KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[scribbleheli]

On 2/9/2016 at 6:06 AM, Hyperpig said:

my old pc is about 5 yr old now, 

amd fx-6300, ATI Radean 5770 graphic,

8gb memory,

samsung ssd.

Asus mobo..

and i had a base of 241 parts... with max physics, it moves like an ant.(like 8 sec real life for 1 sec in KSP)............and i am on a project of Battlecruiser Minimus Mrk3.... 182 parts space ship... Jeb.......i need a better PC......

where i have a question now, i just placed order of following parts

I7 4790k + heatsink

MSI z97 gaming 5

16gb memory

750w corsair PSU,

MSi R9 380  graphic

i am bit worry now is r9 380 good enough.. since i have been playing my KSP in 1600x900....not even 1080p.........

anyone have similar build that could give some advice?

 

If you already purchased the parts. Then have at it, you'll have a great computer.

If not, I would suggest going skylake too.

Pretty much any discrete graphics card can handle KSP at really any settings.

I started on a HD 4850, then a GTX 760 WF3 OC, Now a GTX 980 WF3 OC.

There was no appreciable difference with stock graphic settings. The CPU is 1000% the bottle neck of this game, since its single core till 1.1.

which again, is why I suggest skylake. IPC (Instructions per clock) is the real important number when it comes to KSP performance, not Ghz.

And skylake has the highest.

Getting an i7 or i5 is up to you. Unless your asking for budget advice, ignore the people who say you don't need it. You also don't need a gaming PC (which your obviously trying to build), KSP, Pizza, beer, football or a snuggie.

But they are all really nice to have. 

 

THAT'S RIGHT I SAID A SNUGGIE!

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by scribbleheli

[Camacha]

10 hours ago, scribbleheli said:

Getting an i7 or i5 is up to you. Unless your asking for budget advice, ignore the people who say you don't need it. You also don't need a gaming PC (which your obviously trying to build), KSP, Pizza, beer, football or a snuggie.

This is false. You do not need an i7, not because it is a luxury, but because you will not be able to use it in games. Hyper-threading is a technology that yields very specific advantages. In short, it helps in applications that internally switch tasks a lot. It does not actually add any calculative power, but it helps making optimal use of the cores that you have. The main difference between HT and no HT is that your CPU cores are spending more time waiting on the next instruction/task in the i5. Obviously, this leads to slightly reduced performance. In an i7, work is resumed faster, making better use of the hardware. However, and this is the major factor: you will only see gains if your task actually means a lot of switching. A good example is doing render work, where you do lots and lots of small calculations over and over. On the flip side, it does not really work out when you do more complicated tasks less often.

If you look at the benchmarks, it turns out hyper-threading gains you little to nothing in games. The task does not line up with the technology. You simply blew 100+ dollars on a technology you will not put to good use. In more than one case it even hurts performance. This means that 9 times out of 10, you are better off spending those dollars/euros/yens on a better video card than on a CPU. In other cases, you spent is on something you will not actually use.

As it stands today, it remains true: unless you know why you would need hyper-threading (and thus an i7), you do not need it. People get fooled by the Intel marketing time and time again without understanding the technology or even knowing what the actual difference between an i5 and i7 is.

 

On 09/02/2016 at 3:06 PM, Hyperpig said:

i am bit worry now is r9 380 good enough.. since i have been playing my KSP in 1600x900....not even 1080p.........

My old GTS450 ran KSP at 1920x1440 (well over Full HD) really well, and that card is many times slower than a 380. You will be absolutely fine - and then some.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Camacha

[MatterBeam]

Anybody in the UK trying to build a £400ish PC?

[briansun1]

On 2/9/2016 at 8:06 AM, Hyperpig said:

my old pc is about 5 yr old now, 

amd fx-6300, ATI Radean 5770 graphic,

8gb memory,

samsung ssd.

Asus mobo..

and i had a base of 241 parts... with max physics, it moves like an ant.(like 8 sec real life for 1 sec in KSP)............and i am on a project of Battlecruiser Minimus Mrk3.... 182 parts space ship... Jeb.......i need a better PC......

where i have a question now, i just placed order of following parts

I7 4790k + heatsink

MSI z97 gaming 5

16gb memory

750w corsair PSU,

MSi R9 380  graphic

i am bit worry now is r9 380 good enough.. since i have been playing my KSP in 1600x900....not even 1080p.........

anyone have similar build that could give some advice?

 

 

 

Drop the i7 get a i5 6600/K.General rule of thumb is if you can not tell exactly where you would use the Hyperthreading from an i7 you will not need it and are better off getting an i5. There's also not really a point to buy last gen cpus now. You could also drop the PSU down to 600ish W. The r9 380 will be more than enough for your needs. I have the MSI 4gb version running at 1920x1200 and it works fine. Just grab the 4gb version not the 2gb(slightly debatable but I think it will help in the long run.)  Unless they've changed something KSP is still single threaded and heavily single CPU core dependent. Meaning 1 fast cor will beat out 4 slow ones almost every time.

On 2/9/2016 at 9:37 AM, Endersmens said:

Here is that monitor I was talking about. 24", 1920x1080, 5ms refresh, 60Hz. https://pcpartpicker.com/part/aoc-monitor-e2425swd

Company is AOC. Anyone have experience with them?

They make pretty good monitors. My cousin has one of them and they're not bad.

Edited February 11, 2016 by briansun1

[Hyperpig]

22 hours ago, scribbleheli said:

 

If you already purchased the parts. Then have at it, you'll have a great computer.

If not, I would suggest going skylake too.

Pretty much any discrete graphics card can handle KSP at really any settings.

I started on a HD 4850, then a GTX 760 WF3 OC, Now a GTX 980 WF3 OC.

There was no appreciable difference with stock graphic settings. The CPU is 1000% the bottle neck of this game, since its single core till 1.1.

which again, is why I suggest skylake. IPC (Instructions per clock) is the real important number when it comes to KSP performance, not Ghz.

And skylake has the highest.

Getting an i7 or i5 is up to you. Unless your asking for budget advice, ignore the people who say you don't need it. You also don't need a gaming PC (which your obviously trying to build), KSP, Pizza, beer, football or a snuggie.

But they are all really nice to have. 

 

THAT'S RIGHT I SAID A SNUGGIE!

 

 

12 hours ago, Camacha said:

This is false. You do not need an i7, not because it is a luxury, but because you will not be able to use it in games. Hyper-threading is a technology that yields very specific advantages. In short, it helps in applications that internally switch tasks a lot. It does not actually add any calculative power, but it helps making optimal use of the cores that you have. The main difference between HT and no HT is that your CPU cores are spending more time waiting on the next instruction/task in the i5. Obviously, this leads to slightly reduced performance. In an i7, work is resumed faster, making better use of the hardware. However, and this is the major factor: you will only see gains if your task actually means a lot of switching. A good example is doing render work, where you do lots and lots of small calculations over and over. On the flip side, it does not really work out when you do more complicated tasks less often.

If you look at the benchmarks, it turns out hyper-threading gains you little to nothing in games. The task does not line up with the technology. You simply blew 100+ dollars on a technology you will not put to good use. In more than one case it even hurts performance. This means that 9 times out of 10, you are better off spending those dollars/euros/yens on a better video card than on a CPU. In other cases, you spent is on something you will not actually use.

As it stands today, it remains true: unless you know why you would need hyper-threading (and thus an i7), you do not need it. People get fooled by the Intel marketing time and time again without understanding the technology or even knowing what the actual difference between an i5 and i7 is.

 

My old GTS450 ran KSP at 1920x1440 (well over Full HD) really well, and that card is many times slower than a 380. You will be absolutely fine - and then some.

Thanks for your reply and advice.. unfortunately, i saw a I7 4790K at £220 and think its a good deal and bought it.....

luckily I kept the r9 380 than 390 that saved me £120 plus.....

took me half hour to dock in my Spaceship Minimus Mrk4 in 1600:900 ...XDXD

looking forward to play proper KSP =D

Edited February 11, 2016 by Hyperpig

[Endersmens]

Thanks! But, now another decision. For the same price, I can get a 21.5" IPS monitor, also 5ms refresh and 60Hz. Is the extra 2.5" worth non IPS? (Yes I actually do know what IPS does, just not entirely sure what to do here. Since refresh and Hz are the same I don't see a reason not to get IPS besides the size difference)

[Camacha]

20 hours ago, Endersmens said:

Thanks! But, now another decision. For the same price, I can get a 21.5" IPS monitor, also 5ms refresh and 60Hz. Is the extra 2.5" worth non IPS? (Yes I actually do know what IPS does, just not entirely sure what to do here. Since refresh and Hz are the same I don't see a reason not to get IPS besides the size difference)

What are the respective resolutions? Most people do not realize that the same resolution on a smaller screen yields a better image quality, because you have more pixels per inch. Full HD on 24" makes for pretty large pixels, so scaling down might not be a bad idea. Of course, opting for a larger monitor is equally valid, it just depends on your preferences.

Also, make sure to read some reviews and see how both do with gaming. The last thing you want is getting stuck with a monitor that does not serve its purpose. With the IPS one, be sure to find out about how it does in practice in the refresh department and whether is does not ghost or anything. Also look at color reproduction, since not every IPS monitor is made equal. Since the technology has become more popular, it comes in several flavours, not all of the same quality.

With the TN one, be sure viewing angles are acceptable, color reproduction is not horrible, blacks and/or whites are not crunched and all other typical TN flaws are within reason. There are some pretty decent TN screens out there, but there are that display every last fault the technology has. I have used both and the latter really becomes a bother rather quickly. Not seeing any detail in dark parts of an image limits the usefulness of a monitor more than you would think.

[Endersmens]

1 hour ago, Camacha said:

What are the respective resolutions? Most people do not realize that the same resolution on a smaller screen yields a better image quality, because you have more pixels per inch. Full HD on 24" makes for pretty large pixels, so scaling down might not be a bad idea. Of course, opting for a larger monitor is equally valid, it just depends on your preferences.

Also, make sure to read some reviews and see how both do with gaming. The last thing you want is getting stuck with a monitor that does not serve its purpose. With the IPS one, be sure to find out about how it does in practice in the refresh department and whether is does not ghost or anything. Also look at color reproduction, since not every IPS monitor is made equal. Since the technology has become more popular, it comes in several flavours, not all of the same quality.

With the TN one, be sure viewing angles are acceptable, color reproduction is not horrible, blacks and/or whites are not crunched and all other typical TN flaws are within reason. There are some pretty decent TN screens out there, but there are that display every last fault the technology has. I have used both and the latter really becomes a bother rather quickly. Not seeing any detail in dark parts of an image limits the usefulness of a monitor more than you would think.

Specs of 24" AOC Monitor
1920x1080 resolution, 24" diagonal screen size, TN, 5ms refresh rate (claimed) 60Hz. Viewing angle: 170° H x 160° V. 1 DVI, 1 VGA. Has a few reviews, most of them saying it's decent.

Specs of 21.5" Acer Monitor.
1920x1080 resolution, 21.5" diagonal screen size, IPS, 5ms refresh rate (claimed) 60Hz. Viewing angle: 178° H x 178° V. 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, 1 VGA. Has more reviews, 4.5/5 stars. Most reviews said it was a great monitor.

 

[scribbleheli]

On 2/11/2016 at 6:48 AM, Hyperpig said:

 

Thanks for your reply and advice.. unfortunately, i saw a I7 4790K at £220 and think its a good deal and bought it.....

luckily I kept the r9 380 than 390 that saved me £120 plus.....

took me half hour to dock in my Spaceship Minimus Mrk4 in 1600:900 ...XDXD

looking forward to play proper KSP =D

 

Sounds like you did Mighty fine.

And will play pretty much everything just fine. 

I am curious though, when 1.1 hits with its muti thread support. ( I know its up to Squad to properly implement it)

Will all the anti hyper threading people get shut down? 

 

Anyway, you have a nice set up. Make sure you push it hard and get some good enjoyment out of it.

 

 

[briansun1]

1 hour ago, scribbleheli said:

Sounds like you did Mighty fine.

And will play pretty much everything just fine. 

I am curious though, when 1.1 hits with its muti thread support. ( I know its up to Squad to properly implement it)

Will all the anti hyper threading people get shut down? 

 

Anyway, you have a nice set up. Make sure you push it hard and get some good enjoyment out of it.

 

 

Depends on where or not the improvement is large enough to justify the extra cost. I'm going to lean towards no.

[HafCoJoe]

I don't think I posted about my dream corsair rig yet have I? It's called "Notice me Corsairpai!" and if you have any comments on it I suggest you post them... hehe.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Camacha]

4 hours ago, scribbleheli said:

Will all the anti hyper threading people get shut down?
 

The likely answer is no. If you want to know why, take a look at some benchmarks yourself. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a case of looking at the facts and reaching a logical conclusion. Even Battlefield 4, renowned for its capabilities to use many cores, gains little to nothing.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Camacha

[cantab]

GTX 760 and everything at high or max settings - all that proves is that with a mid-range card like a 760 your games are GPU-limited. It doesn't prove that hyperthreading doesn't matter, it proves that CPU doesn't matter (within reason). Which wider tests show - it's not uncommon for everything from an 860K to a Core i7 to hit pretty much the same framerate.

Preliminary indications on my Core i3 system in Cities: Skylines - a CPU-punisher if ever there was one - are that disabling hyperthreading results in less smooth gameplay. I still need to run actual frame time measurements though.

Edited February 13, 2016 by cantab

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, cantab said:

GTX 760 and everything at high or max settings - all that proves is that with a mid-range card like a 760 your games are GPU-limited. It doesn't prove that hyperthreading doesn't matter, it proves that CPU doesn't matter (within reason). Which wider tests show - it's not uncommon for everything from an 860K to a Core i7 to hit pretty much the same framerate.

The additional tests on page two deal with exactly that concern.

Another video that illustrates the (lack of) difference is this one. Even on stock speeds, the i7 rarely and barely produces more frames. Considering the i7 chip has a 500 MHz edge over the i5, the differences are marginal at best. Overclock the i5 and it will again outpace the i7. The difference is minor at best and non-existent or in favour of the i5 at worst. When it comes to gaming, you are better of pouring money into a nice GPU. That, at least, you can properly put to work, as it appears not even a Titan X with an overclock will tease out the differences convincingly.

 

Quote

Preliminary indications on my Core i3 system in Cities: Skylines - a CPU-punisher if ever there was one - are that disabling hyperthreading results in less smooth gameplay. I still need to run actual frame time measurements though.

Though I appreciate your opinions and without meaning disrespect, one unquantified observation is far from the evidence one would want - if evidence at all.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Camacha

[cantab]

More results on quad-core processors, more of the same. But I found someone who's benchmarked on a Core i3 as well as an i7, testing both with HT enabled and disabled.

http://techbuyersguru.com/dual-core-quad-core-and-hyperthreading-benchmark-analysis

The benefits of hyperthreading on the Core i3 are clearly measurable, and in some games closer to the 4-core CPU than the non-HT dual-core.

This separates two questions that are conflated when we only looked at Core i7 results. Does hyperthreading help games? Yes, it can. In some, possibly most, games a Core i3 will be rather better than the corresponding Pentium. Does "8 threads" help games? Generally no. In most, possibly almost all, games a Core i5 will be just as good as the corresponding Core i7.

[Alphasus]

I'm back! My pc build is done, though there were some issues.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  (Purchased For $104.99) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (Purchased For $59.99) 
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (Purchased For $64.99) 
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (Purchased For $66.48) 
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (Purchased For $51.99) 
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card  (Purchased For $325.00) 
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case  (Purchased For $49.99) 
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA GS 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  (Purchased For $74.99) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-S12B redux-1200 59.1 CFM 120mm  Fan  ($13.90 @ Amazon) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-S12B redux-700 33.5 CFM 120mm  Fan  ($13.85 @ Amazon) 
Monitor: Dell SE2416H 60Hz 23.8" Monitor  (Purchased For $120.00) 
Total: $946.17
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-14 09:35 EST-0500

 

So, the build went rather well, all things considered. The first assembly, the motherboard was defective in one RAM slot. Thus, when you put anything in that slot, it wouldn't POST. But with RAM in only the other slot, it was just fine. I sent back the motherboard, and a new one arrived about 2 weeks later. When the motherboard came back, I used some spare Arctic Silver 5 as thermal paste for the cpu. Everything else was routine. But, case fans are on that list because Cooler Master's original case fan in the front of the case died. So, it was replaced by that set of Noctuas, and now, the CPU cooler is the loudest part of the build. My question is, is this a good upgrade proposal for this summer?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($223.99 @ Amazon) 
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U12S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($61.99 @ Amazon) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (Purchased For $59.99) 
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (Purchased For $64.99) 
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (Purchased For $66.48) 
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (Purchased For $51.99) 
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card  (Purchased For $325.00) 
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case  (Purchased For $49.99) 
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA GS 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  (Purchased For $74.99) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-S12B redux-1200 59.1 CFM 120mm  Fan  (Purchased For $14.50) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-S12B redux-700 33.5 CFM 120mm  Fan  (Purchased For $14.50) 
Monitor: Dell SE2416H 60Hz 23.8" Monitor  (Purchased For $120.00) 
Total: $1128.41
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-14 09:41 EST-0500

Edited February 14, 2016 by Alphasus

[kenbobo]

May as well post my current specs.

CPU: Intel Core i3-4360 clocked at 3.70 GHz (stock cooler)

RAM: 8GB (2*4GB) DDR3 Crucial Ballistix Sport (1600MHz)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-E33

Graphics Card (the crown jewel of this machine): GTX 950 GAMING 2G from MSI

Power Supply- VP-450 from Antec (450 watts)

Case: Rosewill FBM-01

Keyboard/Mouse: IOGear Kaliber GKM602R Keyboard/Mouse combo

Controller: Steam Controller

Monitor: Samsung LN32D405E3DXZA (32 inch 1080p TV)

 

 

Pretty happy with it!

[Alphasus]

3 hours ago, kenbobo said:

May as well post my current specs.

CPU: Intel Core i3-4360 clocked at 3.70 GHz (stock cooler)

RAM: 8GB (2*4GB) DDR3 Crucial Ballistix Sport (1600MHz)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-E33

Graphics Card (the crown jewel of this machine): GTX 950 GAMING 2G from MSI

Power Supply- VP-450 from Antec (450 watts)

Case: Rosewill FBM-01

Keyboard/Mouse: IOGear Kaliber GKM602R Keyboard/Mouse combo

Controller: Steam Controller

Monitor: Samsung LN32D405E3DXZA (32 inch 1080p TV)

 

 

Pretty happy with it!

What do you use it for? I've hit one game that I can't max out: XCOM 2. My CPU is that bottleneck.

[Camacha]

On 13/02/2016 at 2:31 PM, cantab said:

The benefits of hyperthreading on the Core i3 are clearly measurable, and in some games closer to the 4-core CPU than the non-HT dual-core.

This separates two questions that are conflated when we only looked at Core i7 results. Does hyperthreading help games? Yes, it can. In some, possibly most, games a Core i3 will be rather better than the corresponding Pentium. Does "8 threads" help games? Generally no. In most, possibly almost all, games a Core i5 will be just as good as the corresponding Core i7.

The problem with that hypothesis is that the i3 differs in more areas than just the hyper-threading, and some of those areas are pretty relevant when maximum performance is required. The only way of truly testing the influence of HT is getting a processor with the technology and disabling it for part of the test.

An i5 and i7 differ slightly too, though they both have much more 'reserves', so performance is less likely to suffer.

[cantab]

2 hours ago, Camacha said:

The only way of truly testing the influence of HT is getting a processor with the technology and disabling it for part of the test.

Which is what techbuyersguru did. Of course when it comes to making a buying choice there are other factors, but they are only going to strengthen the advantage of the i3 that has already been demonstrated on the grounds of the hyperthreading alone. (Making the reasonable assumption Intel don't make the i3's *worse* in those other factors than the corresponding Pentiums.)

[ZentroCatson]

Hi there! Since 1.1 is right around the corner, I'm thinking about buying a new computer, preferably a tower with 8 ore more gigabytes RAM, a high end graphics card and a powerful processor. I love my current Mac Air, but it's not good for gaming. I'll definitely put Windows on it, but not Windows 10. I heard wild myths about it and don't want to use it. So, I have two options: either buying one or building one myself. Also note that I don't want to spend more than 900$ on it. So, what do you recommend: buying one or building one? And when buying one, what do you recommend me? 

Edited February 15, 2016 by ZentroCatson

[Alphasus]

42 minutes ago, ZentroCatson said:

Hi there! Since 1.1 is right around the corner, I'm thinking about buying a new computer, preferably a tower with 8 ore more gigabytes RAM, a high end graphics card and a powerful processor. I love my current Mac Air, but it's not good for gaming. I'll definitely put Windows on it, but not Windows 10. I heard wild myths about it and don't want to use it. So, I have two options: either buying one or building one myself. Also note that I don't want to spend more than 900$ on it. So, what do you recommend: buying one or building one? And when buying one, what do you recommend me? 

Build it yourself. Here is a 1.1 rig. You can find windows 7 for 50 dollars now.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6400 2.7GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.99 @ Newegg) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($24.88 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: MSI Z170A PC MATE ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($94.99 @ Micro Center) 
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Black 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($42.88 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($84.89 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($46.89 @ OutletPC) 
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 950 2GB Video Card  ($129.99 @ Micro Center) 
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case  ($44.99 @ Micro Center) 
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($35.98 @ Newegg) 
Monitor: Dell SE2216H 60Hz 21.5" Monitor  ($121.98 @ Newegg) 
Total: $807.46
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-15 07:18 EST-0500

That is a powerful CPU in an upgradeable socket, with a good CPU cooler, and ok GPU. The RAM can become 64 GBs in future.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Alphasus

[Elthy]

One RAM-Stick isnt the best idea. Buy 2*4GB (or 2*8) to get Dual-Channel (doubles the memory bandwidth)...

[cantab]

You'll have trouble finding a new PC with an older version of Windows, because Microsoft always push the latest one.

If you can wait, I'd also say wait for 1.1 to actually release when people actually find out if the thing is good at using multiple cores.

[Alphasus]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

One RAM-Stick isnt the best idea. Buy 2*4GB (or 2*8) to get Dual-Channel (doubles the memory bandwidth)...

Sure, but thats about $10 more, which outprices him.