Ah, I missed that it was RAID0 somehow.
Honestly though, a single volume (2 drives in RAID 0) is even worse because, since it's stripped, if either drive goes down then you've lost all that data!
RAID 0 essentially doubles your risk that a hardware fault will take out your data (since you've got double the hardware with no fault tolerance.)
I think perhaps the OP has been reading too many gamer PC blogs in deciding what his system should look like.
Buying a New Computer
Author
Thanks for all the advice everyone.
I agree that I should get bigger/better monitors but I figure that's something I can always get in the future.
The whole Raid 0 thing is just one of the specs I saw that sounded interesting. I've never done Raid before (currently I just have my main C: and another internal storage drive) so I'd be willing to do anything in this case. The only thing I'd like is to have like a TB drive since the storage one that I'll be bringing into that new box is considerably smaller (I think like 200-some gb). Of course I could always get 2 seperate HDD configs in the new box and just transfer from the old box to the new...
The reasoning behind the dual vid cards, from what I remember, is that to add a second video card it was like really cheap (like $20-50). I'll double check but I'll take your advice on going from Windows Ultimate to Windows Pro and ditching the sound card which will give me some cash I can push to a better vid card.
Primarily right now what I'm working on is modding Unreal Tournament 3, and even with 3 GB RAM in my single-core system, it still chops when I run the 'play in game' (it always has). Also, to build my current simple small level takes near 20 minutes. Granted I'll also be developing games in Visual Studio. Not to mention I'd get back into PC gaming since I'd have a machine capable of running games made this decade :p
Also, Ravyne, I haven't read any PC gaming blogs :D Plus, you guys are probably way more knowledgable about this stuff!
I agree that I should get bigger/better monitors but I figure that's something I can always get in the future.
The whole Raid 0 thing is just one of the specs I saw that sounded interesting. I've never done Raid before (currently I just have my main C: and another internal storage drive) so I'd be willing to do anything in this case. The only thing I'd like is to have like a TB drive since the storage one that I'll be bringing into that new box is considerably smaller (I think like 200-some gb). Of course I could always get 2 seperate HDD configs in the new box and just transfer from the old box to the new...
The reasoning behind the dual vid cards, from what I remember, is that to add a second video card it was like really cheap (like $20-50). I'll double check but I'll take your advice on going from Windows Ultimate to Windows Pro and ditching the sound card which will give me some cash I can push to a better vid card.
Primarily right now what I'm working on is modding Unreal Tournament 3, and even with 3 GB RAM in my single-core system, it still chops when I run the 'play in game' (it always has). Also, to build my current simple small level takes near 20 minutes. Granted I'll also be developing games in Visual Studio. Not to mention I'd get back into PC gaming since I'd have a machine capable of running games made this decade :p
Also, Ravyne, I haven't read any PC gaming blogs :D Plus, you guys are probably way more knowledgable about this stuff!
Vid. card wise a single HD5870 will do you, if only because AMD's drivers still aren't 100% when it comes to crossfire stuff.
Personally, there are only two good reasons to go with dual cheap sli/crossfire cards starting out. One is it's a zero cost option, i.e. you already have the cards. The other is you need the connectors, but not the horsepower, i.e. running 3-4 monitors in 2D. The reason is you're only upgrade path is to replace both cards. If you're pushing the limits, such as dual 5870's, then, yeah, it makes sense to start with dual cards. Whether you need it or not is irrelevant. You want it, you can afford it, you bought it. With bottom of the heap cards it doesn't make much sense to be. If you do your research you can buy a single card for the same expense that does just as well if not better.
As far as it will be obsolete that, to me, is an outdated view. Obsolence just isn't really a valid issue with replacing a computer today. I've been running a $600 machine for 3 years and I'm debating whether there's any point in replacing it with another $600 machine. So how, exactly, is an $1800 machine today going to be outdated a year from now when I'm not even sure a $600 machine from three years ago will be? It just isn't the reality of this market. No, really, if you buy a Ford Pinto today you'll be driving one tomorrow and if you buy a Lexus today you'll be driving one tomorrow. All that really matters is do you care, can you afford it and is it worth the price to drive a Lexus for the next several years rather than a Pinto.
As far as it will be obsolete that, to me, is an outdated view. Obsolence just isn't really a valid issue with replacing a computer today. I've been running a $600 machine for 3 years and I'm debating whether there's any point in replacing it with another $600 machine. So how, exactly, is an $1800 machine today going to be outdated a year from now when I'm not even sure a $600 machine from three years ago will be? It just isn't the reality of this market. No, really, if you buy a Ford Pinto today you'll be driving one tomorrow and if you buy a Lexus today you'll be driving one tomorrow. All that really matters is do you care, can you afford it and is it worth the price to drive a Lexus for the next several years rather than a Pinto.
Author
Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
As far as it will be obsolete that, to me, is an outdated view. Obsolence just isn't really a valid issue with replacing a computer today. I've been running a $600 machine for 3 years and I'm debating whether there's any point in replacing it with another $600 machine. So how, exactly, is an $1800 machine today going to be outdated a year from now when I'm not even sure a $600 machine from three years ago will be? It just isn't the reality of this market. No, really, if you buy a Ford Pinto today you'll be driving one tomorrow and if you buy a Lexus today you'll be driving one tomorrow. All that really matters is do you care, can you afford it and is it worth the price to drive a Lexus for the next several years rather than a Pinto.
The issue with my last desktop was I purchased it when AGP was still being sold though PCI-X was offered, yet I (stupidly) thought AGP was newer and purchased that. So my current desktop is at the point where and upgrade to the graphics card would essentially require a new mobo, card, and possibly new CPU. I'm hoping this next computer will not only last longer by itself, but will be able to upgrade for years after it begins slowing down. Obviously new hardware will be released, but at least I'm not at the end of a dying port like I was with the AGP slot almost from the get-go.
Most likely you're not going to be able to upgrade for years to come. Why? A few things:
1. CPU sockets change, a few times within a single generation. For example the Core 2 Duo's came using a LGA 775 socket, and the generation of CPU's after being the Core i7 came using LGA 1366 and recently also LGA 1156. I doubt that even the next generation of CPU's (Sandy bridge...etc) is going to use either of these sockets.
Also, From my perspective it seems that i7 CPU's are maxed out in terms of performance apart from clockspeed differences, which you can always overcome by overclocking a lower end part. The only thing that will change is the number of cores.
2. GPU's. Every generation of GPU's has a sweet spot in terms of performance per dollar, and this generation isn't any difference. Usually that sweet spot will last you as long as the higher end ones will, and after a few years there usually won't be that big of a performance difference to justify spending an additional 1-200 dollars right now.
3. Memory. In many benchmarks I've seen for DDR3 there doesn't seem to be much performance gained by spending more $$$ for premium speeds. Same as the diminishing returns experienced in DDR2 land when going from DDR2 800 to DDR2 1000. This is probably the only thing that's upgradable in my view, and that's only by expanding storage rather than faster speeds. If your memory slots are full then you'll just be wasting money you spend right now if you expand in the future.
In my opinion, buying a $800-$1000 PC every 3 years is much more effective than buying an $1800 PC every 4-6 years.
Right now I'm running a C2D system, GF 9800, 4GB DDR2 RAM, and I don't see myself NEEDING to upgrade for a few more years yet, especially when we're on the verge of new technologies being introduced(SATA 3, USB 3, couple others). Right now pretty much all next gen systems(i7, DDR3...etc) are still at a premium price.
If I was going to grab a system right now I'd get a core i7 860(socket 1156), with 4-8 GB of RAM initially, a graphics card around $150-$200, a 64 or 128 GB SSD for the OS and some choice apps like VS...etc and a game or two, and a bigger magnetic drive for the remaining inconsequential apps and media that you're no doubt bound to have.
But like I said, with SATA 3, USB 3, and much faster SSD's that can utilize much more bandwidth than SATA 2 can provide, I'd wait a while.
1. CPU sockets change, a few times within a single generation. For example the Core 2 Duo's came using a LGA 775 socket, and the generation of CPU's after being the Core i7 came using LGA 1366 and recently also LGA 1156. I doubt that even the next generation of CPU's (Sandy bridge...etc) is going to use either of these sockets.
Also, From my perspective it seems that i7 CPU's are maxed out in terms of performance apart from clockspeed differences, which you can always overcome by overclocking a lower end part. The only thing that will change is the number of cores.
2. GPU's. Every generation of GPU's has a sweet spot in terms of performance per dollar, and this generation isn't any difference. Usually that sweet spot will last you as long as the higher end ones will, and after a few years there usually won't be that big of a performance difference to justify spending an additional 1-200 dollars right now.
3. Memory. In many benchmarks I've seen for DDR3 there doesn't seem to be much performance gained by spending more $$$ for premium speeds. Same as the diminishing returns experienced in DDR2 land when going from DDR2 800 to DDR2 1000. This is probably the only thing that's upgradable in my view, and that's only by expanding storage rather than faster speeds. If your memory slots are full then you'll just be wasting money you spend right now if you expand in the future.
In my opinion, buying a $800-$1000 PC every 3 years is much more effective than buying an $1800 PC every 4-6 years.
Right now I'm running a C2D system, GF 9800, 4GB DDR2 RAM, and I don't see myself NEEDING to upgrade for a few more years yet, especially when we're on the verge of new technologies being introduced(SATA 3, USB 3, couple others). Right now pretty much all next gen systems(i7, DDR3...etc) are still at a premium price.
If I was going to grab a system right now I'd get a core i7 860(socket 1156), with 4-8 GB of RAM initially, a graphics card around $150-$200, a 64 or 128 GB SSD for the OS and some choice apps like VS...etc and a game or two, and a bigger magnetic drive for the remaining inconsequential apps and media that you're no doubt bound to have.
But like I said, with SATA 3, USB 3, and much faster SSD's that can utilize much more bandwidth than SATA 2 can provide, I'd wait a while.
When it comes to the bleeding edge likely to drop rapidly in price I would put SSD's at the top of the list.
Quote:Original post by deathtrap
1. CPU sockets change, a few times within a single generation. For example the Core 2 Duo's came using a LGA 775 socket, and the generation of CPU's after being the Core i7 came using LGA 1366 and recently also LGA 1156. I doubt that even the next generation of CPU's (Sandy bridge...etc) is going to use either of these sockets.
With CPUs I feel the best game to play is the generation jump; I went from an AMD Athlon to an AMD X2 to a Corei7 (last March when brand new)
My next penciled in upgrade, all things being equal, is likely to be Haswell or whatever AMD have around 2012 or so as thats another major arch shift (from pure CPU to CPU/VPU hybrids) which should bring some improvements.
Sandy Bridge is apprently an LGA136X pin layout or a LGA1155; which is intresting but then how often do you keep mobos when jumping generations?
Quote:
2. GPU's. Every generation of GPU's has a sweet spot in terms of performance per dollar, and this generation isn't any difference. Usually that sweet spot will last you as long as the higher end ones will, and after a few years there usually won't be that big of a performance difference to justify spending an additional 1-200 dollars right now.
When it comes to GPUs the difference is very often memory bandwidth (although the HD5870 is core clock limited so if you could O/C a 5850 to the same level you should be able to match it), which does make a difference if you want to push everything to the max on recent games with a large resoluton and hold 60fps.
If you are gaming on less than a single 24" screen then you probably don't need top of the line.
When it comes to output; current HD5 series cards can all drive 3 monitors both in gaming and 2D terms and they can drive 6, although the boards which would support this aren't out yet.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
