtual Address Space layout will be those compiled specifically to support it. This is indicated with the "LARGEADDRESSAWARE" flag/bit set in their executable header.
Applets run via a plugin. That plugin runs under the browser. All major browsers on Windows are compiled with the Large Address aware flag. java.exe and javaw.exe, which are used to run Java applications, are not. So they get 2GB/2GB split.
The Java Heap is what Minecraft- the Java program being run is able to use. the 32-bit Heap pretty much tops out at around 1GB because Java needs space in RAM for it's own data structures, VM, jit compiler, etc.
Huh. I actually wasn't aware of about 75% of that. Thank you for the explanation, that actually makes sense. I should've thought only certain programs could take advantage of the /3GB switch, but it actually never crossed my mind. I do rather dislike the fact 32-bit operating systems can't handle (or properly process) more than 4 GB of RAM, but ah well, it's a limitation I have to deal with. 64-bit is pretty stabilized and properly supported now, so it's due time for an upgrade anyway. Once again, thank you for the clarification. c:
You should probably consider upgrading your OS as you're loosing 1 GB which is, essentially, a bit of wasted money.
Seriously depends on what you see yourself doing in a couple of years, but the easiest thing to do is upgrade your video card and give yourself a 64-bit OS so you can utilize that extra 1GB in RAM your OS now isn't seeing.
At some point your processor is going to bottleneck your GPU so you might not want to go too high end.
Running FTB Monster with a slightly slower processor and a 5770 (slightly slower than a 7750) without Thaumcraft or texture packs I'm getting around 50-60FPS on normal render distance. With anything less than 2GB allocated lags spikes start occurring after playing for an hour or so.
Well. I tried using Physical Address Extension (or rather, the /3GB switch) to bump up to 4 GB of memory. It works for the most part, but 32-bit Java seemingly can't utilize it. The worst part is that while 32-bit Java applets can natively access up to 2 GB of memory, it seems Minecraft is even more limited and refuses to allow more than 1 GB heap size. Any larger than that, and it simply errors out.
So yeah, it looks like I can't do anything without upgrading to 64-bit, which I'm not going to be able to do any time soon. I'm not even sure where to find a reliable copy of 64-bit Windows 7, and I'm sure it'd be around $100 regardless, but I'd need to buy another hard drive so I could transfer files over as a backup before reformatting just to be able to install the new OS. Too many valuable files to lose. Sigh. Ah well. I'll just have to put it off until the end of the year. Regardless, looks like I'm saddling up to buy Windows 7 64-bit, another couple 2 GB sticks (or 4 GB sticks if it's a negligible difference in cost) of RAM, an HD 7770, and another Seagate Barracuda. Ouch... Well, it'll be worth it in the long haul, I suppose.
Thanks for the responses though. At least I know what my plans are for upgrading. Video card might be super important, but 64-bit seems to be a necessity for Minecraft as of late. Older modpacks might have run well, but with all the improvements and changes, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later.
Okay, since everyone apparently wants to be condescending towards me and make me out to be some kind of idiot when it comes to computers, I'm just going to throw this out here. If you want to get a good estimate of what wattage you'll need on your power supply, here's a wonderful little calculator tool for you.
In the meantime, since I apparently know f*** all about computers, I'm going to cease offering any advice and leave it up to the "professionals" here instead.
It depends on what your budget is, your processor doesn't really need upgraded, you could get by with it, and for your graphics card, the ATI Radeon HD 7770 is a pretty decent card...if you want to research graphics cards search their performance on YouTube, it gives a good example of the card.
Oh no, my CPU's pretty good. Not a powerhouse by any means, but it's not horribly obsolete. Hell, I went with a Pentium 4 (478) until like... two years ago. I've dealt with worse.
I'm mainly just trying to establish if upgrading my video card would be enough to handle more than it does now, or if I really need more memory too. 3 GB isn't bad for most things honestly, I'm able to get by with everything else. But unfortunately, Minecraft tends to bog down and lock up repeatedly with most of the expansive modpacks. I'm not just talking low FPS, although that's a thing too, it even freezes up every now and then. It'll load one frame, then completely freeze for about 5 seconds and then load another frame. Like, busy cursor and "Not Responding" in the title and everything.
If upgrading to an HD 7770 or GTX 750 would be enough, I'll absolutely do it, because it's only about $130 out of my pocket. But if I'd need to upgrade my RAM as well and get a 64-bit copy of Windows, then I think I'll just wait it out until the end of the year or start of next year. Considering I only get about $500 a month tops, $200 of that goes to bills and gas etc., and another $100 to groceries, I'm left with $200 for everything else, including saving for the Wii U by October. So my budget is pretty low. I can spend a little bit on a video card, but having to fork out money for a 64-bit version of Windows 7, plus the video card and memory chips, I'd be looking at close to $300 anyways.
tl;dr, will upgrading my video card alone be enough to run Agrarian Skies / Crash Landing, or do I need a 64-bit OS?
Why 700w? even upgrading wouldn't pass 400w, 700w is just useless and overkill
Depends on the computer. If he went with the prebuilt linked in the first post, there's no point upgrading the PSU at all. But if he builds a computer with more powerful parts, he'll need a PSU that can handle it. I always get a PSU that has at least 40A on the 12V rail, so I generally go with a 700+ W. 90% of the time, I end up with an 850W PSU.
Stop recommending the 650! It's old and outdated compared to the 750.
Oops. I actually did mean the 750. The 650's only around $70 IIRC, the 750 is the one around $110. My bad. So many numbers I typed up, guess I punched one in incorrectly. Thank you for the correction~.
Im planning to get a 500W or more.
don't have to be mean. plus if you say you can make a 20x better one for 500 what about you tell me the parts then.
Honestly, I'd look into a 700W at least, but that's just me.
Anyways. I do apologize if I've come off rude or disrespectful, I'm not at all trying to do that. I'm awful with explaining things, conversation has never really been my forté. Book smarts, not street smarts. But anyways, I was more trying to explain that the computer you linked wasn't worth the cost. The value of the computer was so much lower than the cost was.
Also, it'd take quite a bit of links, but I probably could build one better. Under $500 is tough because if you include case, fans, motherboard, CPU+heatsink, power supply, etcetera., it does slowly add up. Prebuilts are cheaper often because the parts are bought in bulk (and thus discounted) and sold at a premium once it's all put together. That's why a lot of prebuilts around that range rely on the GT 610, which isn't really that impressive of a card. But honestly, 20× was a gross exaggeration, and not even realistic. I do apologize for that as well. Anyways, as far as prebuilts go, the one I linked above is a little more worth the value. Also, here's one from TD that's also a better value overall. Still not a great CPU, but the difference in other parts makes up for it, imho.
If you're building it yourself, here's a few short tips:
Generally you want to avoid the GT 610. The card only costs $40, that's reason enough to know it's not a powerful card. The GT 720 is only $10 more, still more powerful. I'd look into something closer to the HD 7770 or the GTX 650, which are around $90-100, but massively more powerful.
Processor, I explained earlier. Not much more, but I'd look into the FX-6300, or FX-8320 if you're really willing to spend that extra dollar for value. I personally prefer Intel over AMD, but when it comes to budget, AMD is significantly cheaper. Intel is far more powerful, but also far more costly most of the time.
RAM is negotiable -- at least get 4 GB of DDR3, but opt for 8 if you can find a good enough deal. Never spend more than about $50 for 4 GB of DDR3-2400MHz. Also, as far as RAM goes, the price difference between each speed is such a small difference that, in the end, you're better off going for 2400MHz because you won't save more than a dollar or two (literally) going with 1600MHz.
Case, mobo, etc. is all extremely negotiable. You still need a good motherboard to support the processor and GPU efficiently, but you can usually find good ones for a hundred or sometimes less. Cases are pretty cheap, fans and heatsink and etc. aren't usually too costly. For motherboard, case, and all the accessories, you shouldn't usually spend more than a couple hundred in the end.
PSU is possible the most important factor, outside of CPU, GPU, and RAM. In fact, if you have an underpowered PSU, you'll fall short of being able to run the computer to it's best potential. Always look for something with a high ampere rating on the 12V rail. You can usually find a good 850W with a 60A 12V rail for just over $100. Unfortunately, power supplies can be costly, so you have to compare costs for what you need, and while it's nice to have the extra power, if you don't need it, there's not much point in spending money on it. Having extra power isn't like having extra memory, it won't really ever net you anything except room for upgrades on other parts.
If I really sat down and archived links, I could probably find enough to build you one around $500-600 that's got a pretty good value for the cost. The catch of course is that it'd be separate parts, and you'd still have to put it all together. I'd like to start my own company building computers for people, but alas, that's not something I can do on a working class budget, so I can't help you there. Sorry about that~. That's the advantage of prebuilts is that they're usually ready to go off the start, so you don't need to know how to put the parts together, or worry about the cost of the little things. In the end, the most expensive parts are the GPU, CPU, and PSU. Ironically enough, those are usually the most important parts, immediately followed by memory. So don't skimp on those, always compare prices and go for the best value.
4 GB isn't bad. I didn't mean it was -- but for the price, that's miserable. You can get prebuilts and custom builts with 8 GB for the same price. I only have 4 GB myself, but my computer (which is in dire need of an upgrade) is maybe worth... $200?
The FX 4300 isn't high-end, but it's definitely not as bad as you think it is.
I'm not saying it's horrible by any means. It's higher than my Core 2 Quad. But it costs about $100+ to buy on it's own, and for that same price almost, you can get the FX 6300, which is a pretty major difference. Hell, $50 more and you could get the FX 8320, and that's significantly better. Maybe I'm just spoiled on the whole cost-for-value equation.
It has two physical cores, and two logical cores per physical core. That's equivalent to a Core 2 Duo with Hyperthreading. In fact, hyperthreading is two logical cores per physical core. So it's basically a dual-core with hyperthreading. Not a true quad-core.
I find it funny that you think the graphics card is simply weak but are trashing the CPU which is decent.
Nah, it was just bad choice of wording. The GPU is pitiful. If you were to only replace one thing in the entire build, it'd need to be the GPU (and the PSU honestly, but that's inevitable if you get a 300W PSU). This pre-built is a lot like my computer is right now. A little bit better, but the CPU to GPU ratio is pretty much the same, in that the GPU doesn't even deserve to be on the same motherboard.
Not saying that the OP made a good choice (because they didn't), but a number of things are wrong in your post.
I do apologize, I'm horrible at wording things and pretty socially inept, so I do tend to come off pretentious and insensitive. I just think that if you gauge the value-for-cost of the entire build, it's awful. "Synthetic benchmarks" might be useless to you, but they tend to be accurate. I've based my purchases off PassMark's ratings for years, and every time it's been a wise decision. The GPU is the worst part (excepting the PSU), but the CPU and the amount of RAM are pretty low for that cost. Here's one I found in literally 1 minute of searching that's undeniably more worth it:
Sure, it costs a little less than a hundred dollars more, but if you compare the value of the parts in the build to the one linked in OP's post, it's miles better, and I'm sure the difference in the cost of the two computers isn't as big as the difference in the cost of the individual parts.
Only 4 GB of DDR3, a pretty low-end CPU (297th rated card currently according to PassMark) that's not even a true quad-core tbh, and a pretty bad graphics card to boot. That card's rated the 469th best card on the market. That means there's 468 better graphics cards than that one that you could choose from. The bad news is, even if you choose a better card to upgrade it afterwards, you're stuck with a 300W PSU, which means 90% of your better cards aren't going to have enough power to run. Why buy a prebuilt computer that bad just to have to replace the PSU just so you can upgrade the GPU? What a waste.
With $500, I could build a computer 20× better than that. It might be good as a student PC, but it won't cut it as a gaming PC. You could run vanilla Minecraft with absolutely no mods on medium graphics, no shaders/HD texture packs, but don't expect to get much more out of it than that. I wouldn't buy it, just because the value is so much lower than the cost.
Not sure if it was the overly sensitive spam filter or not, but I noticed a thread I literally just posted about 10 minutes ago roughly has already vanished.
I probably could have more accurately put it in one of the sub-forums, probably the hardware/software support or computer buying/building ones, either/or honestly. But still, I didn't think I had done anything wrong in the post, had I?
Thanks ahead of time for looking into it. My apologies if I broke any rules somehow with the post, but I do appreciate it getting resolved if possible. c:
I'm currently working a minimum wage part-time job (at least where I live), so I don't earn a whole heck of a lot. Most I've gotten in a single week was $175, and that was working nearly 30 hours, which is something I don't get to do very often. We were short-staffed that week, we've since hired more workers, so I'm averaging 20 hours. So I'm generally looking at around $120, and even when minimum wage increases on the first of next month, it won't be enough to really matter. With my personal bills being around $110 a month, plus having to chip in to cover other bills and grocery costs, I don't get a whole lot per month, and I'm hoping to save up for a Wii U by my birthday in October, so I'm desperately trying not to spend much.
With that said, though, I can hardly run modpacks even on minimum without severe lag. Agrarian Skies and Crash Landing simply won't work at all, I get almost no FPS whatsoever. It's that bad. I can run vanilla just fine, obviously, but that's no fun. It's not that my computer's horrible -- It's just out of date, and a little bit bogged down. Here, specs are as follows:
Windows Experience Index is at 4.5, determined by graphics. Processor gets a 7.2, RAM gets a 7.2, graphics gets a 4.5, gaming graphics gets a 5.5, and hard drive gets a 5.9. Pretty sure both my drives are Seagate 7200 RPM 250 GB drives, and honestly, the WEI doesn't really gauge things that well imo, so I never rely on that anyway. But if I were to rely on it, it's implying video card is the biggest thing I need to upgrade.
With that in mind, to run a client like the Direwolf20 modpack, Horizons, any of the high-tech modpacks with 100+ mods, what would I need to upgrade? Can I get by just upgrading my video card alone, or is it absolutely essential to upgrade my RAM? The latter also requires me to reformat entirely and buy a 64-bit copy of Windows, which isn't entirely easy rn, both because of expenses and I'm having fun trying to find a copy of Windows 7 (64-bit) still available for purchase.
As far as I know you just pour the cement out on the ground. It hardens and then you collect it with a pickaxe.
Managed to figure it out. Cement has to flow out until it's thinned enough to not be a liquid source block, and then those areas will harden into dry cement. The sources will never harden, however, only the flowing cement will.
0
Yeah, he had a feedback score of 927 and 100% positive feedback. Here's the link if you're curious, providing it still works.
That's what I was thinking. I've already bought the card, so I don't have to factor that into savings. I figured my best bet is to buy a cheaper MSI/Gigabyte/Biostar 1150 board, which I can get for about $60, which is wonderful if I want to budget. I could probably find a good i5 processor on eBay, but regardless, it'll only run me about $200 brand new anyways, so that'll be fine. Then I can go with the Team Vulcan memory I found previously, which was only about $70 for 8 GB. That would still leave me room to upgrade further, if I really wanted to.
I'll still reformat and install Windows, a friend of mine offered to help me out with that. That way I can take advantage of the full 4 GB and more than 1 GB heap size for Minecraft.
With all three of those parts, I'm looking at about $327.38. Due to having other expenditures, and having spent money on the video card, I'm a bit lower in money now; just before October 20th (which is when my 10% discount on buying the Wii U expires), including the fact I won't get a paycheck next week due to medical leave, I'll have $787 in the bank after bills. Should be enough for everything I want, surprisingly. Minimum wage is garbage, but I'm happy I can at least pull this off. And that's excepting the possibility of finding these parts on eBay for less somehow.
Only one last question; I have an inland (I hate that brand but it was given with the rest of the PC) PSU, 600W with 36A on the 12V rail (20A on the 3.3V, and 28A on the 5V, if it matters). With the card, mobo, CPU, and RAM I have listed in this post, will that be good enough? I'm pretty sure I should be in the clear, but I'm not 100% sure, so I thought I'd double-check with you guys. I know a little bit about technology, but my memory is quite rusty since I haven't had time to study or brush up on it.
0
Now, one question. Turns out I have four 1 GB sticks, so upgrading is a bit more work. Do I try to find a deal for four 2 GB sticks, or would it be better just to find a couple 4 GB sticks and leave room for upgrading later? I'm mainly trying to budget still, so the less I can spend, the better.
Edit:
Actually, the price isn't too different based on what I'm looking around at. With all the options available, plus the fact I could potentially just leave two of the 1 GB sticks in if I added two 4 GB's, I'd have 10 GB -- even if I didn't leave them in, I'd have 8, plus room to upgrade later if I wanted.
However I've run into another problem. It seems my motherboard is a DDR2 RAM based board. Cheapest I can find 8 GB of DDR2 RAM is over $100. I can grab a couple 2 GB chips and bump up to 6 for only about $60, but since my processor is a Socket 775, I can probably move everything over to a new board. However, I'd need to make sure everything I have is compatible.
What's my best option?
0
Afraid I'm not. Just moved to the state I'm in as of December, so I'd still be charged out-of-state tuition fees. Aside from that, I don't have much reason to want to pay an arm and a leg for college. I'm settling for CompTia certifications (A+, Network+, and Security+ primarily). I do know about DreamSpark though, but yeah, I don't think I have any way of obtaining it, unless I asked my uncle if he'd mind purchasing it for me if I sent him the money to do so.
Also, if it's possible to entirely change the UI and get rid of the Start Screen / Metro interface altogether, I wouldn't mind. I absolutely despise Metro UI. And hell, based on the financial reports, I think Microsoft actually publicly stated Windows 8 was a financial failure. It is a little faster, but the changes to design and user interaction were absolutely horrid, enough so that a lot of people had issues with it. I can use it, but I'd prefer not to ever have to. If you can tell me what to search for in order to go back to the Aero + Classic shell, or at least get rid of Metro, I'd be willing to consider the upgrade.
Is the R7 260x actually a significant enough difference over the 7770 without costing a whole lot extra? I actually haven't looked up the card so I don't know the price point nor the performance difference. I'm assuming it's more powerful, but how much more?
Yeah, I can run Tekkit Classic wonderfully, no lag whatsoever. I'm even able to run a few other games ridiculously well. Amusingly, I never trust requirements that much, because I was able to run The Old Republic on my last computer which only had a Pentium 4 (Socket 478) on it. Granted it was on minimum, but if your computer's optimized properly, it can usually exceed what people would expect of it. Mine admittedly isn't optimized that well right now, since I'm really low on hard disk space (I'm consistently below 5% free space) and I have so many things cluttering the resources. So a reformat would absolutely be nice regardless.
I do intend to record videos, so I've already established upgrading to at least 8. I have two 2 GB sticks right now, so I could either buy two more and sit at 8, or two 4 GB's and end up with 12 GB. Either way, I need the extra memory just for performance's sake.
I'd say it's still a little above average. It is slightly outdated, but not so much so that it's not a viable card. Definitely a lot better than my current GeForce 210. Hell, I think my Radeon 9250 was more powerful than this thing, but I can't say for sure. Besides, it was an AGP card anyway, so I couldn't use it if I wanted to.
I'll have to do some searching. Thanks again.
0
The main differences between Professional and Home Premium that I prefer to still have access to are the ability to run my computer as a server for RDP access, even if TeamViewer is a reliable application most of the time, as well as Windows XP Mode and dynamic disk volumes. Otherwise, admittedly, it's not that important to me. Those few features are rather important to me, enough to justify the difference. I'd like Ultimate, but unfortunately, I've never had the money to afford it -- I have the OEM version of Professional 32-bit since my father got free copies of it through work.
Regardless, $100 is quite a bit to spend. I'm looking at around $300 for the OS, a couple memory sticks, another drive, and a decent video card. Not too bad for the upgrade it'll be giving in the end, but when that's nearly an entire month's check (after bills), it's gotta wait a little while.
Once again, I greatly appreciate the feedback. Also, thank you Blues for the link, wasn't aware Newegg sold copies of Windows 7 still, so that's bookmarked so I can purchase it instead of having to upgrade to Windows 8 (which I really don't like, honestly.)
0
Huh. I actually wasn't aware of about 75% of that. Thank you for the explanation, that actually makes sense. I should've thought only certain programs could take advantage of the /3GB switch, but it actually never crossed my mind. I do rather dislike the fact 32-bit operating systems can't handle (or properly process) more than 4 GB of RAM, but ah well, it's a limitation I have to deal with. 64-bit is pretty stabilized and properly supported now, so it's due time for an upgrade anyway. Once again, thank you for the clarification. c:
0
Well. I tried using Physical Address Extension (or rather, the /3GB switch) to bump up to 4 GB of memory. It works for the most part, but 32-bit Java seemingly can't utilize it. The worst part is that while 32-bit Java applets can natively access up to 2 GB of memory, it seems Minecraft is even more limited and refuses to allow more than 1 GB heap size. Any larger than that, and it simply errors out.
So yeah, it looks like I can't do anything without upgrading to 64-bit, which I'm not going to be able to do any time soon. I'm not even sure where to find a reliable copy of 64-bit Windows 7, and I'm sure it'd be around $100 regardless, but I'd need to buy another hard drive so I could transfer files over as a backup before reformatting just to be able to install the new OS. Too many valuable files to lose. Sigh. Ah well. I'll just have to put it off until the end of the year. Regardless, looks like I'm saddling up to buy Windows 7 64-bit, another couple 2 GB sticks (or 4 GB sticks if it's a negligible difference in cost) of RAM, an HD 7770, and another Seagate Barracuda. Ouch... Well, it'll be worth it in the long haul, I suppose.
Thanks for the responses though. At least I know what my plans are for upgrading. Video card might be super important, but 64-bit seems to be a necessity for Minecraft as of late. Older modpacks might have run well, but with all the improvements and changes, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later.
0
http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp
Otherwise, here's a good chart.
http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/
In the meantime, since I apparently know f*** all about computers, I'm going to cease offering any advice and leave it up to the "professionals" here instead.
0
Oh no, my CPU's pretty good. Not a powerhouse by any means, but it's not horribly obsolete. Hell, I went with a Pentium 4 (478) until like... two years ago. I've dealt with worse.
I'm mainly just trying to establish if upgrading my video card would be enough to handle more than it does now, or if I really need more memory too. 3 GB isn't bad for most things honestly, I'm able to get by with everything else. But unfortunately, Minecraft tends to bog down and lock up repeatedly with most of the expansive modpacks. I'm not just talking low FPS, although that's a thing too, it even freezes up every now and then. It'll load one frame, then completely freeze for about 5 seconds and then load another frame. Like, busy cursor and "Not Responding" in the title and everything.
If upgrading to an HD 7770 or GTX 750 would be enough, I'll absolutely do it, because it's only about $130 out of my pocket. But if I'd need to upgrade my RAM as well and get a 64-bit copy of Windows, then I think I'll just wait it out until the end of the year or start of next year. Considering I only get about $500 a month tops, $200 of that goes to bills and gas etc., and another $100 to groceries, I'm left with $200 for everything else, including saving for the Wii U by October. So my budget is pretty low. I can spend a little bit on a video card, but having to fork out money for a 64-bit version of Windows 7, plus the video card and memory chips, I'd be looking at close to $300 anyways.
tl;dr, will upgrading my video card alone be enough to run Agrarian Skies / Crash Landing, or do I need a 64-bit OS?
0
Depends on the computer. If he went with the prebuilt linked in the first post, there's no point upgrading the PSU at all. But if he builds a computer with more powerful parts, he'll need a PSU that can handle it. I always get a PSU that has at least 40A on the 12V rail, so I generally go with a 700+ W. 90% of the time, I end up with an 850W PSU.
Oops. I actually did mean the 750. The 650's only around $70 IIRC, the 750 is the one around $110. My bad. So many numbers I typed up, guess I punched one in incorrectly. Thank you for the correction~.
0
Honestly, I'd look into a 700W at least, but that's just me.
Anyways. I do apologize if I've come off rude or disrespectful, I'm not at all trying to do that. I'm awful with explaining things, conversation has never really been my forté. Book smarts, not street smarts. But anyways, I was more trying to explain that the computer you linked wasn't worth the cost. The value of the computer was so much lower than the cost was.
Also, it'd take quite a bit of links, but I probably could build one better. Under $500 is tough because if you include case, fans, motherboard, CPU+heatsink, power supply, etcetera., it does slowly add up. Prebuilts are cheaper often because the parts are bought in bulk (and thus discounted) and sold at a premium once it's all put together. That's why a lot of prebuilts around that range rely on the GT 610, which isn't really that impressive of a card. But honestly, 20× was a gross exaggeration, and not even realistic. I do apologize for that as well. Anyways, as far as prebuilts go, the one I linked above is a little more worth the value. Also, here's one from TD that's also a better value overall. Still not a great CPU, but the difference in other parts makes up for it, imho.
If you're building it yourself, here's a few short tips:
- Generally you want to avoid the GT 610. The card only costs $40, that's reason enough to know it's not a powerful card. The GT 720 is only $10 more, still more powerful. I'd look into something closer to the HD 7770 or the GTX 650, which are around $90-100, but massively more powerful.
- Processor, I explained earlier. Not much more, but I'd look into the FX-6300, or FX-8320 if you're really willing to spend that extra dollar for value. I personally prefer Intel over AMD, but when it comes to budget, AMD is significantly cheaper. Intel is far more powerful, but also far more costly most of the time.
- RAM is negotiable -- at least get 4 GB of DDR3, but opt for 8 if you can find a good enough deal. Never spend more than about $50 for 4 GB of DDR3-2400MHz. Also, as far as RAM goes, the price difference between each speed is such a small difference that, in the end, you're better off going for 2400MHz because you won't save more than a dollar or two (literally) going with 1600MHz.
- Case, mobo, etc. is all extremely negotiable. You still need a good motherboard to support the processor and GPU efficiently, but you can usually find good ones for a hundred or sometimes less. Cases are pretty cheap, fans and heatsink and etc. aren't usually too costly. For motherboard, case, and all the accessories, you shouldn't usually spend more than a couple hundred in the end.
- PSU is possible the most important factor, outside of CPU, GPU, and RAM. In fact, if you have an underpowered PSU, you'll fall short of being able to run the computer to it's best potential. Always look for something with a high ampere rating on the 12V rail. You can usually find a good 850W with a 60A 12V rail for just over $100. Unfortunately, power supplies can be costly, so you have to compare costs for what you need, and while it's nice to have the extra power, if you don't need it, there's not much point in spending money on it. Having extra power isn't like having extra memory, it won't really ever net you anything except room for upgrades on other parts.
If I really sat down and archived links, I could probably find enough to build you one around $500-600 that's got a pretty good value for the cost. The catch of course is that it'd be separate parts, and you'd still have to put it all together. I'd like to start my own company building computers for people, but alas, that's not something I can do on a working class budget, so I can't help you there. Sorry about that~. That's the advantage of prebuilts is that they're usually ready to go off the start, so you don't need to know how to put the parts together, or worry about the cost of the little things. In the end, the most expensive parts are the GPU, CPU, and PSU. Ironically enough, those are usually the most important parts, immediately followed by memory. So don't skimp on those, always compare prices and go for the best value.0
4 GB isn't bad. I didn't mean it was -- but for the price, that's miserable. You can get prebuilts and custom builts with 8 GB for the same price. I only have 4 GB myself, but my computer (which is in dire need of an upgrade) is maybe worth... $200?
I'm not saying it's horrible by any means. It's higher than my Core 2 Quad. But it costs about $100+ to buy on it's own, and for that same price almost, you can get the FX 6300, which is a pretty major difference. Hell, $50 more and you could get the FX 8320, and that's significantly better. Maybe I'm just spoiled on the whole cost-for-value equation.
It has two physical cores, and two logical cores per physical core. That's equivalent to a Core 2 Duo with Hyperthreading. In fact, hyperthreading is two logical cores per physical core. So it's basically a dual-core with hyperthreading. Not a true quad-core.
Nah, it was just bad choice of wording. The GPU is pitiful. If you were to only replace one thing in the entire build, it'd need to be the GPU (and the PSU honestly, but that's inevitable if you get a 300W PSU). This pre-built is a lot like my computer is right now. A little bit better, but the CPU to GPU ratio is pretty much the same, in that the GPU doesn't even deserve to be on the same motherboard.
I do apologize, I'm horrible at wording things and pretty socially inept, so I do tend to come off pretentious and insensitive. I just think that if you gauge the value-for-cost of the entire build, it's awful. "Synthetic benchmarks" might be useless to you, but they tend to be accurate. I've based my purchases off PassMark's ratings for years, and every time it's been a wise decision. The GPU is the worst part (excepting the PSU), but the CPU and the amount of RAM are pretty low for that cost. Here's one I found in literally 1 minute of searching that's undeniably more worth it:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229497
Sure, it costs a little less than a hundred dollars more, but if you compare the value of the parts in the build to the one linked in OP's post, it's miles better, and I'm sure the difference in the cost of the two computers isn't as big as the difference in the cost of the individual parts.
1
With $500, I could build a computer 20× better than that. It might be good as a student PC, but it won't cut it as a gaming PC. You could run vanilla Minecraft with absolutely no mods on medium graphics, no shaders/HD texture packs, but don't expect to get much more out of it than that. I wouldn't buy it, just because the value is so much lower than the cost.
0
It was at this link here:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/off-topic/computers-science-technology/2194020-aiming-to-upgrade-computer-suggestions
I probably could have more accurately put it in one of the sub-forums, probably the hardware/software support or computer buying/building ones, either/or honestly. But still, I didn't think I had done anything wrong in the post, had I?
Thanks ahead of time for looking into it. My apologies if I broke any rules somehow with the post, but I do appreciate it getting resolved if possible. c:
0
With that said, though, I can hardly run modpacks even on minimum without severe lag. Agrarian Skies and Crash Landing simply won't work at all, I get almost no FPS whatsoever. It's that bad. I can run vanilla just fine, obviously, but that's no fun. It's not that my computer's horrible -- It's just out of date, and a little bit bogged down. Here, specs are as follows:
OS: Windows 7 Professional (32-bit)
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.67 GHz)
RAM: 4 GB (3 GB usable)
GPU: NVidia GeForce 210
Windows Experience Index is at 4.5, determined by graphics. Processor gets a 7.2, RAM gets a 7.2, graphics gets a 4.5, gaming graphics gets a 5.5, and hard drive gets a 5.9. Pretty sure both my drives are Seagate 7200 RPM 250 GB drives, and honestly, the WEI doesn't really gauge things that well imo, so I never rely on that anyway. But if I were to rely on it, it's implying video card is the biggest thing I need to upgrade.
With that in mind, to run a client like the Direwolf20 modpack, Horizons, any of the high-tech modpacks with 100+ mods, what would I need to upgrade? Can I get by just upgrading my video card alone, or is it absolutely essential to upgrade my RAM? The latter also requires me to reformat entirely and buy a 64-bit copy of Windows, which isn't entirely easy rn, both because of expenses and I'm having fun trying to find a copy of Windows 7 (64-bit) still available for purchase.
0
Managed to figure it out. Cement has to flow out until it's thinned enough to not be a liquid source block, and then those areas will harden into dry cement. The sources will never harden, however, only the flowing cement will.