Can a 16bit mobo run next gen games?

[realityfactoryusr]

I just found out why a new Dell is going to cost so little. Its got a 16bit mobo. Its all I really need though as I try to develop a game more than I actually play games anymore but if a 16bit is going to ham things up, does anyone have any info theyd like to share? Please dont remind me its a dull question, I know, as deep into gaming Im in I should know but I dont and I have no idea where to start to find out whether 16 will cause trouble or if its enough to play games with today. Im talking Bio-Shock and the like.

[MakerOfGames]

Computers with 16bit motherboards should be almost dirt cheap as it effectively cuts the power of any modern processor by at least half and apparently up to 8 times slower. I googled the difference and found that a 32Bit motherboard should be up to 8x faster than a 16bit motherboard. From what I am learning in classes at college for computer science I was under the impression of a 2x difference as it is twice the max bit handling capacity. Either way, a 16bit motherboard would date back to pre-Pentium class processors. Stay far away from 16Bit motherboards for any kind of modern media use. It may be enough for light linux use for web browsing and text editing, but from what I have gathered it should be a huge speed difference. If you are looking to play games and do multimedia, look into 64bit computers with 64bit motherboards. 64bit drivers are hard to find for some hardware, but it enables up to 128GB of RAM theoretically instead of 4GB with 32bit. Also, it enables more data to be processed at a time with 64bit applications which many multimedia programs are being written in today.

If you want to game, look at 64bit computers. Stay away from cheap alternatives they won't last nearly as long as if you pay just a little bit more for better components.

If you want to save money with a new computer I suggest building it yourself. I have done that. I researched components online for a month then ordered all my pieces and luckily I payed close enough attention that all the parts worked no problem. With my computer I saved roughly $400 by building it myself and I got better components. Little things like mice, keyboards and motherboards, regardless of anything else are made cheaply from name brand manufactures.

If you are interested in a new computer or building one, I would be glad to help out with any questions.

[Juutis]

but it enables up to 128GB of RAM theoretically instead of 4GB with 32bit.

Now look what you made me do. I was saving my post number 1337 for the release of my demo but I really have to say this.

32bit CPU's and operating systems have 32bit address registers. That means some 4 billion different addresses (2^32). Each byte of RAM along with all other devices needs its own address, thus the limit of 4GB. So, a 64bit system can have 2^64 addresses which is a lot more than what you said. That makes it possible to have about 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.

(I hope I didn't mess the numbers up. I'm working with a simple calculator here)

[MakerOfGames]

Oh, sorry, I got that number from reading a while back about Vista I believe. That might be Vistas limit, but yes you are correct its like 16.8 terabytes of memory according to wikipedia. Sorry for not doing my research first!

[Juutis]

That might be Vistas limit, but yes you are correct its like 16.8 terabytes of memory according to wikipedia.

If you mean 16.8 million terabytes (16 exabytes), then yes, exactly.


However, I don't know if this all has anything to do with the motherboard being 16bit. What does that mean anyway? Is it the data buses or the address buses that are 16bit? Or both? Could it be possible for the address buses to be 32bit and the data buses to be 16bit?

One thing I think is sure, though. The address buses can't be 16bit since that would only allow 64KB of RAM. And nowadays that system couldn't run anything.

***EDIT***
After doing some research and discussing with my fellow students I'm positive that 16bit here refers to the width of the data buses. Not the address buses. So this has nothing to do with how much RAM you can have. All I can say is I wouldn't buy this PC for gaming purposes. No way.

[MakerOfGames]

I forgot the million part? I just can't keep my numbers straight. I think you are correct. In which case it would cripple the data transfer times from memory to the CPU and vice versa correct? I just started leaning all this stuff this semester and we haven't gone over much in the past three weeks. Either way its nothing that is designed for performance with today's multimedia market. 64bit is the way to go with gaming.

[Juutis]

In which case it would cripple the data transfer times from memory to the CPU and vice versa correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Anyway, I don't think this is that unusual. It's a great way for PC manufacturers to save money on a cheap PC because people don't usually check the mobo specs.

[realityfactoryusr]

oooook! Thanks for the information (all the millions and terabyte parts too, Im not good with numbers).
So the 16-bit is no good. Does it DRASTICALLY effect speed during game play or is it just during loading time that the speed stinks? As long as I get a minimum of 28 frames per second, I dont really care what else happens. I just need a new rig thats all.

@MakerOfGames- thanks for the info. I accept your offer: Can you recommend any companies that sell decent hardware for reasonable (or even dirt cheap) prices? The only reason I dont want a DELL system is because it comes with Vista installed and Im not exactly ready to endure a series of glitches while trying to play a simple game. I prefer to use my own XP version thats fully functional and no longer crashes. Actually Id like the new XP, the media edition or something like that. No Vista until its proven stable just like XP.........it only took 6 years
Thanks again

[Juutis]

Does it DRASTICALLY effect speed during game play or is it just during loading time that the speed stinks?

Most likely both. The memory buses transfer data from the memory to the processor and back so it would slow down the whole PC. Anyway, I would never buy a low-end PC from Dell and try to run modern games on it. Odds are, those PCs wouldn't run Bioshock and such even with a decent mobo.

The only reason I dont want a DELL system is because it comes with Vista installed and Im not exactly ready to endure a series of glitches while trying to play a simple game.

I've had Vista for over 6 months now and never had problems with any games. Well, I've had problems but none of them was caused by Vista. Care to explain what you mean by this 'series of glitches'?

[MakerOfGames]

So are you looking into purchasing a prebuilt system? or building one yourself? Like I said before you can build a much better system for less if you do it yourself, but you then have to be very brave as playing with $$$$$ hardware isn't the most relaxing thing a person can do especially if you have never played with hardware before. I did it without any previous hardware experience and found myself to be insane enough to do it but it isnt for everyone. Also, if you have a pc that you are going to throw away or pack away or just generally not use anymore, you can save more money by replacing the guts of the computer. I upgraded my parents 7 year old machine for about $400 almost a year ago, and that included a $90 purchase of vista(32 bit). It has a Core 2 Duo 2.3GHz processor 64bit, Geforce 8400GS, 120GB HD, 2GB 800MHz RAM a new motherboard and 450W power supply. If you have an OS to install already you can save even more money. You can easily save $300 if you upgrade an old machine as you aren't paying for a new case, disk drives, keyboard, mouse, possibly monitor and speakers.

If upgrading/building a pc doesn't sound like something you want to try, I would go for HP or Acer. I haven't heard anything bad about HP, and if there is trouble they have excellent customer service. Acer is best bang for your buck computer company. I have one of their laptops which I have never had a problem with except for Vista lol. Good durable technology for a low price. If its bang for your buck I would go with Acer.

Also there is a company called cyberpower (www.cyberpowerpc.com) that seems to build good gaming systems for reasonable prices. They are not as expensive as a Dell XPS and have better hardware. I have not had any experience with the company nor do I know anybody who has, but I have noticed they are advertised in many gaming and computer magazines. The last time I checked price and hardware configurations on that company was almost 2 years ago now so things may have changed.

If you let me know which specific route or company you are looking into, I can give you my opinion on hardware as well. If you have any questions don't be afraid to ask.

[realityfactoryusr]

MakerOfGames , youve answered my question thoroughly. I have mucked around with building computers. I took a course in computer technology but that was under compulsion. Im good at building and fixing but I hate doing it. So an HP or Acer is where Im going to go. I dont need excessive power, just a computer strong enough to play somthing like Bio-Shock with medium graphics settings. I love playing at 60 frames, it looks awesome and adds to immersion.

I always thought a Dell was the way to go since they advertise so frequently on television. As you can tell im not too up to speed on technology. My focus is more on day to day life and family stuff, but making a video game has been on the top 10 list for years. Again thanks MakerOfGames, hopefully ill have a new pc within the......year or so

Thankyou

[MakerOfGames]

Hey, no problem, I think I will look into what pcs are available from both manufactures then and see which I feel are good. I'm glad I can help out. I personally would stay away from Dell. I have had to work on more of my friends Dell pcs than any other type of pc. Also I know they get custom manufacturing of hardware to build cheap parts to lower their costs. Im sure HP does the same and even Acer probably has its own parts manufactured, but I know dell has a history of custom parts that limit compatibility. For example they changed their motherboard powersupply connection so their motherboard could only take a dell powersupply as they changed the power pin configuration. They do advertise alot, but from what I have seen you are paying for the name. The hardware and reliability of Dell seems to me to be rather low. I'll try to find some time here to look into whats available from HP and Acer. If you have anymore questions post them or you can PM me.

-MoG

[Trougedoor122]

I hate my delll laptop. they use really bad hard drives and mine died on me and i lost all off my data. they were not happy about giving me a new one either.

[bernie]

I hate my delll laptop. they use really bad hard drives and mine died on me and i lost all off my data. they were not happy about giving me a new one either.

Well got to be honest about this I have 4 dell pcs. My wifes dell laptop bought in 2002 still going strong never any problems . This pc I have been using since 2000 the hard drive did pack up within 6 months but they replaced it free of charge with no hassle and it's still going strong running all day every day. I have a dell xps running fairly frequently since 2004 no problems. And my laptop is dell XPS M1730 running vista bought last October, the only problem with that is Vista Ultimate but it runs all day every day ( I am starting to get used to Vista now though but it still is a PITA). Before that a had Sinclair zx81 bought 1981 followed by a Dragon 32 then BBC model B (slow by today's standards but amazing what you could do in just 64k memory) then a home built pc (386) that I got rid of when ugrade was needed for speed etc. I then bought a Siemens pentium 2 PC that packed up after 12 months just after the guarantee ran out and a Gateway pc that lasted about 3 years until the power unit burned out. So, all in all I would certainly recommend Dell.

[MakerOfGames]

Glad to hear from the other side. From all that I have heard that Dell's are a problem. My high school used dells, they worked well, and I know they can be stable machines, but for the most part I have only heard negative stories from them. Of course this could be just because of the market share, the more there are, the more likely it is to hear complaints as they are the dominant pc. Either way, I am not saying they are bad, as they are good pcs. But as for bang for your buck and easy upgrading from what I have seen is that Dell is more of a buy a machine then replace it kind of deal. Of course I could be wrong. The only thing I have against dell is all the bloatware they install on all their computers. I think they were rated highest bloatware among major computer manufactures or something like that. Dell has a horrible way of adding all sorts of extra processes to Windows. I reinstalled Vista on my friends laptop and left out the dell software and it ran faster and is stable. Makes me wonder why they bothered to add all the extra things. Even acer has that though, I wiped my laptop and reinstalled he OS to create a clean system. These manufactures add too much stuff to pcs. I want windows and it to work without extra stuff slowing it down. But I am a pc purest. I think you should build it if you can and always do a clean install of an OS to ensure their is no bloatware on a new pc. But I know that may be excessive to some .