Hey everyone, I need to ask for a little help in identifying whether or not I was taken for an idiot.
First off I should explain that while I know more than the average person does about computer hardware, I know much less than I should to build a computer. Therefore I asked a friend if he could build me a top of the line computer and ship it off to me from New York to Colorado. However, when it arrived it didn't work. I took it to somebody to look at what the problem was and it turned out the motherboard was fried.
Here is what the motherboard was: Asus P5k quad 2.4 GHz 32-bit processor which accepts 8 GB RAM (which he put in 8 GB of)
Graphics Card: 9600GT
I was going to be dual-booting to between 32- and 64-bit versions of XP so that the several music programs I use that don't strictly support 64-bit won't be unusable.
Now, when I took it to a guy to get it fixed, he told me that he would replace the motherboard with a dual 2.4GHz 64-bit (instead of the quad 32-bit of the same GHz) motherboard and that it would be just as good. Also, since it was a new mother board, it wouldn't accept the old graphics card and he replaced it with a GeForce 7600GS.
Now, I know he screwed me on giving me a 2 year old graphics card that was not all that great to begin with. But I also just found out that he only put in 4 of the 8 GB of RAM that I brought in. 32-bit operating systems (the one he installed) only use 3.5 GB of RAM, but I would still like a motherboard that even LET me put in 8 GB when my music programs upgrade and I can upgrade to 64-bit XP.
My question is, does the processing power of a 64-bit processor really mean its twice as fast even when I'm only using it with a 32-bit OS?
Any help with this convoluted shit-storm would be extremely helpful.
First off I should explain that while I know more than the average person does about computer hardware, I know much less than I should to build a computer. Therefore I asked a friend if he could build me a top of the line computer and ship it off to me from New York to Colorado. However, when it arrived it didn't work. I took it to somebody to look at what the problem was and it turned out the motherboard was fried.
Here is what the motherboard was: Asus P5k quad 2.4 GHz 32-bit processor which accepts 8 GB RAM (which he put in 8 GB of)
Graphics Card: 9600GT
I was going to be dual-booting to between 32- and 64-bit versions of XP so that the several music programs I use that don't strictly support 64-bit won't be unusable.
Now, when I took it to a guy to get it fixed, he told me that he would replace the motherboard with a dual 2.4GHz 64-bit (instead of the quad 32-bit of the same GHz) motherboard and that it would be just as good. Also, since it was a new mother board, it wouldn't accept the old graphics card and he replaced it with a GeForce 7600GS.
Now, I know he screwed me on giving me a 2 year old graphics card that was not all that great to begin with. But I also just found out that he only put in 4 of the 8 GB of RAM that I brought in. 32-bit operating systems (the one he installed) only use 3.5 GB of RAM, but I would still like a motherboard that even LET me put in 8 GB when my music programs upgrade and I can upgrade to 64-bit XP.
My question is, does the processing power of a 64-bit processor really mean its twice as fast even when I'm only using it with a 32-bit OS?
Any help with this convoluted shit-storm would be extremely helpful.