AnimeSuki Forums

problemedchild · 2007-09-15, 23:51

Meh, it's pretty pointless to start planning out a computer 2-3 months in advance, especially when both Nvidia and AMD are about to release new products in 2-3 months........

hobbes_fan · 2007-09-16, 01:27

I'd also have a wait see on what the desktop AMD quad's are like. 3.0ghz is on he way but with benches on the server platforms pretty even at the at the current line up it'd be worth a look, considering most reports say the performance scales well in the higher end. It's not that I'm an AMD fanboy but I can get AMD products a cost price which almost 30-40% of retail. At the very least if they offer similar performance Intel you should see some competitive pricing between the two.

Now is probably the worst time to be buying or gauging price. The next gen cards will absolutely destroy the current top end cards if the rumours are true. There's plenty of debate whether the jump from 320mb to 640mb to 768 mb justifies the current pricing

Also as another thing to consider if you plan on overclocking have you considered watercooling? I've picked up a x2 6400+ about a month ago and a 2900xt I haven't had the need to overclock yet and I'm waiting on some low latency Corsair DDR2 800 but depending on how hard I can overclock I might be going to a watercooling system. I wan to see how close I can get to the record 26K on 3dmark05.

problemedchild · 2007-09-16, 01:33

A 6400+? O_o That's not a lot of headroom for OCing. Plus, AMD's intergraded controllers don't see too much gain from higher clocked memory.

hobbes_fan · 2007-09-16, 01:59

I'd say this is pretty impressive (not mine) up from stock 3.2, bear in mind he multiplier is unlocked on these processors
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=239959

problemedchild · 2007-09-16, 02:18

Not really seeing a point in posting the highest recorded OC on the K8 architecture.

hobbes_fan · 2007-09-16, 02:27

Such a negative nelly aren't you. At least it refutes your claim of no o/c headroom. That's the point. Again why bash integrated memory controllers when even intel is moving into that technology for performance reasons. And even tried and failed in the past with Tinma (and it failed not because the memory controller tech sucked but rather Intel gambled on Rambus)

problemedchild · 2007-09-16, 02:39

I'm not bashing it, I'm simply pointing out that because of intergraded controllers, AMD chips do not share the same gains as Intel chips when faster memory is put into the equation.

I've seen a Core 2 Duo E6600 at 5.5 GHZ? Is that really obtainable by most people? I doubt it.

My original post was made under assumption that most typrical overclockers will not have the same crazy ass cooling solution that the person used to get a 4.2 GHZ OC. Therefore, given most people's equipment limitations, OC headroom is fairly limited with a 6400+.

maxx · 2007-09-19, 10:04

This is a very decent setup. Since you are going to be playing games, completely throw aside Vista. As of now, it's no good. XP is just fine. I have the same sound card and it works great. Personally, I would go with a better CPU. But I'm into video editing so maybe you don't need it. I would also go with SLi. It gives a huge boost in graphics power. Also, I really think that putting your computer into RAID is a bad idea. Sure it's fast and doubles the space, but it is very unreliable. One minute you could have every fansub on this site and then it could be all gone. I would spend a little extra money and get a smaller (you dont need a lot of space for the OS) but much quicker HDD. And then spend a little more and get an HDD with much more space. I've seen some all the way up to 1TB of space. Other than that, great setup.

TakutoKun · 2007-09-19, 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxx

This is a very decent setup. Since you are going to be playing games, completely throw aside Vista. As of now, it's no good. XP is just fine. I have the same sound card and it works great. Personally, I would go with a better CPU. But I'm into video editing so maybe you don't need it. I would also go with SLi. It gives a huge boost in graphics power. Other than that, great setup.

You sound like a great customer. Give me your money! :P

SLi is great providing you have a sufficient power supply and need for massive graphic processing. 2d graphic design does not need as much power.

maxx · 2007-09-19, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by matradley

You sound like a great customer. Give me your money! :P

SLi is great providing you have a sufficient power supply and need for massive graphic processing. 2d graphic design does not need as much power.

Oh did he say that all he was doing was 2d graphic design? Since he wants an 8800 graphics card I figured that he was going to play computer games which need a lot of graphics power. And 700W is actually pretty good. I'm sure it could handle it.

Ledgem · 2007-09-19, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxx

Also, I really think that putting your computer into RAID is a bad idea. Sure it's fast and doubles the space, but it is very unreliable.

Depends on the RAID type that you use. Most people are probably just going for a striped RAID (RAID 0), which groups all your HDs so that the OS sees it as one big HD. This is the fastest type, but if a single drive in the RAID fails, then you've lost everything. RAID 1 mirrors the drives, but you're basically just having two (or more) drive(s) that are writing the same thing - it's just for redundency.

The best options would be RAID 3 or RAID 5, which sacrifices a hard drive to store parity data. If a drive fails, you can insert a new one and the failed drive can be rebuilt from the parity data. This is slower than RAID 0 in writing performance and may require special hardware to utilize, unless you're running Linux.

TakutoKun · 2007-09-19, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Depends on the RAID type that you use. Most people are probably just going for a striped RAID (RAID 0), which groups all your HDs so that the OS sees it as one big HD. This is the fastest type, but if a single drive in the RAID fails, then you've lost everything. RAID 1 mirrors the drives, but you're basically just having two (or more) drive(s) that are writing the same thing - it's just for redundency.

The best options would be RAID 3 or RAID 5, which sacrifices a hard drive to store parity data. If a drive fails, you can insert a new one and the failed drive can be rebuilt from the parity data. This is slower than RAID 0 in writing performance and may require special hardware to utilize, unless you're running Linux.

Absolutely. It depends on the implementation of RAID. If you have a single RAID controller, I would see a problem. If you have a hardware dual RAID controller you would be able to hot swap and mirror.

maxx · 2007-09-19, 17:48

But with RAID 3 and 5 don't you have to have more than 2 drives?

TakutoKun · 2007-09-19, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxx

But with RAID 3 and 5 don't you have to have more than 2 drives?

RAID 3 and 5 requires a minimum of 3 drives. For RAID 3 - one is for parity.

I have a preference for the RAID 0+1 implementation.

maxx · 2007-09-19, 20:19

Ah. yes that would be great but that would require four drives. Pretty expensive, but safe.

2007-09-16, 02:39	Link #27
problemedchild ô_ô Join Date: Nov 2003	I'm not bashing it, I'm simply pointing out that because of intergraded controllers, AMD chips do not share the same gains as Intel chips when faster memory is put into the equation. I've seen a Core 2 Duo E6600 at 5.5 GHZ? Is that really obtainable by most people? I doubt it. My original post was made under assumption that most typrical overclockers will not have the same crazy ass cooling solution that the person used to get a 4.2 GHZ OC. Therefore, given most people's equipment limitations, OC headroom is fairly limited with a 6400+. Last edited by problemedchild; 2007-09-16 at 02:49.

2007-09-15, 23:51	Link #21
problemedchild ô_ô Join Date: Nov 2003	Meh, it's pretty pointless to start planning out a computer 2-3 months in advance, especially when both Nvidia and AMD are about to release new products in 2-3 months........

2007-09-16, 01:27	Link #22
hobbes_fan You could say..... Join Date: Apr 2007	I'd also have a wait see on what the desktop AMD quad's are like. 3.0ghz is on he way but with benches on the server platforms pretty even at the at the current line up it'd be worth a look, considering most reports say the performance scales well in the higher end. It's not that I'm an AMD fanboy but I can get AMD products a cost price which almost 30-40% of retail. At the very least if they offer similar performance Intel you should see some competitive pricing between the two. Now is probably the worst time to be buying or gauging price. The next gen cards will absolutely destroy the current top end cards if the rumours are true. There's plenty of debate whether the jump from 320mb to 640mb to 768 mb justifies the current pricing Also as another thing to consider if you plan on overclocking have you considered watercooling? I've picked up a x2 6400+ about a month ago and a 2900xt I haven't had the need to overclock yet and I'm waiting on some low latency Corsair DDR2 800 but depending on how hard I can overclock I might be going to a watercooling system. I wan to see how close I can get to the record 26K on 3dmark05.

2007-09-16, 01:33	Link #23
problemedchild ô_ô Join Date: Nov 2003	A 6400+? O_o That's not a lot of headroom for OCing. Plus, AMD's intergraded controllers don't see too much gain from higher clocked memory.

2007-09-16, 01:59	Link #24
hobbes_fan You could say..... Join Date: Apr 2007	I'd say this is pretty impressive (not mine) up from stock 3.2, bear in mind he multiplier is unlocked on these processors http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=239959

2007-09-16, 02:18	Link #25
problemedchild ô_ô Join Date: Nov 2003	Not really seeing a point in posting the highest recorded OC on the K8 architecture.

2007-09-16, 02:27	Link #26
hobbes_fan You could say..... Join Date: Apr 2007	Such a negative nelly aren't you. At least it refutes your claim of no o/c headroom. That's the point. Again why bash integrated memory controllers when even intel is moving into that technology for performance reasons. And even tried and failed in the past with Tinma (and it failed not because the memory controller tech sucked but rather Intel gambled on Rambus)

2007-09-19, 10:04	Link #28
maxx Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Age: 35	This is a very decent setup. Since you are going to be playing games, completely throw aside Vista. As of now, it's no good. XP is just fine. I have the same sound card and it works great. Personally, I would go with a better CPU. But I'm into video editing so maybe you don't need it. I would also go with SLi. It gives a huge boost in graphics power. Also, I really think that putting your computer into RAID is a bad idea. Sure it's fast and doubles the space, but it is very unreliable. One minute you could have every fansub on this site and then it could be all gone. I would spend a little extra money and get a smaller (you dont need a lot of space for the OS) but much quicker HDD. And then spend a little more and get an HDD with much more space. I've seen some all the way up to 1TB of space. Other than that, great setup.

2007-09-19, 17:48	Link #33
maxx Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Age: 35	But with RAID 3 and 5 don't you have to have more than 2 drives?

2007-09-19, 20:19	Link #35
maxx Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Age: 35	Ah. yes that would be great but that would require four drives. Pretty expensive, but safe.