Dumb questions about Vista and CPU's

I have 3 gigs working in my Vista 32bit. Depends on what software you are using or plan on using whether or not you get the 64bit version. 4 gigs will run on the 64bit version. I would say if you want to play games get the 32 bit verson with a decent video card and a nice big harddrive. Also make sure you get a core 2 duo processor and not just a duo. Hope that helps a bit.

You get both versions. The requirement for the 4 gigs is simply if you purchase 4gigs of RAM and want to utilize all the memory you paid for the only to do that is with the 64 bit version installed. So if you are buying 2 gig's of ram and start with installing the 32 bit version and you upgrade to 4 gig down the line just install the 64 bit version and you are good to go. The license you are paying for is Windows Vista does not matter whether it is the 32 or 64 bit version. Heck you can even start out using the 64 bit version if you feel like so you do not have to redo everything when you install the 64 bit version. You can install the 64 bit version with 1,2,3 or 4 gigs of ram it does not matter. The core 2 duo's will kick about any P4 behind. The P4 was a flawed piece of architecture. It took AMD spanking their behind for a while before they got the hint and put out the new processor. Intel is back at the top with the Core 2 Duo. Most game manufactures have not updated their minimum requirements on their boxes

I got it near the end of January. Have been enjoying it. I had a Sager 5720 prior to this and was waiting for the 8800M GTX to come out. So when it did I sold the 5720 and bought a 5792. I had no problems with the 5720. I wanted the 4 GIGs of ram and they were offering a special at the time I think it only cost 50 bucks to upgrade to 4gigs when I ordered mine. So I also ordered Vista and had them install the 64 bit version so i could take advantage of the 4 gigs of memory. So far so good I loving the 5792. Personally I like the SLI option of 9262 but I do not like the desktop CPU for the Laptop. I prefer the Mobile version even on the big Laptops. I have seen to many complaints in regards to heat problems with the ones with desktop CPUs.

The Mobile processors begin with a T. You get both DVD's with Vista on it. One with the 64 Bit version and one with the 32 Bit version. Since i ordered the 4 GIG's of Ram they obviously installed the 64 Bit version for me. I ordered mine through Xotic PC. My 5720 was ordered through PC Torque. After I bought my 5720 PC Torque changed hands and I was not impressed with the new people. You can save 3% when you go through a reseller by paying cash. I would go with the 8800. I know you are on a budget but you will regret the 8700 if you game (it sucks).

One thing to remember on the RAM. There are only 2 slots. So if you get the 2 GIG option and want to upgrade later you will need to buy 2X2GIG to replace the 2X1GIG sticks.

Hindsight being 20/20 I probably should have gone with the 1680X1050 screen. If you are going to be watching hi def movies them the 1920X1200 is a good choice. Kind of the reasoning I was using, of course I did not buy the Blu-Ray Drive so I don't know what Hi-Def movies i will be watching. Basically the 8800M will be able to drive the 1680X1050 with all the eye candy and AA. The 1920X1200 display is a little resolution wise if you want to run it at the displays native resolution. Of course you can run the 1920X1200 at a lower resolution but anything other than the native resolution and the image is not as sharp. Something to think about when you are deciding what stays and what goes in the quest to stay below 2500.

Both my Laptop and (when being used at home) my 24" LCD run at 1920X1200 natively so if the game supports it I try and run it at that resolution. I am playing UT3 at 1920X1200 and only occasionally stutters. I have call of duty 4 loaded but have not played it. Heavy hitters like Crysis will probably not play at that high of a resolution with things turned up.

Aside from the T designation, physically, I believe the mobile parts use a different packaging so they aren't pin compatible with desktop parts. Maybe with Penryn you could get a desktop part that wasn't too bad, but it's really big.

As far as 1680x1050 v. 1900x1200

My old 9300 had the 1900x1200 (Glossy). My new Sager has the 1680x1050. I believe for either resolution, the 8800M GTX is a must unless you are playing WoW only.

I am happy with how bright the 1680x1050 screen is. The move away from glossy I was worried about, but I'm happy with it.

The real issue with the resolution is how many pixels you are driving. Remember, the 8800M GTX is a 96sp 500mhz clocked G92 8 series. This means that it is more or less a 8800GT that is underclocked for power consumption purposes. With the 8 series, it is fairly amazing how performance scales very closely with Clock Speed * SP and doing a compare. Therefore, the very low clocked desktop 8800GT's run at 600mhz with the same 96sp's so one can expect about a 16.7% decrease in performance, never mind the fact that the desktop part is half the cost, and generally has a lot of overclocking potential.

This may not seem huge, but it means your notebook will have the performance equal to about 16-17% less than a $260 or so desktop part. With the new 9600 series, this performance point occurs at a much lower price point meaning, games that will be out in the second half of this year will most likely target this as a minimum level of performance for decent graphics.

So how does this relate to 1920x1200 v. 1680x1050? Simple. The higher resolution has about 30% more pixels. Which roughly equates to 30% more work for the GPU. If you are already 16.7% behind on power, it may not be the best idea to handicap your native resolution lest you need to downrez later this year and have blurry images as a result.

In the next week or two I'll probably post some benchmarks of the performance difference between the two. I have a Dell 24" LCD so I can test both natively.

Pretty good article comparing 32 bit VS 64 bit. If you run 32 bit Vista and 4 GIG you will only see around 3.8 GIG but your OS will use less memory. If you run 64 bit Vista you will see 4 GIG but your OS will use more avaiilable Ram thus less memory available.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/