New PC

[Hitman6267]

Hi, I just got a new pc ;)

Here are the specs :

Intel EM64T Pentium D Processor 3GHZ 2MB

Western Digital 200GB 7200rpm SATA 8MB

Elixir DDRAM2 512 MB ( X 2 )

Saphires Ati Radeon X1300SE 512MB PCI

Creative Sound Audigy 7.1

I think thats about it, can't think of another part to say...

So what do you think about it ?

Also i have a question as i said befor the harddrive is 200 GB but when looking at the properties of my C and D drives both capacities are 93.1 GB , why is that ?

[Zeus_Hunt]

Also i have a question as i said befor the harddrive is 200 GB but when looking at the properties of my C and D drives both capacities are 93.1 GB , why is that ?

On HDD's, size is calculated as

1000bits=1Kb

1000Kb =1Mb

1000Mb=1Gb

In the system, size is calculated as

1024bits=1Kb

1024Kb=1Mb

1024Mb=1Gb

So if u check with these calculation the size would be similar...

Very Good specs for now..Good value for money..

DDR3 is getting or got released....

AMD’s representatives said in a statement that they intend to oppose Intel’s high-end Core 2 Extreme processor with a dual-socket platform probably later this year, according to TG Daily.

Henri Richard, AMD’s executive vice president, has stated in an interview with Tom's Hardware that the manufacturer will go even further, developing its 4x4 technology, which will be scaled in order to support a total of eight CPU cores and open the technology up to other processor types.

"4x4 is a bit of my child. I always felt that, to a degree, there was no reason why we wouldn't bring workstation class technology to the gaming industry," said Richard in an interview with Patrick Schmid, managing editor of Tom's Hardware.

It seems that, even if Intel is delighted with its already Core 2 processor that is so popular these days, AMD doesn’t want to give up without a … war. As a result, it seems that the manufacturer will use its upcoming "4x4" as the perfect sward that is meant to kneel Intel when it comes to high-end consumer target.

TG Daily tries to say, in a peculiar manner, that this strategy is not only an aggressive traditional answer to Intel’s success, but also a gamer’s dream. And when the gamer is an AMD executive, it is obvious that he will try to counter the adversary’s power over any given segment, especially gaming.

This is the reason why Richard said that there is a full potential of scaling the 4x4 in order to improve the capabilities of high-end gaming systems.

"My definition [of the technology] actually is 4x4x4x4x4. Four processors, 4 GPUs, fed by 4 [GB] of memory, four hard drives and four times the fun." While the platform will be limited to two dual-core processors, for a total of four cores, Richard promised an expansion in 2007.

"What's really cool [about the technology] is that it's quad-core compatible, which means that sometimes next year you will be able to move from 4-core to eight-core."

According to the same statement, two or even more sockets on a motherboard mustn’t be used for two processors, and, consequently, AMD intends to occupy one socket with physics capabilities and the other with a common used processor.

Now this is the proc I am waiting for... long time though..

[Hitman6267]

I wanted to get an AMD had great specs in mind but there isn't a company for AMD in my country ( Lebanon ) so if something happens hardware wise i would have to wait a long time for the parts to come from another country so finaly i chose to go with intel...

btw thank you for the info but there's something still wrong, hardware: 200 000 Mb ==> 200 GB so 200 000/1024= 195.3125, the capacity of my C and D drives is 93.1 both so in total 186.2 so 9 GB are missing....

[Samurai]

The system files for your operating system will use the rest of what is missing ;)

[Zeus_Hunt]

btw thank you for the info but there's something still wrong, hardware: 200 000 Mb ==> 200 GB so 200 000/1024= 195.3125, the capacity of my C and D drives is 93.1 both so in total 186.2 so 9 GB are missing....

200Gb/Gb on the system = 1000*1000*1000/1024*1024*1024

Gb on the system = 0.931322574615478515625*200

Gb on the system = 186.264 Gb

[Hitman6267]

i don't get it, from where did you come up with that equation ? Could you explain if you have time. Thank you.

[Zeus_Hunt]

All computer data is stored in a binary format as either a one or zero. Eight of these bits together for the most commonly referred to item in computing, the byte. The various amounts of storage capacity are referred by a prefix to represent a specific amount, similar to the metric prefixes. Since all computers are based on binary math, these prefixes represent base 2 amounts. Each level is an increment of 2 to the 10th power or 1,024. The common prefixes are as follows:

Kilobyte (KB) = 1,024 Bytes

MegaByte (MB) = 1,024 Kilobytes or 1,048,576 Bytes

Gigabyte (GB) = 1,024 Megabytes or 1,073,741,824 Bytes

Terabyte (TB) = 1,024 Gigabytes or 1,099,511,627,776 Bytes

This is very important information because when a computer operating system or program reports the available space on a drive, it is going to report the overall total of available bytes or reference them by one of the prefixes. So, an OS reporting a total space of 70.4 GB actually has around 75,591,424,409 Bytes of storage space.

Advertised vs. Actual

Since consumers don't think in base 2 mathematics, manufacturers decided to rate most drive capacities based on the standard base 10 numbers we are all familiar with. Therefore, one Megabyte equals one million bytes while one Gigabyte equals one billion bytes. This isn't too much of a problem with fairly small numbers such as a Kilobyte, but each level of increase in the prefix also increased the total discrepancy of the actual space compared to the advertised space.

Here is a quick reference to show the amount that the actual values differ compared to the advertised for each common referenced value:

Megabyte Difference = 48,576 Bytes

Gigabyte Difference = 73,741,824 Bytes

Terabyte Difference = 99,511,627,776 Bytes

Based on this, for each Gigabyte that a drive manufacturer claims, they are over reporting the amount of disk space by 73,741,824 Bytes or roughly 70.3 MB of disk space. So, if a manufacturer advertises an 80 GB (80 billion bytes) hard drive, the actual disk space is around 74.5 GB of space, roughly 7% less than what they advertise.

fundamental problem stems from the fact that computers thinks in powers of 2 (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and so on), while people think in terms of powers of 10 (1, 10, 100, 1000 and so on).

SO... to a computer, a kilobyte is 1024 bytes (2 to the 10th power). A megabyte is 1,048,576 (1024 times 1024, or 2 to the 20th). And a gigabyte is 1,073,741,824 (1024 times 1024 times 1024, or 2 to the 30th). Thus 80 gigabytes, to a computer is 85,899,345,920 bytes.

But as I said, people don't think like that. We think of a kilobyte as "around" 1,000 bytes. Close. Close enough for most conversations. But when we think of a megabyte as "around" 1,000,000 bytes, and a gigabyte as "around" 1,000,000,000 bytes, we're getting less and less accurate at each step along the way.

[Hitman6267]

oh ok, thank you :) from where did you get the info though ?

[Zeus_Hunt]

oh ok, thank you :frusty: from where did you get the info though ?

Google is our friend :stereo: ... U just need to know what to type in for the search ....

[Cervatiyo]

:unsure: right, when you install OS, you lost space, its normal ;)

[JunkInternetMail]

Basically, you lose a small amount of data when formatting so that any OS can read your data...and a very tiny portion of data goes to the MFT and MBR.