New system - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Tech Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+----- Thread: New system (/showthread.php?tid=90976)
New system by segosa on 06-08-2009 at 08:57 AM
My old desktop blew up recently (PSU), and since it was a 5-year-old P4 (3GHz), I decided it was about time I upgraded.
This is what I'm thinking of:
code:I was trying to decide between an SSD and the VR but I'm going to go with the VR in the end since it has more space for the same price, and SSDs are still considered dodgy (note the VR is just for the OS and some data, for speed purposes; I have externals that hold my media and other data). The graphics cards are on the lower-end because I am getting two (3+ monitors) and I don't play games much anyway so I'm not in need for the ultimate graphics card.
1x Gigabyte EX58-UD5 Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard
1x Intel Core i7 920 D0 Stepping (SLBEJ) 2.66Ghz @ 4.00Ghz (Socket LGA1366)
1x OCZ Gold 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C8 (1600MHz) Tri-Channel (OCZ3G1600LV6GK)
1x Titan TTC-NK85TZ Fenrir CPU Cooler
1x Corsair TX 650W ATX SLi Compliant Power Supply (CMPSU-650TXUK)
1x Antec 900 Nine Hundred Ultimate Gaming Case - Black (No PSU)
2x OcUK GeForce 9600 GT 512MB GDDR3 TV-Out/DVI (PCI-Express)
1x Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 10000RPM SATA-II 16MB Cache
1x LG GH22NS30 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layer ReWriter (Black)
I'm looking for people's thoughts as to whether it all seems to make sense/go together, and of any compatibility issues I might be unaware of. One thing I'm not sure about is if 650W will be enough, but I imagine it would be.
RE: New system by ipab on 06-08-2009 at 07:07 PM
The 650 might not be enough since you are running the twin gfx cards... I think a 750 will do for sure though. Your rig is very similar to something I am planning on building. We can share our experiences for people if they are interested. I'm sure it's upgrade time for a lot of buyers anyway...
RE: New system by Vilkku on 06-08-2009 at 09:14 PM
I think I read somewhere that the 250 doesn't use more than 150W, but that would be the only issue I see.
RE: New system by segosa on 06-09-2009 at 07:54 AM
I changed it for a 750W one just to be safe (price difference was negligible).
RE: New system by prashker on 06-09-2009 at 11:45 AM
I have an Antec900 also, get another fan for the side of the case, it'll do you good considering it'll cost like 2$ 
That ram you got is cheap, so I'd suggest if you plan to overclock, that you get better ram (I don't have any suggestions at the top of my head, look around).
Good choice on the PC, HOWEVER RMA YOUR OLD PSU 
RE: New system by andrewdodd13 on 06-09-2009 at 12:20 PM
quote:For 3+ monitor set ups you're better off getting a higher end card and a very cheap one (something like a 9500 GT), as in most cases this allows you to have a much more powerful graphics output for the same price. This does limit you to using the primary monitor for gaming etc, but that's what usually happens anyway. (When you SLI you lose the 2 ports on the second card, didn't think you planned to SLI, but just in case you did.)
Originally posted by segosa
My old desktop blew up recently (PSU), and since it was a 5-year-old P4 (3GHz), I decided it was about time I upgraded.
This is what I'm thinking of:
code:I was trying to decide between an SSD and the VR but I'm going to go with the VR in the end since it has more space for the same price, and SSDs are still considered dodgy (note the VR is just for the OS and some data, for speed purposes; I have externals that hold my media and other data). The graphics cards are on the lower-end because I am getting two (3+ monitors) and I don't play games much anyway so I'm not in need for the ultimate graphics card.
1x Gigabyte EX58-UD5 Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard
1x Intel Core i7 920 D0 Stepping (SLBEJ) 2.66Ghz @ 4.00Ghz (Socket LGA1366)
1x OCZ Gold 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C8 (1600MHz) Tri-Channel (OCZ3G1600LV6GK)
1x Titan TTC-NK85TZ Fenrir CPU Cooler
1x Corsair TX 750W ATX SLI Compliant Power Supply (CMPSU-750TXUK)
1x Antec 900 Nine Hundred Ultimate Gaming Case - Black (No PSU)
2x Asus Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 512MB GDDR3 PCI-Express Graphics Card
1x Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 10000RPM SATA-II 16MB Cache
1x LG GH22NS30 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layer ReWriter (Black)
I'm looking for people's thoughts as to whether it all seems to make sense/go together, and of any compatibility issues I might be unaware of. One thing I'm not sure about is if 650W will be enough, but I imagine it would be.
Everyone I've asked has recommended getting an SSD over a VR, this is mainly because of the massively reduced seek times on SSDs. But as you say they're quite expensive GB/$ wise right now. SSDs are generally faster for Windows boot times, I believe The Register compared the two when they reviewed the VR.
RE: New system by segosa on 06-09-2009 at 08:33 PM
I understand what you mean about combining a high-end card with a low-end one and then gaming with the high-end one, and I thought about that myself, but then realised that I simply don't play games enough to bother.
As for the SSD, I'm aware that its performance is better than the VR, but the speed benefit when contrasted against the increase in price (or lower capacity) doesn't make it worth it in my opinion. Put it this way: I'm going from a P4 3GHz with 2GB of cheap ram to this system, so the perceptive speed improvement is going to be so large anyway that the VR vs SSD debate becomes pointless.
SonicSam: does it not have enough fans?
RE: New system by prashker on 06-09-2009 at 09:02 PM
quote:No side ones however
Originally posted by segosa
SonicSam: does it not have enough fans?
RE: New system by Menthix on 06-09-2009 at 09:56 PM
quote:You could go even lower on videocards, which will also use less power. So you'll safe money on 2 cheaper videocards and a cheaper PSU. And use that money to go SSD.
Originally posted by segosa
I thought about that myself, but then realised that I simply don't play games enough to bother.
I'm on a 9600GT (fanless
), and even while this machine is quad core, 8GB RAM and 3TB storage... I really don't see the need to upgrade my videocard. It's not like it'll run Aero any faster.
RE: New system by segosa on 06-09-2009 at 11:30 PM
Good point. Went down to 9600GTs and a 650W PSU. Still not getting an SSD though. I think what I have now is probably what I'll end up getting.
RE: New system by ipab on 06-10-2009 at 01:01 AM
I'm curious about the 10000RPM drive, does it really give that much of an advantage over standard optical drives? I was thinking of going for 3TB and it's not cheap to get that amount in 10000RPM...
RE: New system by prashker on 06-10-2009 at 01:06 AM
That's generally not the idea when you get a 10000RPM drive, put stuff you want to generally load faster on it (aka Windows Files, Programs, etc).
Music, Movies etc can go on a slower drive.
RE: New system by Menthix on 06-10-2009 at 10:13 AM
quote:Standard 7200RPM harddisks (magnetic) you mean?
Originally posted by ipab
does it really give that much of an advantage over standard optical drives?
It all depends on the benchmarks. Even a big 5400RPM drive could in theory outperform a smaller 10000RPM drive these days. The bytes you fit on a platter, the closer the bytes are together (areal density). This makes seek times faster, sometimes faster than a smaller disk on a higher RPM.
RE: New system by Adeptus on 06-10-2009 at 04:06 PM
quote:The higher aerial density can result in similar or even greater sustained throughput, which is one performance criteria for hard drives. On the other hand, higher rpm drives will continue to lead for the average random seek time, the other key performance criteria.
Originally posted by Menthix
It all depends on the benchmarks. Even a big 5400RPM drive could in theory outperform a smaller 10000RPM drive these days. The bytes you fit on a platter, the closer the bytes are together (areal density). This makes seek times faster, sometimes faster than a smaller disk on a higher RPM.
This is because of lower rotational latency and is easy to understand. If the head is positioned just past where you need it, the platter will have to complete a full revolution before the data can be read or written. A higher rpm drive will always complete the revolution faster than a lower rpm drive, regardless of aerial density.
While the throughput can make up for slower random seek times in synthetic benchmarks that try to quantify the performance of the drive as one number, it is still generally a good idea to use higher rpm drives for volumes with random access patterns, such as system volumes and databases. Lower rpm high capacity, high aerial density drives are best suited for file storage, particularly large files like video.