New computer

Discussion in 'AMD Graphics Cards' started by Marv|n, Nov 10, 2003.

  1. Marv|n

    Marv|n New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi i just bought a new comp and i tried 3D mark 2003 and i got a score of 1900 is that low :confused: . Or is it just the lack of ram

    AMD Athlon 2.0 giga
    128 Ram (the original 512 was broken so i sent it back im getting a new one soon)
    Club 3D Radeon 9600 VE 256 ram

    I had catalyst 3.8 driver
     
  2. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,960
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    153
    it's a strong possibility with only 128mb installed, but still should be a little better than that though.(when you install the 512mb)

    a few questions.

    a)is it a complete system bought from new or built yourself?

    b)what is the rest of your stuff.mobo etc.

    c)is all software upto date.ie chipset drivers/windows.

    d)what is your 3d2k1 score.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2003
  3. DriveEuro

    DriveEuro New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First, never run XP with less than 192mb of ram. Sometimes ever 256mb is a pain. But for gaming you really could use 512mb.
     
  4. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,960
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    153
    i were aware of it could be run on 128mb,but you would loose allot of the stuff xp needs to run efficiently.but would agree on a min of 256mb great with 512-768mb would be plenty for the next few years at least.
     
  5. DriveEuro

    DriveEuro New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, you can run xp on a machine with 64mb of ram... But dude, it's a sin. I installed XP on my buddy's 400mhz 64mb ram dell last year. Never waited so long in my life for a bootup. Even longer than our 386 with windows 3.1.
     
  6. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    min to run xp on is 256
     
  7. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,960
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    153
    that is unbelievable.

    last year a relative bought a pc for her daughter that she ran into a problem with the scanner that came with it.

    what she bought for £1000 (yes i am correct on the price) her specs were:

    1.3 Intel celeron (this were the time when 2gig celerons where just about released)
    128mb 133ram
    onboard graphics 8mb
    no idea on mobo
    30gig hdd
    monitor
    epson printer
    scanner.

    afterwards of knowing what she had i figured she paid around £500 give or take a little over the odds.when could of had a 2g for around £700.

    but for the boot up must of took at least 2mins to fully boot up.and you can just imagine the amount of times having to un-install + reboots then install drivers + reboots i had to do.would of recommend upgrading the ram but they never have any money(no surprise as mentioned above) but would not have a clue how to install either.

    they would just never of understood my reasons as to why it would make a difference as to only able to open like one window two tops,then waiting for the page swap to do it's thing.

    after like two hours later and then trying the scanner on my rig with no such luck figured the scanner were the fault and not the drivers.
     
  8. Marv|n

    Marv|n New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well i chose the parts and they put it together. I noticed that the firm that i ordered from are assholes. When i phoned them about the ram they wanted the whole comp back. I asked why they said something like the motherboard can be broken. I said how it works now when i changed the ram and then asked why i cant just send the ram and the said well thats possible to. Then they said that i should try memtest, then i asked why it dosent work and they said ok but if it works i have to pay 15€ the price for ram testing but if its broken i get a new one. But i had nothing to do before i sent it so i tried memtest and got a very much errors. and on friday i got an email saying that the ram works and that they tested it on 2 differnet comps, so i replied that i ran memtest and it didnt work and they havent wanted to anser to that one yet.

    The details are:
    Abit NF7
    AMD ATHLON XP 2400+ THOROUGHBRED 2.0 G
    128 RAM
    Club 3D Radeon 9600 VE 256 ram
    Win xp pro All updates
    DX 9.0B
     
  9. blade5545

    blade5545 Shoots first ask's questions later

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do this run memtest again and this time when it comes back with results take a picture of the screen with all the failed results then sent them the picture if they still argue with you get your money back and take you business elsewhere, that is bs to charge you for testing the ram
     
  10. Ev!L-aLphA

    Ev!L-aLphA | n f e c t e D

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    4,100
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    48
    maby its the ram and maby ur forcing aa and af to the max make them on nothing i think or default
    :) than try
     
  11. DriveEuro

    DriveEuro New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    windows xp system requirements

    128 recommended and 64mb minimum..

    Eat and weap.

    I've run it with 64mb and it was horrible, it was nearly unusable.
    128mb was hard too. Just simply ALT-TABBING took a couple seconds...but still it was actually usable.
     
  12. craig588

    craig588 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,510
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You gotta be kidding, I know someone that has used windows 2k with 64M of ram for a long time, and its not nearly as fast as my system, but its completely usable.

    Is XP that much more bloated than 2k?
     
  13. Roadee

    Roadee Never forgotten

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,198
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in short..........YES
     
  14. HsuGotaQ

    HsuGotaQ Hydrogenated Dumbass

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well... it's "bloated" in the sense that there are way too many services and visual enhancements that are started off the bat. By using the info found at BlackVipers site , I was able to get Windows XP running with only about 58 Megs of ram. Also note, remove all visual enhancements too. After doing both, the systems pretty much acts like Win2K, but with better hardware compatibility and a few extra available features.

    Right now I'm currently trying to get a Bootable CD with Windows XP (Bart's PE Builder) to run with specific drivers on a system. If I can get this to run, I'm not only saving memory and ressources like crazy, but I'll try to add games directly onto such built CD's so that gaming will only need a DVD (since I guess I really am going to need a minium of a 1 gb of space for OS and 1 full game). I can't wait! :D (note : Bart's PE Builder really does wonders when using Ghost32!)
     

Share This Page

visited