Best computer setup Evar.

------------
RAID 0 is a block-level striped, non-redundant (R)AID setup.
------------

im talking about early 90s... in one of my college classes we were going over networks and spent about half an hour going over raid and thats what it was back then. later it became striping and old raid 0 became jbod.


plus SCSI/fire wire raid compatible cards use pre-seek where it pre-spins up the drive before the pre-seek time and you access all the drives at the same time whereas SATA/IDE reads one drive at a time with the seek time added because it spins up the next drive as the previous block ended which is pre-fetch.

i may not be explaining it very well but there is a big difference.
 
Ok here is the AMD vs Intel in a nutshell:

2000:
Intel has the fastest processors available. An AMD processor cost less then an Intel processor of the same performance.

2005:
AMD bests Intel consistently in benchmark tests for the fastest processors available. Intel is best for a laptop, AMD is best for a desktop.
 
calc:

the problem in 2000 was that intel had done benchmark optimizations...

it would post high numbers in benchmarks over and beyond what actually happened. was a big stink about it.

game magazines found out about it because all the benchmarks were having high numbers, but when they actually simulated the tests on the real-world apps on the exact same machine or else used old versions of the benchmark software, AMD was beating intel.
 
Ratty said:
GFX: PCI-Express Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX 256
Click to expand...
What manufacturer?

Also, I hear ATI 1800XL is a lot faster.
Click to expand...
You hear wrong.
Seriously.
Plus, ATI + Linux =teh suck.
HDD: -Operational HDD: 36,7GB RAPTOR SATA150 10000rpm 8MB Cache
Click to expand...
You'd be better off with a RAID setup.
Click to expand...
Untrue. The Raptor for boot-ups and main programs is really fast, a RAID setup won't give him much of a boost, and the security is not really an issue, since the Raptor is probably the most reliable drive out there.

im talking about early 90s... in one of my college classes we were going over networks and spent about half an hour going over raid and thats what it was back then. later it became striping and old raid 0 became jbod.
Click to expand...
So, we care about 15-year-old technology?

Plus, your 'RAID 0 is now RAID3/5 without striping' was also bullshit.


TheWesDude said:
plus SCSI/fire wire raid compatible cards use pre-seek where it pre-spins up the drive before the pre-seek time and you access all the drives at the same time whereas SATA/IDE reads one drive at a time with the seek time added because it spins up the next drive as the previous block ended which is pre-fetch.

i may not be explaining it very well but there is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Poor explanation, yes, but if it's just in the spin-up times, you might want to invest in fast spin-up times instead of SCSI.
 
Sander said:
Untrue. The Raptor for boot-ups and main programs is really fast, a RAID setup won't give him much of a boost, and the security is not really an issue, since the Raptor is probably the most reliable drive out there.
Click to expand...
I meant he should get three SATA hard drives instead of a Raptor and just one SATA hard drive. If you consider only performance of a single read/write operation, then yes, nothing beats Raptor (well, except a SCSI drive, but that's another league). But a RAID 5 array of three Seagate or Maxtor hard drives with 16 MB cache and NCQ technology, each with 300 or more GB of storage space, will give him a lot more bang for his buck. Hell, NCQ hard drives actually have a performance edge over Raptor when it comes to multiple read/write operations (a fairly common occurence in a multitasking environment), and let's not forget the performance benefits of RAID, as well as the fact that with such a setup he would have insane amounts (close to a terrabyte!) of storage space. As far as reliability goes, you give Raptor too much merit. I personally know a few people who purchased faulty Raptors, and if you read some hardware message boards, you will see that quite a few people have experienced their Raptor malfunction abjectly and in style after mere days of use. Considering that Raptor costs an arm and a leg, I'd rather take my chances with a much cheaper SATA drive in a secure RAID array.
 
Ratty said:
I meant he should get three SATA hard drives instead of a Raptor and just one SATA hard drive. If you consider only performance of a single read/write operation, then yes, nothing beats Raptor (well, except a SCSI drive, but that's another league). But a RAID 5 array of three Seagate or Maxtor hard drives with 16 MB cache and NCQ technology, each with 300 or more GB of storage space, will give him a lot more bang for his buck. Hell, NCQ hard drives actually have a performance edge over Raptor when it comes to multiple read/write operations (a fairly common occurence in a multitasking environment), and let's not forget the performance benefits of RAID, as well as the fact that with such a setup he would have insane amounts (close to a terrabyte!) of storage space. As far as reliability goes, you give Raptor too much merit. I personally know a few people who purchased faulty Raptors, and if you read some hardware message boards, you will see that quite a few people have experienced their Raptor malfunction abjectly and in style after mere days of use. Considering that Raptor costs an arm and a leg, I'd rather take my chances with a much cheaper SATA drive in a secure RAID array.
Click to expand...
He should get the newer 76 GB Raptor, which is even faster.
But no, RAID 5 is not a bright idea, since it's definitely not faster (write operations are expensive), and security is..meh. I'd still say go for a RAID 0. But with the Raptor, you don't want RAID because it's an operational disk. And RAID on operational disks=teh suck. RAID booting is hell, plus, if one of the disks craps out, a lot of hardware RAID solution cannot rebuild the RAID setup.

As for the problems with the Raptors, every hard disk has that. It happens. But the Raptors have a 5-year-warranty, instead of 3 years (and hence a life-expectancy of 5 instead of 3 years). They are, quite simply, more reliable. Moreover: according to Storage Review, the 36 and 74 GB Raptors are respectively 80% and 76% more reliable than the other drives reviewed.
 
Wooze said:
Not sure about the mobo. Probably going to get an SLI compatible one, in case I want to hook it up with an additional GFX card.
Click to expand...

Sli is very overrated right now, basically everygame out there doesnt support it to its full capability. It will only give you a 10 fps increase on most games out there and you get the best results when you go into high resolutions (1600x1200) with sli but its nothing worth paying another $550 for another card (this is the same for crossfire aswell).... Your best off getting one really fast card, and the only one faster than yours and its the geforce gtx 512mb, they went and upped the gpu core and ram clock on the 512mb version making it quite faster then the 256mb version.

Everybody loves the BFG brand because there overclocked out of the box and have a lifetime warrenty, and when people fry there cards and bring them back, they have given them even faster cards! But they overcharge quite a bit...

The 1800xt's are nice cards but are not as fast as the 7800 gtx's.

TheWesDude said:
AMD is much better than intel recently for the CPUs.

not to mention half as hot.
Click to expand...

Well, your right about this one... about them being cooler and require less power to run, but there not better then intel. Amd is better for gaming and intel is better for programs... been that way for years. The intels smoke amd when it come to decoding movies and other general benchmarks not related to gaming, but the amd rule the gaming benchmarks. Ive always had amd and I like them alot, but intel are nice cpu's aswell but do require more fans because they always run quite hot.

People ushally say that intels are better for multitasking, but i think thats pure bs though...

---

Raid 5 is server level hardware and is not supported on most normal mb's out there so theres no point into doing it...

And seagate's have 5yr warrenty's aswell and I would dare to say are almost just as good as the raptors. Do raptor hard drives have nsq? Ill have to look it up (there are 15000 rpm raptor drives too! Crazy... probably really frikin loud)
 
Finesse said:
Well, your right about this one... about them being cooler and require less power to run, but there not better then intel. Amd is better for gaming and intel is better for programs... been that way for years. The intels smoke amd when it come to decoding movies and other general benchmarks not related to gaming, but the amd rule the gaming benchmarks. Ive always had amd and I like them alot, but intel are nice cpu's aswell but do require more fans because they always run quite hot.
Click to expand...
Tests say you are wrong. The only thing Intel is faster in in the same price category is video-encoding, if I recall correctly. Whoop-di-fucking-doo.
Intels mainly suffer from the whole 'GHz hype'. More GHz do not make a processor faster or better at everything, or even anything. Architecture matters a lot, a lot more even, and the AMD's architecture is, quite simply, a lot better. Now that Pentium has stopped wanting more and more GHz they are importing the Pentium M architecture and adapting, which is also considerably cooler and less power hungry, they might catch up to AMD. But AMD is street-lengths ahead of them at the moment.


Raid 5 is server level hardware and is not supported on most normal mb's out there so theres no point into doing it...

And seagate's have 5yr warrenty's aswell and I would dare to say are almost just as good as the raptors. Do raptor hard drives have nsq? Ill have to look it up (there are 15000 rpm raptor drives too! Crazy... probably really frikin loud)
Click to expand...
Mmm...software RAID.
ANd yes, Seagates are really good as well and reliable, but they're not as fast as Raptors.
 
yah, your probably right sander... The only reason i keep going back to Amd is because there basically 1/2 the price and I have never had a problem with them (they get the job done). I dont think software raids are so hot though... i wouldnt do it, but ive never done it before so I dont know if its any good anyway.

I was going to get raptors myslef, but they were too much $ for me. maybe my next pc project ill get them...
 
Sander said:
But no, RAID 5 is not a bright idea, since it's definitely not faster (write operations are expensive), and security is..meh. I'd still say go for a RAID 0.
Click to expand...
Read operations are the biggest annoyance and reason for dreadful loading times, so I can live with slightly slower writes. Though, RAID 5 has the fastest write of all "secure" RAID arrays. RAID 0, though tempting, is a bit too unreliable for my taste. Plus, unless Wooz is running some kind of a server, he will benefit little from RAID 0 on his system. RAID 5, on the other hand, wouldl give him extra data security coupled with extreme amounts of disk space and a performance boost in certain situations.

But with the Raptor, you don't want RAID because it's an operational disk. And RAID on operational disks=teh suck. RAID booting is hell, plus, if one of the disks craps out, a lot of hardware RAID solution cannot rebuild the RAID setup.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I'd never suggest anything like that. Anyone who can afford to buy multiple Raptor disk drives deserves to be shot along with other capitalist swines, if you ask me.

As for the problems with the Raptors, every hard disk has that. It happens. But the Raptors have a 5-year-warranty, instead of 3 years (and hence a life-expectancy of 5 instead of 3 years). They are, quite simply, more reliable. Moreover: according to Storage Review, the 36 and 74 GB Raptors are respectively 80% and 76% more reliable than the other drives reviewed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I'm convinced, I guess. I'd still go with multiple Seagates, though.
 
Ratty said:
Read operations are the biggest annoyance and reason for dreadful loading times, so I can live with slightly slower writes. Though, RAID 5 has the fastest write of all "secure" RAID arrays. RAID 0, though tempting, is a bit too unreliable for my taste. Plus, unless Wooz is running some kind of a server, he will benefit little from RAID 0 on his system. RAID 5, on the other hand, wouldl give him extra data security coupled with extreme amounts of disk space and a performance boost in certain situations.
Click to expand...
Well, RAID 5's speed increase would be too limited to warrant the expense. Re-installing a PC is done easily, really, so data corruption isn't much of a problem with purely operational disks.

However, I'd say that RAID 1 for Data disks is always useful, and should be used. My preferred setup is an operational disk for booting and installed programs, and a seperate server with a RAID 1 setup for data. That's probably the best mix between security, expense and speed you can have.
 
Sli is very overrated right now, basically everygame out there doesnt support it to its full capability.
Click to expand...

Mhm. But the main purpose of the computer isn't gaming. The main reason I'm buying a new computer is because I need it for work and school; it has to be able to cope with complicated 3D rendering programs and animation software such as Maya.

Hence the Pentium processor, as well.

The computer's being assembled by people who know far more than I in terms of hardware performance with those programs, and they reccomended me this setup.
 
3 seagate 15.4k rpm 36 gig scsi 320 drives in hardware raid 5 setup. 3.5 ms seek time :)

just gotta get the other 2 drives. ( 1 for OS, 3 more for raid for games )

ill post their review of my hd when i get in on that site.
 
You should ask them about a quadro gfx chip then, its made exactly for that kinda stuff.... the 7800gtx's are made for gaming.

20050729-Quadro_FX4500.jpg


there something else... dont know much about them except that there the best used for 3d programs and shit.
 
they dont have a review of my hd on their site, they all have the 146 gig drives...

but looking at that site is it just me or does seagate seem to suck very badly for i/o proccesses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top