need help deciding on upgrades

tastyweat · Nov 17, 2004, 10:25 PM

What do you guys think? Upgrade coming thanks to insurance company... I'm going to have 2900GBP at my disposal... I don't have to buy a monitor... I have a 17" LG L1710B

Here are my options...

buy 20.1" Dell 2001FP (it's the viewsonic 20.1" tft with a few more video-in connectors - like composite - which is a benfit to me because I'll be able to use it for my consoles too) - i've almost made up my mind that I will be getting this - http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna...tegory_id=4058 - I may even get two if I find someone interested in my LG

ok... I need to decide between the 3.4GHz EE (Socket 775) and the FX55

I do alot of in-windows stuff + photoshop and HT would probably be a benefit to me... but then the FX55 is nearly 200 quid cheaper... but then the FX55 is 25% slower than the EE in Pshop... I do do a little bit of rendering too... which, of course, is faster on the P4.

The systems would be as follows:

3.4GHz P4 EE LGA775
Asus P5AD2-E (925XE Chipset)
4x 512MB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-667
Asus X800XT PCI-EX Dual DVI
2xWD Raptors
Maxtor 250GB 16MB Cache
120GB PATA
60GB PATA

FX55
Asus A8N-E Premium (NF4 Ultra)
4x 512MB Crucial Ballistix DDR-500
Asus X800XT PCI-EX Dual DVI
4xWD Raptors
Maxtor 250GB 16MB Cache
120GB PATA
60GB PATA

There is a third option that I'm not quite so keen on... 3200 winchester and overclock it to 250x10.

I would go with SLI if it would work with 2x X800XTs... I'd rather have 1 X800XT than two 6800GTs

Advice would be appreciated... even if you think slightly different parts would be appropriate then feel free.

pr0digal jenius · Nov 17, 2004, 10:27 PM

i'd go intel....but why does the AMD rig get 4 raptors, and the intel rig get 2?

technonerd · Nov 17, 2004, 10:37 PM

For windows application I recommended Intel. Even on EE is great on games too.

CaptinSxb · Nov 17, 2004, 11:36 PM

Either of those systems would be fantastic. Its really a question of what are your going to do more, game or more towards rendering and such.

tastyweat · Nov 18, 2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

i'd go intel....but why does the AMD rig get 4 raptors, and the intel rig get 2?

because the chip and motherboard combination knock at least 200GBP off the total price.. so I can add a little more in other departments... i think i might just stay with 2 raptors though.

I'm edging towards the FX55 system atm... 29k stock in 3dmark 01se compared to 26k stock for the 3.4EE

I'm not really going to want to overclock these systems... or at least minimal overclocking... the EE i might push a little.

I've been reading a few fx55 vs 3.4 and 3.46GHz EE comparisons around the internet... and the fx55 is seeming to trounce the EEs in almost everything.... pshop the EE will definitely be faster... but for video + audio encoding the FX55 is winning the race... plus it's futureproofed for Win64... This computer may even be the comp that comes with me to university... so 64bit could be handy for making the computer last over a year... what do you think?

pr0digal jenius · Nov 18, 2004, 11:42 AM

I don't see 64bit becoming important for mainstream type stuff for the next 2 years atleast...maybe 3

as for amd vs intel..that's all a matter of preference, but I'm wondering what you could do with that intel system and instead of thos PATA drives upgrade to 2x 1024MB RAM rather then 4x 512?

swimtech · Nov 18, 2004, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tastyweat

because the chip and motherboard combination knock at least 200GBP off the total price.. so I can add a little more in other departments... i think i might just stay with 2 raptors though.

I'm edging towards the FX55 system atm... 29k stock in 3dmark 01se compared to 26k stock for the 3.4EE

I'm not really going to want to overclock these systems... or at least minimal overclocking... the EE i might push a little.

I've been reading a few fx55 vs 3.4 and 3.46GHz EE comparisons around the internet... and the fx55 is seeming to trounce the EEs in almost everything.... pshop the EE will definitely be faster... but for video + audio encoding the FX55 is winning the race... plus it's futureproofed for Win64... This computer may even be the comp that comes with me to university... so 64bit could be handy for making the computer last over a year... what do you think?

I agree with your logic Tasty - so long as your work with Photoshop is "fast enough", plus you'll be able to jump on the Longhorn bandwagon right off. More hardware too! That can't hurt, plus the fastest gaming CPU on the planet today (non-overclocked)!

There may a slight problem with ATI's driver and some chipsets for AMD CPUs, but Z's FX system runs ok, so it may be the older stuff - I'm sure they'll work that through though.

bug77 · Nov 18, 2004, 09:44 PM

Go with FX55... But I'd consider the 4000+, or an o/c 3500+ (90nm).

tastyweat · Nov 19, 2004, 10:46 PM

I want an unlocked multiplier... hence the FX55... means I can revert to 250x10.5 or 250x11

... just waiting for the insurance money to come through now

bug77 · Nov 19, 2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tastyweat

I want an unlocked multiplier... hence the FX55... means I can revert to 250x10.5 or 250x11

... just waiting for the insurance money to come through now

All AMD processors have downwards adjustable multiplier. It is needed for Cool'n'Quiet. Only higher values are locked.

drakesteakn · Nov 19, 2004, 11:11 PM

the FX-55 will beat that intel 3.4EE no question about it. DDR2 still hasnt matured enough to be faster that DDR yet. and using 1 X800XT is plenty for gamming.

@/2ct!< · Nov 20, 2004, 05:37 AM

Oh, and Im not sure I would try 10.5, half multipliers arent great on A64s, just use 10.

pr0digal jenius · Nov 20, 2004, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

DDR2 still hasnt matured enough to be faster that DDR yet.

keyword is 'yet'...thsi si really going to come down to how long he wants the machine to last

<2 years, I'd say A64, 3+ years, I'm gunna hafta go with a socket T p4

Vampyromaniac · Nov 23, 2004, 06:24 AM

I thought I was the only person who uses parts for 2 years.

Anyway, I'd get creative with this. I'd opt for the FX setup, but with 3 Raptors plus a RAID 5 card

wait a sec, I just noticed the 3 other hard drives in your list, what's the reason for those?
250 + 120 + 60 ?

tastyweat · Nov 23, 2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyromaniac

I thought I was the only person who uses parts for 2 years.

Anyway, I'd get creative with this. I'd opt for the FX setup, but with 3 Raptors plus a RAID 5 card

wait a sec, I just noticed the 3 other hard drives in your list, what's the reason for those?
250 + 120 + 60 ?

I've already got a 120GB and a 60GB that work... wanna get a 250GB Maxtor 16MB cache HDD

What the heck is Raid 5??? Past raid 0, 1 and 1+0 I have no idea what the other types of raid are... would you care to elabourate?

pr0digal jenius · Nov 23, 2004, 07:10 PM

raid 5 is the only real, legit, true hardware form of raid. it has the speed of raid 0, and the reliability/errorproofing of raid 1. Its what most servers use. it usually uses 4 drives, btu can run off of 3, i believe.

http://www.ahinc.com/raid.htm

"[color=#ff0000]RAID 5 requires a minimum of three drives[/color] and it is recommended that all drives on the system be of the same size. The more drives you have on the server, the better RAID 5 will perform."

Vampyromaniac · Nov 23, 2004, 07:57 PM

RAID 5 takes a group of drives, and pretty much stripes across all of them except one, and on that last one, it places parity information. The stiping and parity-writing rotates among the drives with each write (so all the drives will have both data and parity info on them.)
The parity info is used when a drive fails, so you can rebuild and save all the data.

Comparing RAID-0 to RAID-5 with for example 4 drives, 30GB each:
RAID-0: . . . 4x speed . . . 120 GB storage capacity . . . lose all data if a drive fails
RAID-5: . . . 3x speed . . . 90 GB storage capacity . . . no data lost if a drive fails

But, RAID-5 really needs a RAID card; the parity calculations are intensive and a RAID-5 card includes a chip dedicated just to those calculations.

Hope that helps

tastyweat · Nov 23, 2004, 09:00 PM

thanks guys

Nov 17, 2004, 10:25 PM	#1
tastyweat Lurking Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The void Posts: 4,794 Rep Power: 75 System Specs	need help deciding on upgrades What do you guys think? Upgrade coming thanks to insurance company... I'm going to have 2900GBP at my disposal... I don't have to buy a monitor... I have a 17" LG L1710B Here are my options... buy 20.1" Dell 2001FP (it's the viewsonic 20.1" tft with a few more video-in connectors - like composite - which is a benfit to me because I'll be able to use it for my consoles too) - i've almost made up my mind that I will be getting this - http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna...tegory_id=4058 - I may even get two if I find someone interested in my LG ok... I need to decide between the 3.4GHz EE (Socket 775) and the FX55 I do alot of in-windows stuff + photoshop and HT would probably be a benefit to me... but then the FX55 is nearly 200 quid cheaper... but then the FX55 is 25% slower than the EE in Pshop... I do do a little bit of rendering too... which, of course, is faster on the P4. The systems would be as follows: 3.4GHz P4 EE LGA775 Asus P5AD2-E (925XE Chipset) 4x 512MB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-667 Asus X800XT PCI-EX Dual DVI 2xWD Raptors Maxtor 250GB 16MB Cache 120GB PATA 60GB PATA FX55 Asus A8N-E Premium (NF4 Ultra) 4x 512MB Crucial Ballistix DDR-500 Asus X800XT PCI-EX Dual DVI 4xWD Raptors Maxtor 250GB 16MB Cache 120GB PATA 60GB PATA There is a third option that I'm not quite so keen on... 3200 winchester and overclock it to 250x10. I would go with SLI if it would work with 2x X800XTs... I'd rather have 1 X800XT than two 6800GTs Advice would be appreciated... even if you think slightly different parts would be appropriate then feel free. __________________

Nov 17, 2004, 11:36 PM	#4
CaptinSxb DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Good Ol' U.S. of A. Posts: 404 Rep Power: 0	Either of those systems would be fantastic. Its really a question of what are your going to do more, game or more towards rendering and such. __________________ A64-3200; x800xl; a couple other things ; and a floppy drive

Nov 19, 2004, 10:46 PM	Thread Starter #9
tastyweat Lurking Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The void Posts: 4,794 Rep Power: 75 System Specs	I want an unlocked multiplier... hence the FX55... means I can revert to 250x10.5 or 250x11 ... just waiting for the insurance money to come through now __________________

Nov 19, 2004, 11:11 PM	#11
drakesteakn boo!!!! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Ft. Meyers, FL Posts: 2,041 Rep Power: 0	the FX-55 will beat that intel 3.4EE no question about it. DDR2 still hasnt matured enough to be faster that DDR yet. and using 1 X800XT is plenty for gamming. __________________

Nov 20, 2004, 05:37 AM	#12
@/2ct!< HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Not Vegas, anymore :( Posts: 1,391 Rep Power: 0	Oh, and Im not sure I would try 10.5, half multipliers arent great on A64s, just use 10. __________________

Nov 17, 2004, 10:27 PM	#2
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	i'd go intel....but why does the AMD rig get 4 raptors, and the intel rig get 2?

Nov 17, 2004, 10:37 PM	#3
technonerd DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Posts: 594 Rep Power: 0	For windows application I recommended Intel. Even on EE is great on games too.

Nov 18, 2004, 11:42 AM	#6
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	I don't see 64bit becoming important for mainstream type stuff for the next 2 years atleast...maybe 3 as for amd vs intel..that's all a matter of preference, but I'm wondering what you could do with that intel system and instead of thos PATA drives upgrade to 2x 1024MB RAM rather then 4x 512?

Nov 18, 2004, 09:44 PM	#8
bug77 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: around Posts: 792 Rep Power: 0	Go with FX55... But I'd consider the 4000+, or an o/c 3500+ (90nm).

Nov 23, 2004, 06:24 AM	#14
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	I thought I was the only person who uses parts for 2 years. Anyway, I'd get creative with this. I'd opt for the FX setup, but with 3 Raptors plus a RAID 5 card wait a sec, I just noticed the 3 other hard drives in your list, what's the reason for those? 250 + 120 + 60 ? __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250 Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Nov 23, 2004 at 06:30 AM.

Nov 23, 2004, 07:10 PM	#16
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	raid 5 is the only real, legit, true hardware form of raid. it has the speed of raid 0, and the reliability/errorproofing of raid 1. Its what most servers use. it usually uses 4 drives, btu can run off of 3, i believe. http://www.ahinc.com/raid.htm "[color=#ff0000]RAID 5 requires a minimum of three drives[/color] and it is recommended that all drives on the system be of the same size. The more drives you have on the server, the better RAID 5 will perform."

Nov 23, 2004, 07:57 PM	#17
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	RAID 5 takes a group of drives, and pretty much stripes across all of them except one, and on that last one, it places parity information. The stiping and parity-writing rotates among the drives with each write (so all the drives will have both data and parity info on them.) The parity info is used when a drive fails, so you can rebuild and save all the data. Comparing RAID-0 to RAID-5 with for example 4 drives, 30GB each: RAID-0: . . . 4x speed . . . 120 GB storage capacity . . . lose all data if a drive fails RAID-5: . . . 3x speed . . . 90 GB storage capacity . . . no data lost if a drive fails But, RAID-5 really needs a RAID card; the parity calculations are intensive and a RAID-5 card includes a chip dedicated just to those calculations. Hope that helps __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Nov 23, 2004, 09:00 PM	Thread Starter #18
tastyweat Lurking Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The void Posts: 4,794 Rep Power: 75 System Specs	thanks guys __________________