ppgrainbow

Is this computer configuration good for Windows Vista?

31 posts in this topic

Here's a follow-up to a previous thread that I made last week: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170528-considerding-going-back-to-windows-vista/

Since I won the retail copy of Windows Vista Ultimate on eBay for $74, I needed to look for a new custom built PC that still supports Windows Vista on modern hardware even though the OS is out of Mainstream Support.

Tell me this. Will any of the configurations that I made work under Windows Vista? All of this stuff that I configured, but not finalised will cost more than $800. Here's a run down of what it could look like.

1. NZXT Guardian 921RB mid-size computer tower.
2. ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 motherboard supporting up to 32 GB DDR3 RAM.
3. Eight core 3.6 GHz AMD FX8150 processor w/16 MB cache.
4. Cooling: Ultra-performance coolin, copper heat-pip heatsink, high air-flow cooling fan, Artic Silver 5, a 120mm/92m case fan.
5. 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM (single channel).
6. 2 x 1 TB SATA III hard drives.
7. PCI-e 6-pin compliant 600-watt Coolmax power suuply.
8. 24x DVD/RW optical driver.
9. NVIDIA GeForce GT610 graphics card w/1 GB GDDR3 video RAM.
10. Standard build option, burn-in, test & ship out.
11. One year manufacturer repair/replacement product warranty (expires in December 2014)
12. PCI IDE controller.
13. Internal all in one flash card reader.
14. Wireless PCI-e network card.

Having all of this is going to cost me over $800 and will consume 200 more watts per quote from the Barebones computers section on Portatech: http://www.portatech.com/products/product.cshtml?id=70310&o=71327

Let me know what you think, because I am NOT planning to run Windows 2000 as the host OS in 2014 and I will no longer have access to the old computer also.

Edited by ppgrainbow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not use Vista in combination with the FX CPUs. Their module concept is unknown to the Vista Kernel. For th FX CPUs you should use Windows 8.x.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FX CPUs work fine for Win7 as well.

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not use Vista in combination with the FX CPUs. Their module concept is unknown to the Vista Kernel. For th FX CPUs you should use Windows 8.x.

Thank you for telling me. I have a couple of questions to ask here.

1. Which multi-core CPU should work under Windows Vista?

2. And why is the FX module comcept unknown and untested under Windows Vista?

By the way, AMD came out with its FX CPUs before in late 2011 and months before Windows Vista went out of Mainstream Support.

Also, I heard that the CoolMax PSUs can present a firehazard that can kill hardware very easily overtime.

Edited by ppgrainbow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the module concept is explained a bit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

and it was developed after Vista was released. Even Win7 has issues to efficiently work with the modules. MS released a fix to improve it, but not for Vista (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594/en-us). They are no real cores, so putting threads on the right modules is important.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the module concept is explained a bit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

and it was developed after Vista was released. Even Win7 has issues to efficiently work with the modules. MS released a fix to improve it, but not for Vista (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594/en-us). They are no real cores, so putting threads on the right modules is important.

Thanks for the help.

Even if there are no fixes for the AMD FX processors will Windows Vista still function okay even without the hotfix?

I've also heard that the Bulldozer CPU under Windows has been met with mixed results, especially since the FX 8150 was performing poorly in the benchmarks. Also, in late 2011, AMD admitted that their FX processors didn't meet up to expectations and in early 2012, there were lots of compatibility issues associated with the FX processor too.

Now, which multi-core processor would be better, btw? If you have any ideas, let me know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it works "ok", but not very good.

I've used a X4 with Vista, so you can try to get a X6

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it works "ok", but not very good.

I've used a X4 with Vista, so you can try to get a X6

Well...here's what I've decided and what should be good to go with Windows Vista, just to be on the safe side. Here's a update on the specs:

1. NZXT Guardian 921 RB Black Mid-Tower Case w/blue LED, ATX

2. Fractal Design Integral R2 500W Power Supply, 80 PLUS® Bronze, 24-pin ATX12V v2.31 EPS12V, 1x 8/6-pin PCIe

3. ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0, AM3+, AMD® 970, DDR3-2133 (O.C.) 32GB /4, PCIe x16, SATA 6 Gb/s RAID 5 /6, USB 3.0 /2, HDA, GbLAN, ATX

4. AMD Phenom II X4, Socket AMD3 w/Phenom II X4 955 (4 x 3.2 GHz - 8 MB Cache)

5. Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO CPU Cooler, Socket 2011/1155/1156/1366/775/FM1/AM3/AM2, 159mm Height, Copper/Aluminum

6. Cooler Master Thermal Compound, 1.0 g

7. Crucial 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Ballistix Sport XT PC3-12800 DDR3 1600MHz CL9 1.5V SDRAM DIMM, Non-ECC

8. EVGA GeForce® GT 610 810MHz, 1 GB DDR3 1000MHz, PCIe x16, HDMI + DVI + VGA

9. 2 x Western Digital 1TB WD Caviar® Blue (WD10EZEX), SATA 6[Gb/s, 7200 RPM, 64MB cache

10. Lite-on iHAS124 Black 24x DVD±RW Dual-Layer Burner, SATA

11. Nippon Labs ICR-EE Black 1.44 MB Floppy Drive + All-in-One Card Reader Combo Drive, 3.5" Bay

12. Encore ENEWI-1XN42 Wireless N510 PCI-e Adapter, 2dbi Antenna

13. StarTech 2 Port PCI IDE Controller Adapter Card, two dual channel IDE conectors, four IDE devices, 28-bit LBA

I made some modifications regarding the computer specs and I'm closing in on finalising it. It seems that Portatech wasn't being specific on what type of brand of the components that I want here.

What do you think? :)

To try to reduce costs and power, I may replace the CRT monitor with a LCD/OLED monitor in the near future.

Edited by ppgrainbow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should be ok.

Thanks for the help. I really appreciate it.

However, due to a shortage of funding, I may have to hold this off until at least after the new year and consider other options.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can also use a newer Intel i3/5 (Hasswell) with the integrated GPU if you don't do gaming. They use less power.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the money you are going to spend I strongly believe an Intel based machine would be far more adequate. An i5 with an h87 motherboard and integrated graphics is going to use less power, put out less heat and be more powerful than an AMD based machine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can also use a newer Intel i3/5 (Hasswell) with the integrated GPU if you don't do gaming. They use less power.

For the money you are going to spend I strongly believe an Intel based machine would be far more adequate. An i5 with an h87 motherboard and integrated graphics is going to use less power, put out less heat and be more powerful than an AMD based machine.

Thanks so much for telling me. I'll look up online for what other options that I can consider. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista runs good on FXs, if you disable turbo core.

As for power consumption and temps, My 8320 uses 94W on prime95 with max heat/power consumption setting. As for the temps, they never go above 54c.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista runs good on FXs, if you disable turbo core.

As for power consumption and temps, My 8320 uses 94W on prime95 with max heat/power consumption setting. As for the temps, they never go above 54c.

Thank you for telling me. Can Turbo Core features be disabled in the UEFI BIOS on the M5A97 R2.0 motherboard?

Why doesn't Windows Vista work correctly with Turbo Core capabilities?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the issue is that Turbo core is limited to 4 cores out of 8. It does slightly improve CPU perfromance, but only if the hotfix is on there. Yes, the M5A97 has an option to disable it.

You can Overclock your CPU to 200MHz (0.2GHz) over the original speed, and you'll get better perfromance than what ever Turbo core can give you.

Edited by AnX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the issue is that Turbo core is limited to 4 cores out of 8. It does slightly improve CPU perfromance, but only if the hotfix is on there. Yes, the M5A97 has an option to disable it.

You can Overclock your CPU to 200MHz (0.2GHz) over the original speed, and you'll get better perfromance than what ever Turbo core can give you.

I'll bet that since the CPU perforance improvement is lackluster, I'm disabling Turbo core once I get the M5A97 motherboard. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be late, but:

Vista runs good on FXs

It's a fact the FX architecture is not fully supported on vista and only barely better on win7. They would be throwing away performance running an FX on vista, so why spend more money? It's like buying 8GB RAM and running a 32Bit system

ppgrainbow, do you have any use for those 8 threads? Only few programs actually scale that well with so many threads, if you don't do video encoding, it's not worth it. Don't get blinded by numbers.

A Phenom II X4 (or X6), if you go the AMD route, is the better choice for the majority of people, especially if you are running vista. The sad thing is that the FX chips didn't really improved single threaded performance by much compared to the Phenom IIs, and this is what actually counts most of the time, still.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be late, but:

Vista runs good on FXs

It's a fact the FX architecture is not fully supported on vista and only barely better on win7. They would be throwing away performance running an FX on vista, so why spend more money? It's like buying 8GB RAM and running a 32Bit system

ppgrainbow, do you have any use for those 8 threads? Only few programs actually scale that well with so many threads, if you don't do video encoding, it's not worth it. Don't get blinded by numbers.

A Phenom II X4 (or X6), if you go the AMD route, is the better choice for the majority of people, especially if you are running vista. The sad thing is that the FX chips didn't really improved single threaded performance by much compared to the Phenom IIs, and this is what actually counts most of the time, still.

I don't think that having more than a quad-core processor is a good idea. Also, why is the AMD FX processor not fully supported on Windows XP, Windows Vista and the original release of Windows 7? As far as I know, the AMD Phenon II X6 and the 2nd generation Intel Core processors are believed to be the fastet processors that Windows Vista will fully support and run.

AMD's Kabini APUs, 3rd generation (and later; Ivy Bridge and Haswell) Intel Core processors will be incompatible with Windows XP or Vista at all as there are no drivers available: http://www.hitechreview.com/it-products/pc/amd%E2%80%99s-kabini-apus-won%E2%80%99t-run-windows-xp-windows-vista/42774/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why they are not fully supported is because they were released after the development phase of that OS. The FX chips are even newer than win7, hence why even win7's scheduler doesn't fully support it. Microsoft is not interested in adding support for those OSes because they want us to buy windows 8.

And yes, a quadcore is more than enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why they are not fully supported is because they were released after the development phase of that OS. The FX chips are even newer than win7, hence why even win7's scheduler doesn't fully support it. Microsoft is not interested in adding support for those OSes because they want us to buy windows 8.

And yes, a quadcore is more than enough.

True. The AMD FX-4300 processor was released on 23 October 2012, three days before Windows 8 was even publicly released. I honestly can't believe that Microsoft is only using the AMD FX processor to only fully support Windows 8. :(

And since the AMD FX is fast enough, I would TOTALLY avoid the AMD Kabini APUs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a hotfix made for Windows 7 to support the CPU, and Windows 8.x has it out of the box.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a hotfix made for Windows 7 to support the CPU, and Windows 8.x has it out of the box.

And since Windows XP nor Windows Vista are getting the hotfix, I bet that these OSes will function as-is without the hotfix, true? :)

Edited by ppgrainbow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will, but it isn't long before one of the unofficial geeks on this site create a patch. In fact, all it takes to fix the problem is to make Windows use the Intel HT scheduler, so the cores are scheduled in a way that shared cache can be cleared.

Edited by AnX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will, but it isn't long before one of the unofficial geeks on this site create a patch. In fact, all it takes to fix the problem is to make Windows use the Intel HT scheduler, so the cores are scheduled in a way that shared cache can be cleared.

I can't wait for a unofficial patch to come out for Windows Vista on the AMD FX processor soon!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.