XYplorer Beta Club

nas8e9 wrote:

admin wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:OT, but amazing that you get so much done with in certain respects limited hardware!

The answer is Zen!

With XP SP3 I have a fast and stable OS and personally don't feel in any way limited. (BTW, alpha 3 comes in at 1.673 msecs here... who beats me?)

I dread to think the impact of Windows 7 x64 running virtualized on your Zen.

What is the impact?
- everything is slower: no problem, I just need virtual OS for testing
- Windows 7 is slower than non-virtual: no problem, as long as the relative speeds are similar. As long as I can distinguish slower from faster I can optimize XY for Win7.
- other impact???

admin wrote:What is the impact?
- everything is slower: no problem, I just need virtual OS for testing
- Windows 7 is slower than non-virtual: no problem, as long as the relative speeds are similar. As long as I can distinguish slower from faster I can optimize XY for Win7.
- other impact???

I'm sorry: I was joking and didn't mean to worry you unduly. The only thing that worries me about your current hardware setup (after upping the RAM to 2 GB and getting a second SATA HD) is the limited amount of memory your MB can handle.

Windows 7 x86 should run with 1 GB dedicated to it; however the 64-bit version officially requires 2 GB dedicated to it. If running the 32-bit version is sufficient as a stopgap for you, it should be fine. To state the obvious, as soon as any Windows version has to start using the swap file, relative speed differences fly out of the window.

nas8e9 wrote:

admin wrote:What is the impact?
- everything is slower: no problem, I just need virtual OS for testing
- Windows 7 is slower than non-virtual: no problem, as long as the relative speeds are similar. As long as I can distinguish slower from faster I can optimize XY for Win7.
- other impact???

I'm sorry: I was joking and didn't mean to worry you unduly. The only thing that worries me about your current hardware setup (after upping the RAM to 2 GB and getting a second SATA HD) is the limited amount of memory your MB can handle.

Windows 7 x86 should run with 1 GB dedicated to it; however the 64-bit version officially requires 2 GB dedicated to it. If running the 32-bit version is sufficient as a stopgap for you, it should be fine. To state the obvious, as soon as any Windows version has to start using the swap file, relative speed differences fly out of the window.

Thanks.

Sooner or later I get me new hardware anyway. But right now I need something fast, cheep, and elegant, so the virtual way deems me attractive. Win7/32-bit will be the most frequent guest by far; there is little to test for Win7/64-bit.

zer0 wrote:

admin wrote:Coming back to this. Atelco actually recommended 550 Watt.

In the long term, I'd recommend no less than 800W PSU and a branded one, not generic

I think my next PC will need a bit more power than yours, and I will buy 500W. (And still will have some reserve ) 800W is a joke - if you don't have at least 2 high-end graphic cards and an overclocked processor.
But the note with "branded" makes much sense, I'm afraid. (be quiet!, Cooler Master, Corsair, Enermax and alike)
Example: be quiet! pure power L7 530W for less than 50€ http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a448489.html

I hope the motherboard with max 2GB isn't the new one? With the others I think virtualization will be fun starting with 4GB.

PeterH wrote:800W is a joke - if you don't have at least 2 high-end graphic cards and an overclocked processor.

I'm not sure that I agree that 800W is a joke. Without knowing the exact components, it's difficult to estimate the power supply that will be required. It's better to overestimate than to underestimate. If you factor in a powerful CPU, several sticks of RAM, a PCI-E GFX card, a couple or more HDDs, a couple of burners, add a soundcard, maybe another PCI peripheral (such as a wireless card?), fans, USB/Firewire/eSATA/Ethernet sockets -- it all adds up, especially if one takes into account that PSUs aren't 100% efficient, so you won't always get the power output that's shown

zer0 wrote:

PeterH wrote:800W is a joke - if you don't have at least 2 high-end graphic cards and an overclocked processor.

I'm not sure that I agree that 800W is a joke. Without knowing the exact components, it's difficult to estimate the power supply that will be required. It's better to overestimate than to underestimate. If you factor in a powerful CPU, several sticks of RAM, a PCI-E GFX card, a couple or more HDDs, a couple of burners, add a soundcard, maybe another PCI peripheral (such as a wireless card?), fans, USB/Firewire/eSATA/Ethernet sockets -- it all adds up, especially if one takes into account that PSUs aren't 100% efficient, so you won't always get the power output that's shown

...from a german review of "Enermax Pro87+ EPG500AWT":
"Ansonsten gibt es keinerlei Bedenken dabei, dass man dieses 500 Watt Gerät mit einem Quad-Core und einer starken Grafikkarte wie der GTX 285 oder der HD 5870 betreiben kann. Das könnte man allerdings auch durchaus schon mit 400-450 Watt."
Translated: "Apart from that there are no doubts, that this 500W unit can be used for a quad-core and a powerful graphic card like GTX 285 or HD 5870. However this also could be done with 400-450W"
What hardware would you expect from Don? A high end gamer PC? A HD 5870? A 5750 uses more than 100W less - and is still overpowerd for Don. (Now we are at max 350W needed 800W is a joke!)

Nowadays the need for power is normally overestimated. Don's system will use maximum 100-150W in idle. This is 12-20% of 800W. Efficiency is getting quite bad at these low values.
And regarding efficiency: the power is specified for the secondary side: 800W specified delivers 800W, by input of maybe 1000W. (At 80% efficiency.)

But one thing is correct: cheap "generic" power supplies often do not deliver the power they promise - that's bad! And maybe the reason to spend a bit more money.
And, as said before: efficiency is something that rents. By paying less for electricity over several years. (And it's good to feel a bit "green" ) I for my part plan will pay about 100€ - for 500W, but over 90% efficiency over a very wide area. (This is more than I will save - the rest is for the environment...)

PeterH wrote:What hardware would you expect from Don? A high end gamer PC? A HD 5870? A 5750 uses more than 100W less - and is still overpowerd for Don. (Now we are at max 350W needed 800W is a joke!)

Depends on what he aims for. Each high-performing component will have its use. I had a 400W PSU die on me about 4 years ago because it couldn't cope with the demand. Personally, I'd rather spend extra to begin with to get a powerful and efficient PSU and then upgrade other components as time goes on. That way, I know that I'll have the power needed and don't need to pay again.

Here's a very detailed PSU calculator: http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp