Build Vs Buy (the new computer quandry)
- Thread starter dmendenjr
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 10K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
That's what I figured.
What I was wondering a few posts back....
Would getting an internal SSD "hard drive" (of the 30-60GB variety) be worth it for the speed boost (for the OS and a few choice Apps), or would I likely get a better return on investment with 4 640GB Caviar Black Hard Drives run in a RAID 1+0 set up? Haven't had time to look up benchmarks yet...
Some two years ago (I believe) there were a couple articles (talking numbers!) within a month published on the Net re: RAID for regular desktop PCs in an office environment. They all came to the same conclusion: if configured right (a non-trivial task, actually) they are next to useless. If configured wrong - worse than non-RAID.
"Next to useless" is a vague definition. In essence it ment you can get almost as good results without it. The bigger/faster/cheaper the hard drives get, the more true this is.
Bottom line - RAID is a server's technology. That's were it is of most benefit.
Diogen.
"Next to useless" is a vague definition. In essence it ment you can get almost as good results without it. The bigger/faster/cheaper the hard drives get, the more true this is.
Bottom line - RAID is a server's technology. That's were it is of most benefit.
Diogen.
When thinking about SSD's and RAID I came across this article from April of this year:
OCZ Vertex SSD RAID-0 Performance | OCZ Vertex RAID-0,OCZ Vertex SSD RAID-0 Performance,OCZ Vertex SSD RAID-0 Performance Speed Benchmark Test | Benchmark Reviews Performance Tests
If I change to an AM3 based AMD Chip, It would be VERY tempted to grab 2 30GB SSD drives to run in RAID for gaming and OS purposes (and an additonal HD that I could use for general files and back up. The drive set up for 2 30GB OCZ Vertex's (w/ 2.5 -> 3.5 drive docks) and 1 Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB HD would set me back about $412.97. Under that set up, I could have the entirety of the 60GB RAID set up, backed up on a 64GB partition of the 640GB HD... I am VERY tempted.
If I did this it would be part of a system something like this
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.2GHz & ASUS M4A79T Deluxe AM3 Motherboard
Apevia X-Jupiter Full tower case (which would give me some room to breathe)
Corsair 750 Watt PSU
mushkin HP 4GB DDR3 1600 RAM
2 30GB OCZ Vertex's (w/ 2.5 -> 3.5 drive docks) in RAID 0 formation.
Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB HD
XFX Radeon HD 4890 Xtreme 1GB (combo w/ Vista Home Prem 65 & Win 7 Coupon) If I switch to AMD, I feel obligated to go ATI...
LG Blu-ray Reader & 16X LightScribe DVD±R DVD Burner
Zalman 9700 HSF (with a Black Edition CPU, it HAS to be overclocked
)Arctic Silver 5 OEM (Not linked since everyone knows of it)
That build, after shipping, would run me $1635. I'll still need a monitor; but even after the monitor, I'll still be coming in under the very generous budget of $2000. I'd still have enough left over to look into a decent HT | Omega sound card....
I might just have to go this way (sorry EFI-x maybe next time...)
Last edited:
Vertex is good. Only Intel is better (and twice $$$).
AnandTech: The SSD Update: Vertex Gets Faster, New Indilinx Drives and Intel/MacBook Problems Resolved
I don't game. Know nothing about ATI above 4670 (all you need for a HTPC).
ASUS looks good (do you really need 4 PCI-Ex16 slots?)
A $100 sound card? Can you hear the difference?
Diogen.
AnandTech: The SSD Update: Vertex Gets Faster, New Indilinx Drives and Intel/MacBook Problems Resolved
I don't game. Know nothing about ATI above 4670 (all you need for a HTPC).
ASUS looks good (do you really need 4 PCI-Ex16 slots?)
A $100 sound card? Can you hear the difference?
Diogen.
I use 2 raptors in raid 0 for one system. It is a system disk I do not keep any data on, I have it backed up and really the worst that would happen if one of the drives failed is that I would lose a couple months of windows updates.
I have a vertex SSD in another system. I like it a lot. It works very fast and so far I have not had issues with any lockups or pauses (problems famous in non Intel SSDs). Systems I build for speed from now on will probably have an SSD drive for the Windows drive.
I have a vertex SSD in another system. I like it a lot. It works very fast and so far I have not had issues with any lockups or pauses (problems famous in non Intel SSDs). Systems I build for speed from now on will probably have an SSD drive for the Windows drive.
My daily driver has been running two Seagate 40GB drives in a RAID0 configuration for going on six years now. One of the drives croaked and had to be replaced but as the drive is the system drive and not used for storage, I'm used to having to reinstall Windows periodically when it soils itself.
I'd like to point out that a real RAID system includes dedicated hardware and cache RAM. Motherboard RAID systems are typically scarcely more than a software RAID that has been supported by Windows since NT.
I'd like to point out that a real RAID system includes dedicated hardware and cache RAM. Motherboard RAID systems are typically scarcely more than a software RAID that has been supported by Windows since NT.
I have to disagree with some of this.
There are basicly two types of RAID systems, Hardware and Software. Software is defined as the operating system or an extra piece of software installed on top of the OS is managing the RAID.
Hardware raid is any device that manages the RAID at a hardware level without the OS knowing anything about what is going on within the RAID configuration. This can be done with many type of RAID controllers. There are controllers that have memory to cache the reads and writes and those that don't. Controllers that have cache are normally only found in servers. Overall hardware raid is pretty much the same. Just depends on how much performance you are looking at obtaining within your disk subsystem.
Have you seen any motherboard or inexpensive RAID card solution that didn't require drivers? Anything that requires drivers must surely fail your "without the OS knowing" condition.
The RAID thing is not locked yet and frankly, I've almost talked my self out of an imminent build; deciding to hold off until September.
here is that little nagging fear: after the new intel chips get released the only new processors for LGA1366 are going to be more like the i7 965 (pricewise) and less like the flagship i7 920 chip. For roughly the same price as the i7 920 the new LGA 1156 i7 will be here in September at a faster clock speed. If LGA1156 is where Intel is going to be focusing for the mid-high home CPU's then I'd be foolish to buy into what will likely become a server platform (that I won't be able to afford to upgrade)
here is that little nagging fear: after the new intel chips get released the only new processors for LGA1366 are going to be more like the i7 965 (pricewise) and less like the flagship i7 920 chip. For roughly the same price as the i7 920 the new LGA 1156 i7 will be here in September at a faster clock speed. If LGA1156 is where Intel is going to be focusing for the mid-high home CPU's then I'd be foolish to buy into what will likely become a server platform (that I won't be able to afford to upgrade)
Actually if you get right down to it, all of the raid cards require drivers for the OS no matter how expensive they are.
The OS not knowing is more in line with the hard drives that are attached the the controller. How many drives do you see in each solution? Software raid you see every hard drive and hardware raid you don't.
Actually, I just assembled a P6T and did not install any s/w drivers. I set the BIOS to RAID, then save/exit and saw at the next screen to (quickly) press control-I. Then say RAID 1. I installed the Windows 7 RC (turned out to be ultimate 32 bit).
Yes, the book said something about installing RAID s/w for XP, Vista & later. But the drivers disk would not load, something about OS not supported. So I drilled down to install the ASUS Express Gate (instant on Linux access) and tried to install it. Same error message. But then a "compatibility box" or some such appeared, and it installed.
I suppose I could try that with the RAID drivers, but they appear to be working as is. Maybe the mb-W7 combination eliminates the need for more. C: shows as a 465GB disk. I installed 2 SATA 500GB HDDs. D: and E: are the two optical SATA drives.
ON EDIT: On reboot, I discovered that the Express Gate was not installed, even though the "compatibility box" said it was. Oh well. Does not bode well for my accounting s/w playing well with W7.
Yes, the book said something about installing RAID s/w for XP, Vista & later. But the drivers disk would not load, something about OS not supported. So I drilled down to install the ASUS Express Gate (instant on Linux access) and tried to install it. Same error message. But then a "compatibility box" or some such appeared, and it installed.
I suppose I could try that with the RAID drivers, but they appear to be working as is. Maybe the mb-W7 combination eliminates the need for more. C: shows as a 465GB disk. I installed 2 SATA 500GB HDDs. D: and E: are the two optical SATA drives.
ON EDIT: On reboot, I discovered that the Express Gate was not installed, even though the "compatibility box" said it was. Oh well. Does not bode well for my accounting s/w playing well with W7.
Sigh, well, I was able to exchange the PATA DVD-RW drive for a nearly identical SATA DVD-RW drive today so that is good.
But I think I'll have to wait until I start to see some early benches on the new AMD PII x4 965BE and possible the new Lynnfield core i7s before I can decide. Why do I always do this; just want to buy a computer and I over analyze everything!
But I think I'll have to wait until I start to see some early benches on the new AMD PII x4 965BE and possible the new Lynnfield core i7s before I can decide. Why do I always do this; just want to buy a computer and I over analyze everything!
Whatever you do, stay away from the DFI and Gygabyte boards... Get yourself an ASUS.
And stay away from Corsair anything, and Kingston memory if you were thinking about those.
Crucial.com will handle your memory, for the same price or less, and have a lifetime warranty. I've never had to send a stick of Crucial back (knock on wood) in 12 years of building pc's.
If you want a fast system drive, I'm running a WD740GD (Raptor) it's 10k rpm SATA. They have a 150g to I believe, and wish I would have gotten it now. I've got 2 other WD SATA's for storage, but still with over 700gigs available I'm about to need another one.
And stay away from Corsair anything, and Kingston memory if you were thinking about those.
Crucial.com will handle your memory, for the same price or less, and have a lifetime warranty. I've never had to send a stick of Crucial back (knock on wood) in 12 years of building pc's.
If you want a fast system drive, I'm running a WD740GD (Raptor) it's 10k rpm SATA. They have a 150g to I believe, and wish I would have gotten it now. I've got 2 other WD SATA's for storage, but still with over 700gigs available I'm about to need another one.
Three of the last four PCs I built this year used Gigabyte boards.
And I haven't used any RAM but Kingston for years.
Diogen.
Similar threads
