Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

I'd Love Some Suggestions


  • Please log in to reply

#16
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
For PC2-9600 agreed, I thought it was PC2-6400.
Raid 0 doesn't improve performance that much, in synthetics is does, not so much real life scenarios.
Also you'd probably be interested in the Thermalright IFX-14, it's about 10$ more and shaves another few degrees off.
I hate case clutter thats why the floppy went out for me, if I ever need one I have a few laying around that I'll just stick in.
Where are you seeing this information regarding the hard drives? I'm interested and surpirsed to hear this, as the disk gets fuller I believe the 1TB drives dip a little bit more in performance then other drives, but thats about all the negative I saw when compared to other platter hard drives.
James
  • 0

Advertisements


#17
Star Commander

Star Commander

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
I don't recall exactly where I read it, actually - I've been all over the place, today, and all I know is one of the benchmarks I read had RAID 0 Seagates above RAID 0 Raptors in average read (though they got pwned in burst, of course).
  • 0

#18
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Read this article here.
http://www.anandtech...aspx?i=2969&p=8
Only read the application test, as real world performance is all that matters, not synthetic benchmarks. As you can see, if you put these drives into RAID0 your going to be eliminating 1 second at the most, but it can make as little as a 0.1 second difference. It's your call, but I think RAID0 is a waste of a drive at the loss of half the capacity.
If you don't plan on doing RAID0, keep in mind 32bit OS's have a 2.5TB limit.
James

Edited by james_8970, 16 October 2007 - 12:55 PM.

  • 0

#19
Star Commander

Star Commander

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
Umm..with RAID 0 you don't lose any capacity. That's kind of the point - there's no redundancy, so it's just faster, since you're writing much smaller files.
  • 0

#20
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
O boy, I'm getting mixed up with RAID1 for one reason or another. :)
Which of course achieves something completely different.

I'd only get one drive, because it's not worth the extra drive and you'll probably want to save some money. The reason? 45nm Penyrn processors will probably be in the 800$ range (the high end processors are coming first) and you'll want the new chipset from Nvidia, 780i, which again will be more money then your current board.
James

Edited by james_8970, 16 October 2007 - 06:38 PM.

  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP