Hello,
I know that you're trying to save me money but I have about $1,900 more that I can spend, and I already purchased the main drive that I'll be using.
Unless you plan on making a RAID configuration, there really is no need to spend any more. Why don't you buy a bunch of 1TB hard drives to eliminate the older drives with a smaller capacity?
Because I use my computer mainly for videos, one of the requirments that I would want of a motherboard is an excellent video card or a port to install an excellent video card.
I gave you a link to a video card, it should be sufficient for 1080p playback if this is your intention.
I don't know what a bus is but if this is the last of a series/type of motherboard to be produced, I'd prefer to have the new series/type of motherboard. With SATA II hdds, capable of 300/something-or-others (please excuse my ignorance), I'd want the motherboard to be able to support it too.
The motherboard that I have already selected supports SATA II, it has been the standard for a while. The used the word "antique" a little sparingly in that review. The FSB has since been eliminated on Intel's newest platform, but it does not by any means hold back that hardware. If you wish, I can give you a different build for Intels latest and greatest, but if you only watch videos, it'll be money down the drain as you'll notice vurtually no difference between the two builds, the $$$ value between the two will be rather significant. I think the money would be better spent on a new monitor. The only advantages you'd notice is the fact that it has 10 SATA ports rather then the 8 ports on the board that I suggested above.
I don't know much about RAM at all. The RAM that I have in my present computer came in 3 speeds. I chose the middle speed and later wished that I had gotten the faster speed. It could have made a small difference. The DDR3 that's mentioned on the cpu site you mentioned sounds good . . . "You can now use . . . the hot new DDR3 memory for extreme performance."
I said it earlier in this thread, RAM speed makes a negligible difference on performance. We are talking about a difference that cannot be noticed with the human perception and only on synthetic benchmarks that measure time. You're literally looking a milliseconds of difference in rendering time for 99.9% of all applications out there.
The psu that you mentioned is 650W. With all the drives that I'll be installing, because I'll be buying a converter too, I'd prefer one that's about 850W, if available. I don't know if you used to watch Home Improvement, but like Tim Allen always said . . . "more power, er, er, er" LOL
The only time you're coming will require a lot of power is during the initial spin up. You're computer will not support staggered spin up, so you're drives are likely to pull 30W a piece when you boot up, then they'll pull about 6-10 watts depending on the drive after that. 650W is more then sufficient for this build.
I don't want any regrets with this computer. I don't want to say that I should have spent an additional $50 on something and an additional $75 on something and my pc would have worked so much better.
I try my best to avoid these possible situations and make users aware of it. While there is better out there, you'd be looking at spending a significant amount more for the i7 setup. My suggestion to you is that if you really want something better, just to go with a quad core.
SATA isn't for me, unless I can use the card for JBOD, as Pedro mentioned.
What do you mean? SATA is the consumer industry standard. You can use JBOD, but you're looking at 1200$ for the card (if you wanted to combine all drives into "one large" drive), all the drives need to be wiped clean and I'm pretty sure all the drives should be the same model (I haven't looked to much into JBOD, as RAID is far better and has more uses IMO). Additionally, when dealing with 16TB of storage, you should have fault tolerance, JBOD provides none. Basically what it comes down to, you should either do a RAID5/6 array or nothing. Spending $1200 on a RAID card for JBOD is a big waste.
Don't worry about being picky, I'd be the same way if it were my build.
James
Edit: Either the PSU that jrm20 mentioned or a Silverstone model (Zues) would defiantly be the way to go if you really feel the need to get 850W, but you need to understand that a PSU works in it's most efficient state when it's outputing 50-70% of it's maximum sustained output. Anything below that normally means the PSU works less efficiently. I'm stating this because going over board with the PSU can be bad. However, if you intend on buying a high end graphics card and such later on (I don't think this is your intent), there really is no reason to do so.
Edited by james_8970, 19 January 2009 - 08:12 PM.
Sign In
Create Account
