[Thad E Ginathom]

I would still vote for more RAM. You do not need it right away but it will futureproof your pc.

Can be added when, and if it is ever needed. Buy 2 * 2gb --- and you can add another 2 * 2gb later.

That pays for your faster processor if you want it!

There really is an if there. Why would you want a slower processor? Because they use less power, run cooler and need less air moving to keep them cool, which makes for a quieter machine. I bought a 3.2Mhz, last year: it is entirely possible that I would have been happier with a 3.0, or even a 2.8!

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Can be added when, and if it is ever needed. Buy 2 * 2gb --- and you can add another 2 * 2gb later.

That pays for your faster processor if you want it!

There really is an if there. Why would you want a slower processor? Because they use less power, run cooler and need less air moving to keep them cool, which makes for a quieter machine. I bought a 3.2Mhz, last year: it is entirely possible that I would have been happier with a 3.0, or even a 2.8!

I would vote for 1x4GB now and another 1x4GB later if funds are constrained. With multitasking RAM is more useful compared to faster CPU.

I have rarely felt the need for faster processor even though I do a lot of CAD & Satellite Image processing where more speed helps, but find the incremental cost (and associated cooling paraphernalia) of faster processors not worth it. Instead I have spent my energies in developing parallel processing algorithms, hence I get a 6x+ speed up, on 8 cores, which is way more VFM compared to a faster processor! As most of the mainstream software is adopting parallel processing and as the CPU comes with more cores there is very little justification for faster CPU.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I feel that 2 * 2 is better than 4, so that both memory channels are used and the result should be faster. However, I admit to not really understanding the architecture.

According to my motherboard manual: "Enabling dual channel memory mode will double the original memory bandwidth ... ... ... Dual channel mode cannot be enabled if only one DDR3 memory module is installed"

I really feel, though that it is better to use both channels.

It is important to know which OS is to be used, and what the major purpose of the machine will be before suggesting memory needed. I suspect that there are enormous amounts of wasted money sitting in PC memory sockets around the world.

[devarshi84]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I feel that 2 * 2 is better than 4, so that both memory channels are used and the result should be faster. However, I admit to not really understanding the architecture.

According to my motherboard manual: "Enabling dual channel memory mode will double the original memory bandwidth ... ... ... Dual channel mode cannot be enabled if only one DDR3 memory module is installed"

I really feel, though that it is better to use both channels.

It is important to know which OS is to be used, and what the major purpose of the machine will be before suggesting memory needed. I suspect that there are enormous amounts of wasted money sitting in PC memory sockets around the world.

Getting 2x2gb dual channel right now means, the buyer will have to empty 1 slot at a later time. This will be a waste for 2gb stick and the user can only upgrade to 6gb or waste both 2gb sticks.

1x4 gb now will provide enough power for now and he can then get another 1x4 later. With two sticks in place, the computer will still run in dual-channel mode at a later point in time.

I am runnning a decade old celeron 1ghz OC'd to 1.35 with 512mb DDR@133mhz. The pc does office, internet, occassional youtube videos and e-mail job more than satisfactorily.

Originally Posted by Aroy

I would vote for 1x4GB now and another 1x4GB later if funds are constrained. With multitasking RAM is more useful compared to faster CPU.

Agreed. Hence I suggested an AMD. AMD's are more VFM in general. While i series are more powerful, the power is not really needed.

[anku94]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Budget im guessing would be 25-30k tops. I use it mainly for browsing, downloading and listening to music. With some photoshop here and there. No gaming.

The top of the line i5 is i5 760 for the older generation (costs Rs. 10k) and i5 2500k for newer generation (costs Rs. 11.5k).

If you can wait 20-25 days, I'd suggest go for i5 2400. It costs Rs. 9.5k, is negligibly slower compared to i5 2500, and you won't be overclocking, I suppose, so no use getting the K-series processor.

If you have to buy it right now, I'd suggest i5 760.

If you're not gaming, the 4350 will be just fine. I thought you'd be gaming, and larger screens would require high resolution, and high resolution would require more graphics power.

Although your requirements don't even warrant an Athlon X4 645 (Rs. 6000), since you have the budget, the i5s are a good buy, giving you plenty of extra headroom if your processing requirements increase in the future. I'd suggest waiting as the i5 2400 would offer the same performance as the i7 870 you chose, at a far lesser price.

As for RAM, I'm not really sure, but from what I know, both dual-channel and triple-channel options are available nowadays, so now 2x2GB would be enough, while in the future, you could upgrade to 2x3GB, since boards supporting triple channel support dual-channel as well. Although do confirm that the board supports triple channel before buying one.

As for the motherboard, that would depend on which processor you choose.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

Getting 2x2gb dual channel right now means, the buyer will have to empty 1 slot at a later time. This will be a waste for 2gb stick and the user can only upgrade to 6gb or waste both 2gb sticks.

??? 2 * 2 now = 4Gb. adding 2 * 2 later brings the total to 8 Gb.

1x4 gb now will provide enough power for now and he can then get another 1x4 later. With two sticks in place, the computer will still run in dual-channel mode at a later point in time.

Let it run in dual channel mode now! It is quite probable that 4Gb would prove to be sufficient (or even more than sufficient) for the life of the PC anyway. What is one likely to need six or eight for?

No, Wait... I'm sure Microsoft will think of a reason!

(XP, by the way, with which a lot of people are sticking, won't even address the whole 4Gb)

Seriously, though, unless one is into heavy image or video processing, it's money that can be spent better elsewhere

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

(XP, by the way, with which a lot of people are sticking, won't even address the whole 4Gb)

Actually any 32 bit OS has the 4GB (rather 3.2GB) limit. To utilise more memory you need a 64 bit OS. I am using XP-64.

That said, as software migrates towards 64 bit compatibility, the extra RAM would always enhance productivity, of course with a 64 bit OS.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Actually any 32 bit OS has the 4GB (rather 3.2GB) limit. To utilise more memory you need a 64 bit OS.

32 bit OS can easily use 4+ GB RAM. I configure Linux servers (32 bit) to use 12 GB RAM for Heap and 50 GB RAM for I/O cache.

Even Windows can use up to 64 GB RAM in 32 bit mode. E.g. 2008 Ent can go up to 64 GB (32 bit).

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

[anku94]

Just found out B3 stepping boards for Sandy Bridge are available in India.

CPU | Mobo | Ram : Intel Sandy Bridge All Range in Stk--With B3 REVISION BOARDS

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by anku94

Just found out B3 stepping boards for Sandy Bridge are available in India.

CPU | Mobo | Ram : Intel Sandy Bridge All Range in Stk--With B3 REVISION BOARDS

So now that they are available, that is probably what I should get right? Say I get the i7 2600 for 15k (2600k would be for OC'ing right?), what mobo should I get with that?

[anku94]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

So now that they are available, that is probably what I should get right? Say I get the i7 2600 for 15k (2600k would be for OC'ing right?), what mobo should I get with that?

Yes, 2600K is for overclocking. Do you want to go for the mATX (smaller) form factor or the standard ATX form factor ?

And what I can tell you is that you should go for H67 chipset. P67 is required when you have to overclock, but you cannot use integrated graphics with P67. Although you're using a discrete graphics card,if anything happens to it and you have to work without discrete graphics, you can always depend on the integrated graphics.

Why don't you ask vendors which H67 chipsets are available with them ? You can contact SMC International or Ferrari in the forum link I posted above, they usually get the latest products earlier than anybody. The only motherboard that I know, and is available in the country, is this : http://eu.msi.com/product/mb/H67MA-E35--B3-.html (costs Rs. 6200). It's ATX form factor, so unless mATX is a necessity, you can go for it. According to SMC, more motherboards will be available by March 20.

[devarshi84]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

??? 2 * 2 now = 4Gb. adding 2 * 2 later brings the total to 8 Gb.

Let it run in dual channel mode now! It is quite probable that 4Gb would prove to be sufficient (or even more than sufficient) for the life of the PC anyway. What is one likely to need six or eight for?

No, Wait... I'm sure Microsoft will think of a reason!

(XP, by the way, with which a lot of people are sticking, won't even address the whole 4Gb)

Seriously, though, unless one is into heavy image or video processing, it's money that can be spent better elsewhere

Most chipsets come with 2 memory slots. If the buyer uses them up with 2x2gb sticks. In the future he will have to vacate one. So it will be 4gb+2gb=6gb. Also, while chipsets do support higher memory, the bigger sticks are very expensive. Also if both sticks wont be same, dual channel wont be supported.

The favourable OS at the moment is 7 64-bit. With Low-end gpu's running off memory capacity and with newer programs growing more and more power hungry, it is better to be future proof.

Going the AMD way (even with black editions having unlocked multipliers) with higher memory will provide a smoother everyday performance compared to going with i7 and half the ram memory at a better price point.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Most chipsets come with 2 memory slots. If the buyer uses them up with 2x2gb sticks.

every motherboard I have seen in the past fifteen-plus years has had four slots for two pairs of memory.

Wait... I'm talking about desktops: are you talking about laptops? Somewhere we have got our lines crossed. Let's nail down the misunderstanding.

My old Compaq laptop has only one slot. Just (after six years) upgraded it from mere 256Mb to 1Gb, the max this machine will support: it is like a new machine again, even though WinXP has never been re-installed from new.

[anku94]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

every motherboard I have seen in the past fifteen-plus years has had four slots for two pairs of memory.

I believe that's the norm nowadays. Every motherboard pic I've seen lately has atleast four slots. Although my Compaq desktop has two, but that does not count. It's ancient, and it's incapable of doing anything.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

32 bit OS can easily use 4+ GB RAM. I configure Linux servers (32 bit) to use 12 GB RAM for Heap and 50 GB RAM for I/O cache.

Even Windows can use up to 64 GB RAM in 32 bit mode. E.g. 2008 Ent can go up to 64 GB (32 bit).

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

1. The current 32 bit applications cannot access more than 3.2GB. I had tried a lot to get 3GB+ memory for my applications, but to no avail. When I shifted to 64bit OS, I could access as much as I wanted.
2. PAE gives the OS access to large physical memory for multiple processes, but each process is still limited to 3.2GB.
3. This is same as the DOS Extender, where the extra memory could be used for IO cache.
4. You can always implement PAE in custom written applications, but going for 64bit OS is a much easier.