Share your computer setup!

[AVLNCH]

Do you have a speedy new system that you’d love to show off to the world? Perhaps you’re someone who just plays casually on the home PC? Why not post your setup in here to share & compare with other members of the Steam community!

[Pasi123]

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.0E
Motherboard: Asus P4P800
Memory: 2GB DDR400
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 4650 AGP 1GB DDR2
HDD: 500GB WD Green
HDD 2: 40GB Seagate
PSU: Altis A-380BX
Sound Card: Creative SB Live! 24-bit
Optical Drive: TSSTcorp CD/DVDW SH-S222L
Case: Enlight EN-A3101
OS: Windows XP and Windows 7

[Illusion of Progress]

Publicado originalmente por xSOSxHawkens:

The Q6xxx chips were OC beats. No one, and I mean no one, ran them at stock speeds.

Regular 24/7 operating speed for the Q6600 was 3-3.3Ghz easy, with 2.8-3Ghz on stock cooling and little if any voltage increases. Typically 2.8 all core could be had with no voltage or cooling changes at all and a minor if even noticable heat increase.

I personally ran my q6700 @ 3.6Ghz with an 1866Mhz FSB.

And those two extra cores, with anything newer than XP-SP1 era software, will matter more than any couple hundred Mhz in speed could.

Advice from someone who was still tasked with supporting a workplace-deployed C2D system in 2020. And who still has AMD comparables for home tinkering (Athlon 64 x2 and Athlon x4). Anything the dual core can do, at this point, the quad core can do as good or better.

Only issue for main poster would be their G series mothboard, but even them I would rock the 6700 all day personally.

Huh? Windows XP SP1 released in 2001 or something. Are you suggesting that just after after that point in time, that everyone (in the era of Pentium IIIs, Pentium 4s, Athlons, and Athlon XPs, before any dual core had yet existed, yet alone quad cores being half a decade off) was living in a software environment that largely took advantage of quad core CPUs? I think that might be exaggerating just a tad bit, no? Software lags hardware, and despite when the first of anything exists, software only really starts targeting it when the mainstream has adopted it (or when cross platform ports demand it, which yes, we saw some of in the late 2000s from PlayStation 3/Xbox 360 games and I'd say that was when quad cores first truly started showing any benefits in games, but even that was the exception as opposed to the norm). It will certainly depend on what you played. I remember in the late 2000s or even later in very late 2011 when I changed to Sandy Bridge, watching far more games than not still leave one of my two cores idle. That's barely using two cores, let alone three or four.

I'm not acting like they all ran at stock either. It was the Core 2 Duo days, after all; the heyday of CPUs being sold at frequencies well below what they were cable of. I got an E8400 on release and then turned around and got an E8600 when it released half a year later. I'm well aware of how alive and well overclocking was during those years.

But I figured it didn't need said that if we were going to count the Q6600 overclock, that you'd have to acknowledge the E8x00 overclock as well. The E8400+ were pretty infamous for establishing new norms of easily obtainable 4 GHz and up, after all (E8200/8300 could do it too, but would need better RAM due to their lower multiplier). So while the Q6600 could easily do 3 GHz, an E8400 was starting there and similarly hitting 4 GHz. For the better Q6600s that went towards 3.4 GHz to especially 3.6 GHz (not common), an E8600 would similarly do 4.5 GHz to 4.6 GHz. I just didn't see the point of bringing any of that up as you can't look at overclocking one but not the other, especially when the E8x00 needed less to get higher. The same spread more or less remains, and that's on top of the higher IPC of the refresh generations.

I'm not saying any of this to speak bad of the Q6x00s CPUs. They were well ahead of their time in core count, and especially after their price drop, a lot of people picked one up in 2007 before Wolfdale launched. It was a good CPU, performed well despite having more cores than necessary, and overclocked well. A lot of people have fond memories of them. And when retroactively making "period correct" PCs, I certainly understand the appeal of "maxing it out" beyond what it needed.

But objectively speaking, for someone who apparently already has an E8x00 and is only targeting mid-2000s games, why change to a Q6600? And if you're targeting later years where games want more cores than dual cores provided, I'd rather suggest something like a Sandy Bridge era platform that aged better. Being native quad cores and having the IMC/Northbridge stuff integrated saw those CPUs age a lot better.

One thing I do agree on was that Nehalem was an easy skip if you were already invested enough into Core 2 anything, but that's also because that platform (motherboards) as well as DDR3 RAM in its early days wasn't yet worth it. Sandy Bridge was more when quad cores and DDR3 came into mainstream value appeal.

[LEOCREED77]

I just upgraded my laptop
Old :
I74510u
8gb ddr3
1tb HDD
Geforce gt840m 2gb

New:
I7-13700H
16GB DDR5
1TB SSD
RTX 4060 8GB laptop


IS IT A GOOD UPGRADE FROM PREVIOUS ONE?

[⎠⎝Zushikatetomoto⎠⎝ UFO]

Publicado originalmente por LEOCREED77:

I just upgraded my laptop
Old :
I74510u
8gb ddr3
1tb HDD
Geforce gt840m 2gb

New:
I7-13700H
16GB DDR5
1TB SSD
RTX 4060 8GB laptop


IS IT A GOOD UPGRADE FROM PREVIOUS ONE?

8gb vram is not good in 2024 and beyond depends on the games you play.
I would either get 12gb vram as a low and atleast 16gb vram.
8gb gpus are dead in 2024 and I had no clue why nvidia released a 8gb card.
I had a rtx 2080 super 8gb and I started to hit vram limits in some games.
So I upgraded to a rtx 4070 12gb

[LEOCREED77]

Publicado originalmente por ⎠⎝Zushikatetomoto⎠⎝ UFO:

Publicado originalmente por LEOCREED77:

I just upgraded my laptop
Old :
I74510u
8gb ddr3
1tb HDD
Geforce gt840m 2gb

New:
I7-13700H
16GB DDR5
1TB SSD
RTX 4060 8GB laptop


IS IT A GOOD UPGRADE FROM PREVIOUS ONE?

8gb vram is not good in 2024 and beyond depends on the games you play.
I would either get 12gb vram as a low and atleast 16gb vram.
8gb gpus are dead in 2024 and I had no clue why nvidia released a 8gb card.
I had a rtx 2080 super 8gb and I started to hit vram limits in some games.
So I upgraded to a rtx 4070 12gb

I just bought the laptop so upgrading is not the option but did have i made a good choice of upgrading from old one?

[76561198285398721]

Publicado originalmente por ⎠⎝Zushikatetomoto⎠⎝ UFO:

Publicado originalmente por LEOCREED77:

I just bought the laptop so upgrading is not the option but did have i made a good choice of upgrading from old one?

It's way better then old one but it's a budget laptop.
All depends on the games you play as I said cause there are a few that will eat up all the 8gb vram I was only warning you. As I had a 8gb vram.

what games use that much?

[⎠⎝Zushikatetomoto⎠⎝ UFO]

Publicado originalmente por 76561198285398721:

Publicado originalmente por ⎠⎝Zushikatetomoto⎠⎝ UFO:

It's way better then old one but it's a budget laptop.
All depends on the games you play as I said cause there are a few that will eat up all the 8gb vram I was only warning you. As I had a 8gb vram.

what games use that much?

Here is some info.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Rf6H-FI64

Chapters:
0:00 AMD dropped $ and added a 2 games to the 7700 XT and 7800 XT
1:32 Does having more than 8GB of VRAM matter for 1080p or 1440p?
3:33 What about Ray Tracing?
4:56 Best GPU to buy under $400
5:16 What about the 16GB 4060 Ti? The price...
6:18 Best GPU to buy under $500
6:42 I don't really love the 4070 at current pricing
7:28 But the 4070 Super gets my $600 recommendation
9:50 Best $800 GPU- no compromises (besides price)
12:23 What bout the 4080 Super vs 7900 XTX?
13:52 Remember new high end GPUs are coming in 6 months or so
14:15 The 4090 is amazing... but not amazing VALUE
15:27 Best GPU around $300 (careful of scam listings on Amazon 3rd party)
18:12 Best GPU around $200 (again, careful of scam 3rd party Amazon)
19:36 What about Intel GPUs?
20:51 Summary of recommendations by price point

[Slowery]

Processor: Ryzen 7 7700 5.45Ghz OC
Memory: Team Group 32Gb ddr5-6000mhz cl32
Graphic: RTX™ 4080 SUPER 16G MSI GAMING X SLIM
Motherboard: MSI PRO B650-S WIFI
Monitor: Thunderobot Q32HL 1440p 165Hz
CPU Cooler: ID-COOLING SE 207-XT
Power unit: Deepcool PN750D 750W Gold ATX 3.1
Case: DEEPCOOL MATREXX 50
Keyboard: Red Square Keyrox TKL (Sapphire Switch)
Mouse: HyperX Pulsefire FPS PRO RGB

Console: PS5 Slim

[⎠⎝Zushikatetomoto⎠⎝ UFO]

Upgraded 2024 Edition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC Hardware Spec

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D 8-Core Processor
Ram: VENGEANCE® RGB PRO 64GB (4 x 16GB) DDR4 DRAM 3600MHz C18 Memory Kit — Black
Motherboard: ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI)
TPM 2.0 Hardware: Asus TPM-M R2.0 14-1 Pin TPM Module
Security Key: Yubico - YubiKey 5 NFC
GPU1: ASUS TUF Gaming NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070
GPU2: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 2080 Super Advanced Overclocked
Monitor: ASUS VG278Q Gaming Monitor 144Hz 1ms Adaptive-Sync+FreeSync, Gsync
Sound Card: Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5 Plus SABRE32-class Hi-res 32-bit/384 kHz PCIe Gaming Sound Card and DAC with Dolby Digital and DTS
PSU: EVGA 850 B5 850W 80+Bronze
Case: Corsair Icue 465X RGB Mid-Tower ATX Smart Case, Commander Pro fan and lighting controller.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC Storage.

M.2 SSD: Samsung 990 Pro 1TB
M.2 SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB
M.2 SSD: Sabrent 512GB Rocket NVMe PCIe M.2 2280
M.2 SSD: XPG SX6000 Lite 1TB PCIe M.2 2280
M.2 SATA: Timetec 1TB SSD 3D NAND
SSD : Samsung 870 QVO-Series 1TB
SSD: Crucial MX500 500GB
SSD: Seagate Barracuda 120 SSD 250GB
SSHD: Seagate SSHD 1TB 7200RPM ST1000DX001
USB HDD: Seagate Backup Plus HUB 4TB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC Cooling Hardware.

Fans: 3x Corsair SP120 RGB Pro, 3x Corsair LL120 RGB
Heatsink: DeepCool LT720 360mm AIO 4th Gen Pump Multidimensional Infinity Mirror ARGB
Thermal Compound: Kryonaut Extreme
M.2 PCIe Adapter: SABRENT M.2 NVMe SSD to PCIe x16 Tool-Free Add-in Card (AIC) with Aluminum Heatsink
PCIe Adapter: EZDIY-FAB 5V ARGB Dual M.2 Adapter for SATA and PCIE NVMe SSD with Copper Heatpipe Cooling System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC Peripherals

Blu Ray: ASUS BW-16D1HT
External Blu-Ray Enclosure:‎NexStar DX2 USB 3.0 External Enclosure for SATA Blu-Ray Drive
Headset : Sound BlasterX H6 Gaming Headset
Keyboard: Razer BlackWidow Elite Mechanical Gaming Keyboard: Yellow Mechanical Switches - Linear & Silent - Chroma RGB Lighting - Magnetic Wrist Rest - Dedicated Media Keys & Dial - USB Passthrough
Wrist Rest: Razer Ergonomic Wrist Rest
Mouse: Razer Basilisk Ultimate Hyperspeed Wireless
Mouse Dock: Razer Mouse Dock Chroma
Mousepad: Razer Firefly Chroma
Controller 1: Xbox Elite Series 2
Desk: iCAN DragonWar RGB Gaming Desk With 4*USB 3.0 Hub & Headset/Mic Jack W122*D68* H76cm - Black (GT-005)
Chair: VON RACER Massage Gaming Chair - High Back Racing PC Computer Desk Office Chair Swivel Ergonomic Executive Leather Chair with Footrest and Adjustable Armrests (Red)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operating System

OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Professional 64-bit OEM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[It's Chase]

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Publicado originalmente por xSOSxHawkens:

The Q6xxx chips were OC beats. No one, and I mean no one, ran them at stock speeds.

Regular 24/7 operating speed for the Q6600 was 3-3.3Ghz easy, with 2.8-3Ghz on stock cooling and little if any voltage increases. Typically 2.8 all core could be had with no voltage or cooling changes at all and a minor if even noticable heat increase.

I personally ran my q6700 @ 3.6Ghz with an 1866Mhz FSB.

And those two extra cores, with anything newer than XP-SP1 era software, will matter more than any couple hundred Mhz in speed could.

Advice from someone who was still tasked with supporting a workplace-deployed C2D system in 2020. And who still has AMD comparables for home tinkering (Athlon 64 x2 and Athlon x4). Anything the dual core can do, at this point, the quad core can do as good or better.

Only issue for main poster would be their G series mothboard, but even them I would rock the 6700 all day personally.

Huh? Windows XP SP1 released in 2001 or something. Are you suggesting that just after after that point in time, that everyone (in the era of Pentium IIIs, Pentium 4s, Athlons, and Athlon XPs, before any dual core had yet existed, yet alone quad cores being half a decade off) was living in a software environment that largely took advantage of quad core CPUs? I think that might be exaggerating just a tad bit, no? Software lags hardware, and despite when the first of anything exists, software only really starts targeting it when the mainstream has adopted it (or when cross platform ports demand it, which yes, we saw some of in the late 2000s from PlayStation 3/Xbox 360 games and I'd say that was when quad cores first truly started showing any benefits in games, but even that was the exception as opposed to the norm). It will certainly depend on what you played. I remember in the late 2000s or even later in very late 2011 when I changed to Sandy Bridge, watching far more games than not still leave one of my two cores idle. That's barely using two cores, let alone three or four.

I'm not acting like they all ran at stock either. It was the Core 2 Duo days, after all; the heyday of CPUs being sold at frequencies well below what they were cable of. I got an E8400 on release and then turned around and got an E8600 when it released half a year later. I'm well aware of how alive and well overclocking was during those years.

But I figured it didn't need said that if we were going to count the Q6600 overclock, that you'd have to acknowledge the E8x00 overclock as well. The E8400+ were pretty infamous for establishing new norms of easily obtainable 4 GHz and up, after all (E8200/8300 could do it too, but would need better RAM due to their lower multiplier). So while the Q6600 could easily do 3 GHz, an E8400 was starting there and similarly hitting 4 GHz. For the better Q6600s that went towards 3.4 GHz to especially 3.6 GHz (not common), an E8600 would similarly do 4.5 GHz to 4.6 GHz. I just didn't see the point of bringing any of that up as you can't look at overclocking one but not the other, especially when the E8x00 needed less to get higher. The same spread more or less remains, and that's on top of the higher IPC of the refresh generations.

I'm not saying any of this to speak bad of the Q6x00s CPUs. They were well ahead of their time in core count, and especially after their price drop, a lot of people picked one up in 2007 before Wolfdale launched. It was a good CPU, performed well despite having more cores than necessary, and overclocked well. A lot of people have fond memories of them. And when retroactively making "period correct" PCs, I certainly understand the appeal of "maxing it out" beyond what it needed.

But objectively speaking, for someone who apparently already has an E8x00 and is only targeting mid-2000s games, why change to a Q6600? And if you're targeting later years where games want more cores than dual cores provided, I'd rather suggest something like a Sandy Bridge era platform that aged better. Being native quad cores and having the IMC/Northbridge stuff integrated saw those CPUs age a lot better.

One thing I do agree on was that Nehalem was an easy skip if you were already invested enough into Core 2 anything, but that's also because that platform (motherboards) as well as DDR3 RAM in its early days wasn't yet worth it. Sandy Bridge was more when quad cores and DDR3 came into mainstream value appeal.

That's why i was a bit confused. He was saying the Core 2 Quads were better once overclocked, but you can do the same thing to the Core 2 Duos.

I would have loved either back in the day. I was running a Pentium D 925 back then, and when the E6000 series came out, and then the low end E4000 series, it really hurt to see those low end Core 2 Duos absolutely destroy the higher end Pentiums D's. This just showed how bad Netburst really was. I probably should have waited, but was really itching to upgrade from my Coppermine Pentium 3 900Mhz build, with a Voodoo3 2000.

I did get a pretty big upgrade overall, but man it was cool watching this all unfold when i think about it. We don't see huge leaps in generational performance like you did back then.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Publicado originalmente por It's Chase:

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Huh? Windows XP SP1 released in 2001 or something. Are you suggesting that just after after that point in time, that everyone (in the era of Pentium IIIs, Pentium 4s, Athlons, and Athlon XPs, before any dual core had yet existed, yet alone quad cores being half a decade off) was living in a software environment that largely took advantage of quad core CPUs? I think that might be exaggerating just a tad bit, no? Software lags hardware, and despite when the first of anything exists, software only really starts targeting it when the mainstream has adopted it (or when cross platform ports demand it, which yes, we saw some of in the late 2000s from PlayStation 3/Xbox 360 games and I'd say that was when quad cores first truly started showing any benefits in games, but even that was the exception as opposed to the norm). It will certainly depend on what you played. I remember in the late 2000s or even later in very late 2011 when I changed to Sandy Bridge, watching far more games than not still leave one of my two cores idle. That's barely using two cores, let alone three or four.

I'm not acting like they all ran at stock either. It was the Core 2 Duo days, after all; the heyday of CPUs being sold at frequencies well below what they were cable of. I got an E8400 on release and then turned around and got an E8600 when it released half a year later. I'm well aware of how alive and well overclocking was during those years.

But I figured it didn't need said that if we were going to count the Q6600 overclock, that you'd have to acknowledge the E8x00 overclock as well. The E8400+ were pretty infamous for establishing new norms of easily obtainable 4 GHz and up, after all (E8200/8300 could do it too, but would need better RAM due to their lower multiplier). So while the Q6600 could easily do 3 GHz, an E8400 was starting there and similarly hitting 4 GHz. For the better Q6600s that went towards 3.4 GHz to especially 3.6 GHz (not common), an E8600 would similarly do 4.5 GHz to 4.6 GHz. I just didn't see the point of bringing any of that up as you can't look at overclocking one but not the other, especially when the E8x00 needed less to get higher. The same spread more or less remains, and that's on top of the higher IPC of the refresh generations.

I'm not saying any of this to speak bad of the Q6x00s CPUs. They were well ahead of their time in core count, and especially after their price drop, a lot of people picked one up in 2007 before Wolfdale launched. It was a good CPU, performed well despite having more cores than necessary, and overclocked well. A lot of people have fond memories of them. And when retroactively making "period correct" PCs, I certainly understand the appeal of "maxing it out" beyond what it needed.

But objectively speaking, for someone who apparently already has an E8x00 and is only targeting mid-2000s games, why change to a Q6600? And if you're targeting later years where games want more cores than dual cores provided, I'd rather suggest something like a Sandy Bridge era platform that aged better. Being native quad cores and having the IMC/Northbridge stuff integrated saw those CPUs age a lot better.

One thing I do agree on was that Nehalem was an easy skip if you were already invested enough into Core 2 anything, but that's also because that platform (motherboards) as well as DDR3 RAM in its early days wasn't yet worth it. Sandy Bridge was more when quad cores and DDR3 came into mainstream value appeal.

That's why i was a bit confused. He was saying the Core 2 Quads were better once overclocked, but you can do the same thing to the Core 2 Duos.

I would have loved either back in the day. I was running a Pentium D 925 back then, and when the E6000 series came out, and then the low end E4000 series, it really hurt to see those low end Core 2 Duos absolutely destroy the higher end Pentiums D's. This just showed how bad Netburst really was. I probably should have waited, but was really itching to upgrade from my Coppermine Pentium 3 900Mhz build, with a Voodoo3 2000.

I did get a pretty big upgrade overall, but man it was cool watching this all unfold when i think about it. We don't see huge leaps in generational performance like you did back then.

XP had long life, thats specifically why I said XP SP1. Specifically I said:

"And those two extra cores, with anything newer than XP-SP1 era software, will matter more than any couple hundred Mhz in speed could."

And that is correct. During XP-Sp1 days most software, including the OS, were geared around single thread and single core. For an SP1 era machine a single core or dual core would be fine. But XP had long, long legs. Not just in terms of the next OS release, but also in terms of when people realistically quit using it.

By the time of XP SP3 and beyond most software, and most underlying parts of the OS, were up to date and multi core aware. Specially with how many skipped Vista, and how many users stayed on XP. The software of the XP-SP3 era is an entirely different breed and ballpark.

Just compare how a Pentium 4 @ 3Ghz performs when using an XP-SP1 system with all SP1 or ealier software vs a SP3 system with all end of life software. One will run snappy, the other not nearly as much.

Being its now 2024, the user would be better off with the two cores. Even for older software. Unless they literally plan to time-capsule the machine and not install software past SP1 era. If they plan to just install XP, update it all the way, and then install the games and software of the era, the Q6xxx or Q9xxx will both be better experiences.

And yes, both can overclock, but neither can add more cores than they have to begin with (that was an AMD thing of the era haha)

[Illusion of Progress]

Publicado originalmente por xSOSxHawkens:

XP had long life, thats specifically why I said XP SP1. Specifically I said:

Windows XP had like a 12 and a half year life and SP1 released less a year into that life, so that doesn't change the statement much.

Do you think you might be overestimating how early they were necessary because you yourself had one so early? Being ahead of the curve seem to sometimes cause this; we retroactively think something was common or necessary by software sooner, sometimes a lot sooner, than it actually was.

It wasn't until late 2016 that quad cores finally overtook dual cores in market share on Steam. You'd be forgiven for thinking it happened sooner though. I did too.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161003122233/http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Of course there were already games before late 2016 that could struggle on a dual core, but the mid 2000s? That's really not even a question. Quad cores didn't even exist for consumers yet, and it the software market won't necessitate something until a good portion of the market has already adopted it.

[Illusion of Progress]

In other news, water is wet?

Of course it only shows results from those who were polled on Steam. I'm not sure why you're pointing out something that's not only obvious, but irrelevant, but okay?

Anyway it doesn't matter. Hawkens would prefer a quad core in that scenario. I think a faster dual core would be better there. We both said our piece, and honestly both would be fine enough (the main reason I am for going the one way is precisely because both would be "good enough" and they already have the one).

At the end of the day, the person using it can always monitor resource use and decide for themselves if a change is needed. Because that's always the best thing to determine what someone needs for their own hardware.

[Autumn_]

Publicado originalmente por Jamebonds1:

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

In other news, water is wet?

I'm sorry, but it has nothing to do what I posted.

rofl

[XZavier]

CPU - I7 7700
Cooling- stock cooler
RAM- 32 gb corsair
GPU- gtx 970 4gb
PSU- Corsair VS650
SSD(boot drive)- 500gb XPG M4
HDD- 1TB HDD seagate
Case- idk :(
OS- Windows 10 optimize
Monitor: Philops 60hz ;-;