[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Check site for reliability of newer models of Maxtor, those can't be said too good.[/b][/quote]
I don't have to, I'm running one in my main rig right now. :) Its running like the day I purchased it over a year ago.
[quote][b]I agree that most PCs are sold with damn crappy small cases.
Personally I wouldn't keep even one HD without cooling althought one HD might stay in safe temperatures without own fan in case with well designed route of airflow.
If you're interested... I currently have three HDs in my PC.[/b][/quote]
Funny, I used to run four when I was using my old Asus A7V (classic). (For those that aren't aware, the Asus A7V had FOUR IDE interfaces. It had two IDE controllers, one ATA100 and one ATA66/33. This would allow me to use EIGHT IDE devices at once. Tis a shame Asus, or anyone else for that matter, didn't continue this trend.) Though my case was tall enough that I could run all of them in the top of my case without introducing a ton of heat into my computer. (I have a full-tower case, with the bottom of the computer completely isolated from the top part of the case.)
[quote][b]Kind a reminds me about one phrase.:D
But that old HDs doesn't produce much heat compared to current drives. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, my 160GB Maxtor produces close to the same ammount of heat as that Quantum...and its a 7200RPM drive. Of course, it has fluidic bearings so I suppose that helped some. ;)
No hdd have died on me. I've used a 40GB Maxtor for 2,5 years and now I got a 160GB Maxtor that has been running for 8month.
Before that I had some 17GB and a 850MB, but I don't remember what brand they are.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well...
1. HD heat - I have a fan on 2 of my 3 HDs. The last is located just above the fan in a different chassis. It is also the smallest and slowest of the HDs.
2. I have had quite a few maxtors over the years. Never had one fail within a reasonable length of time. The only one I had fail was one that went unused for several years, was about 10 years old, and was a 250MB drive. It just failed this last summer. Other then that, I have never had a Maxtor fail. I have currently 4 Maxtors between 3 systems - all bought 1-2 years ago. Not one has experienced problems. 2 80GB ATA, 1 30GB ATA, and 1 160GB SATA - all 7200rpm. (The 30 was for an older system)
Actually I have a 5th maxtor in use - it is a 10 year old 300-some MB maxtor in use in my backwards compatible dos game system. I was having problems with it, but traced the problems to the PS rather then the HD. Replaced the PS and everything worked again! :) (this was the reason I pulled out the 250MB maxtor to test)
Oh - and if anyone is looking for a ATA to AT power converter for old mobos, only place I know carries it is Cyberguys. Takes a batch of hunting, but they do have it! :)
EDIT: Hard drive selection corrected and price lowered.
Ok, the computer from [url]www.cyberpowersystem.com[/url] will be bought very soon. If there are other computer providers that would be better and cheaper, or additional comments on what I have decided on for my specs, let me know.
Price: $2184.00
CoolerMaster TAC-T01-E1C Wave Master Aluminum 420W Case (SILVER)
ULTRA X-Connect 500W ATX PS w/2 80mm Fans - Black
(939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 4000+ Processor
(939-pin) ASUS A8V DELUXE VIA K8T800 MAINBOARD
1GB (512MBx2) PC3200 DDR400 Memory (Corsair_XMS)
MAXTOR 200GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB CACHE HARD DRIVE
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB AGP8X w/TVO
PIONEER DVR-108 DUAL FORMAT 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (SILVER)
Creative Labs SB Audigy-2 ZS 7.1
Keep in mind that my selections are limited to what's available at cyberpowersystem. And unfortunately, they don't have an option for that spiffy Cooler Master Stacker case E.T posted.
I went with the Ultra X Power Supply because of the positive reviews I found for it. This one had a pictures comparing the cable situation: [url]http://www.fragtopia.com/reviews/ultra-500watt-psu/ultra-500watt.shtml[/url] Also, the $30 rebate helps.
I ended up with the Maxtor because I didn't find any negative reviews for it with my google search. That, and it's Serial ATA 150, over Western Digital's ATA 100. I doubt I'm making a huge mistake, considering everything else people have posted. But if I'm wrong, let me know.
And should I be worried about having a processor that's too powerful for the rest of the system in terms of efficiency? For some reason it seems like the RAM and GeForce won't take full advantage of the 4000+, and most of its potential will go to waste.
Why your choice of video card? seems kind of lagging with the rest of your choices...(then again, I'm a gamer, not a modeller...perhaps that would be enough for what you're doing?)
For my money I'd go for a lesser sound card and less HD space in order to have a more capable video card.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
The 6600 GT [url=http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/geforce-6600gtagp/index.x?pg=1]looks good enough[/url] to me.
Hmmm...read the GeForce review Biggles. Sounds like a solid choice. But, will it be 'good enough' in six months? With the 256MB lines making a strong showing, is it wise financially and performance-wise (forward-looking) to plug a 128MB card into this system?
The GeForce 6600 GT because when I upgrade, it will be with a new motherboad and a PCIe card. And I don't want to make that jump from a really good AGP card, because those are expensive enough for me to want to wait much longer before I do that. And I tend to be on the impatient side.
I have very little faith in my ability to upgrade my hard drive (I need the space for pictures and probably stuff in my 3d modeling and animation classes next semester). And the sound card has a fire wire port with it. So I don't really want to swap those out.
The 128 thing with the GT concerned me as well; but the next best 256 card is $186 more; unless I want to shave off $125 and go with a GeForce FX 5700 256MB, or $68 for a Radeon 9600 XT 256.
I could go up to the GT 6800 256, but that bumps up the price to $2367.
Also, I'm becoming increasingly tempted to make the $64 jump to an FX-55, which is .2 GHz faster than the 4000+ (which looks like an FX-53 to me). Otherwise, the product descriptions don't show any other difference.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RedAssAg05 [/i]
[B]Hmmm...read the GeForce review Biggles. Sounds like a solid choice. But, will it be 'good enough' in six months? With the 256MB lines making a strong showing, is it wise financially and performance-wise (forward-looking) to plug a 128MB card into this system? [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless you're going to be running games at 1600x1200, you're not really going to see a difference. The extra memory is for working with [b]really[/b] large texture files. Its not really going to overall boost your performance over a 128MB model when you're only playing at like 1024x768. At 1024, 128 will be just as fast as 256. If you want to blow more money on a 256MB card, go for it...but all its going to do is serve as a "I've got a bigger penis!" value.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MT [/i]
[B]I ended up with the Maxtor because I didn't find any negative reviews for it with my google search. That, and it's Serial ATA 150, over Western Digital's ATA 100. I doubt I'm making a huge mistake, considering everything else people have posted. But if I'm wrong, let me know.[/b][/quote]
You need to make sure your IDE controller isn't run through the PCI bus like when SATA first came out. Otherwise, you're capped at a [b]maximum[/b] of 133MB/sec. Even so, you'll never see that kind of speed out of an IDE hard drive anytime soon. I've yet to see an IDE hard drive max out at 100MB/sec let alone 150. SATA is a waste of money IMO. You can only hook up one hard drive to a channel, and the speeds aren't that much more than a standard IDE drive. If you really want fast hard drives, then go SCSI. Just be aware that they're not cheap, and the drives aren't all that large in terms of available usable space.
[quote][b]And should I be worried about having a processor that's too powerful for the rest of the system in terms of efficiency? For some reason it seems like the RAM and GeForce won't take full advantage of the 4000+, and most of its potential will go to waste. [/B][/QUOTE]
Somehow, I don't think that'll be an issue. With hardware that fast, you're not really going to notice until maybe 5 years or so down the road when even faster video cards are out.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]Unless you're going to be running games at 1600x1200, you're not really going to see a difference. The extra memory is for working with [b]really[/b] large texture files. Its not really going to overall boost your performance over a 128MB model when you're only playing at like 1024x768. At 1024, 128 will be just as fast as 256. If you want to blow more money on a 256MB card, go for it...but all its going to do is serve as a "I've got a bigger penis!" value. [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless you're going to do Dual Video via the DVI adapter, then that extra 128 will come in real handy for the second display...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Unless you're going to do Dual Video via the DVI adapter, then that extra 128 will come in real handy for the second display...
:) [/B][/QUOTE]
Seeing as not many games actually support multiple monitor displays....thats kind of a moot point.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]Seeing as not many games actually support multiple monitor displays....thats kind of a moot point. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's assuming Dual Display for gaming...
:)
Dual comes in real handy for things beyond gaming...
Jack is right...I have dual display on mine, with my 19 in monitor as secondary display with the start menu/taskbar and messenger conversations. As primary display I have a 26in Widescreen HDTV, perfect for movies and games, and browsing the internet from my couch when I'm not doing that:) With the wireless desktop w/media buttons, it's a sweet setup!! Imagine, if you will, B5:IFH on 26 inches of high-resolution high-definition goodness:D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]That's assuming Dual Display for gaming...
:)
Dual comes in real handy for things beyond gaming...
;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, but think about this for a second. What could he possibly be doing that would eat up 128MB of RAM before it could clear that doesn't involve gaming? Unless he's going to be rendering animations larger than HDTV, 128MB will do just fine.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MT [/i]
[B]If you say that because SATA cables take up less space, then I should probably point out that I'm ordering rounded cables with the system. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have both rounded cables and SATA cables in my comp. Believe me when I say that rounded cables are huge airflow blockers compared to SATA cables.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
It's not just the cable size, either. It's the plug size too. The SATA plugs are so nice and small and so easy to plug in and remove, unlike IDE plugs.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
My biggest issue with SATA is that the plugs are too flimsy - I have bent the plastic on the plug on one of my cables - it still works, but I am always worried it not make good contact. And no - I wasn't doing something odd :) - just adjusting a fan without physically disassembling half my system to properly get at it.
There's also difference in quality of signal you get out from DVI connector between different cards. (read that article)
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
They can also use DVI for copywrite enforcement by only allowing "authorized" displays to be used from "authorized" equipment so you can't pipe, for instance, a DVD player to a DVD burner.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]Yes, but think about this for a second. What could he possibly be doing that would eat up 128MB of RAM before it could clear that doesn't involve gaming? Unless he's going to be rendering animations larger than HDTV, 128MB will do just fine. [/B][/QUOTE]
My point being... ;)
... that when you use dual display for things besides gaming, the available ram on the video card is generally split between the displays (lose the double buffer). So, when you DO go to play that game, a card with 256 Meg its primary display will still have 128 to work with instead of being split down to 64.
This is all simply a discussion about usage. If gaming is all that will be done, then of course 128 is quite a bit! :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]... that when you use dual display for things besides gaming, the available ram on the video card is generally split between the displays (lose the double buffer). So, when you DO go to play that game, a card with 256 Meg its primary display will still have 128 to work with instead of being split down to 64.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think it's entirely so, of course both displays require memomy for their frame buffers but I don't believe they store textures separately.
(or why they would do that?)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]I don't think it's entirely so, of course both displays require memomy for their frame buffers but I don't believe they store textures separately.
(or why they would do that?) [/B][/QUOTE]
You are speaking of use during the gaming session right?
I'm pretty sure that when you set up a dual display setup in windows on a card with DVI, the memory is split for that purpose. This would mean the game would only see the memory available on the display you are going to use for the game.
I could be wrong of course but I've heard this from several people.
Well... If it has something to do with Windoze then I believe it. :p
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
This is what I understand happens: When you set up multi monitors in windows, it creates a frame buffer for each display on each card. If you have a dual head card, you'll get two frame buffers on the one card. However, this is different from AGP memory access as used in games. While the frame buffers remain separate, the rest of the card's memory has available for use as texture memory. Windows doesn't create two virtual hardware devices, each equivalent to half your video card or anything like that. Now, once they get Longhorn out with it's supposed 3D accelerated desktop, things might be different, but that's so far off it's not worth thinking about. :)
There's also difference in quality of signal you get out from DVI connector between different cards. (read that article) [/B][/QUOTE]
Psst! Stealing bandwith is wrong. Notice that the image only shows up as a Toms Hardware transparent GIF instead of what you wanted.....its because people are too lazy to save the image and host it THEMSELVES!
If you aren't hosting it yourself, don't embed it!
Comments
[B]Check site for reliability of newer models of Maxtor, those can't be said too good.[/b][/quote]
I don't have to, I'm running one in my main rig right now. :) Its running like the day I purchased it over a year ago.
[quote][b]I agree that most PCs are sold with damn crappy small cases.
Personally I wouldn't keep even one HD without cooling althought one HD might stay in safe temperatures without own fan in case with well designed route of airflow.
If you're interested... I currently have three HDs in my PC.[/b][/quote]
Funny, I used to run four when I was using my old Asus A7V (classic). (For those that aren't aware, the Asus A7V had FOUR IDE interfaces. It had two IDE controllers, one ATA100 and one ATA66/33. This would allow me to use EIGHT IDE devices at once. Tis a shame Asus, or anyone else for that matter, didn't continue this trend.) Though my case was tall enough that I could run all of them in the top of my case without introducing a ton of heat into my computer. (I have a full-tower case, with the bottom of the computer completely isolated from the top part of the case.)
[quote][b]Kind a reminds me about one phrase.:D
But that old HDs doesn't produce much heat compared to current drives. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, my 160GB Maxtor produces close to the same ammount of heat as that Quantum...and its a 7200RPM drive. Of course, it has fluidic bearings so I suppose that helped some. ;)
Before that I had some 17GB and a 850MB, but I don't remember what brand they are.
1. HD heat - I have a fan on 2 of my 3 HDs. The last is located just above the fan in a different chassis. It is also the smallest and slowest of the HDs.
2. I have had quite a few maxtors over the years. Never had one fail within a reasonable length of time. The only one I had fail was one that went unused for several years, was about 10 years old, and was a 250MB drive. It just failed this last summer. Other then that, I have never had a Maxtor fail. I have currently 4 Maxtors between 3 systems - all bought 1-2 years ago. Not one has experienced problems. 2 80GB ATA, 1 30GB ATA, and 1 160GB SATA - all 7200rpm. (The 30 was for an older system)
Actually I have a 5th maxtor in use - it is a 10 year old 300-some MB maxtor in use in my backwards compatible dos game system. I was having problems with it, but traced the problems to the PS rather then the HD. Replaced the PS and everything worked again! :) (this was the reason I pulled out the 250MB maxtor to test)
Oh - and if anyone is looking for a ATA to AT power converter for old mobos, only place I know carries it is Cyberguys. Takes a batch of hunting, but they do have it! :)
--RC
Ok, the computer from [url]www.cyberpowersystem.com[/url] will be bought very soon. If there are other computer providers that would be better and cheaper, or additional comments on what I have decided on for my specs, let me know.
Price: $2184.00
CoolerMaster TAC-T01-E1C Wave Master Aluminum 420W Case (SILVER)
ULTRA X-Connect 500W ATX PS w/2 80mm Fans - Black
(939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 4000+ Processor
(939-pin) ASUS A8V DELUXE VIA K8T800 MAINBOARD
1GB (512MBx2) PC3200 DDR400 Memory (Corsair_XMS)
MAXTOR 200GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB CACHE HARD DRIVE
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB AGP8X w/TVO
PIONEER DVR-108 DUAL FORMAT 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (SILVER)
Creative Labs SB Audigy-2 ZS 7.1
Keep in mind that my selections are limited to what's available at cyberpowersystem. And unfortunately, they don't have an option for that spiffy Cooler Master Stacker case E.T posted.
I went with the Ultra X Power Supply because of the positive reviews I found for it. This one had a pictures comparing the cable situation: [url]http://www.fragtopia.com/reviews/ultra-500watt-psu/ultra-500watt.shtml[/url] Also, the $30 rebate helps.
I ended up with the Maxtor because I didn't find any negative reviews for it with my google search. That, and it's Serial ATA 150, over Western Digital's ATA 100. I doubt I'm making a huge mistake, considering everything else people have posted. But if I'm wrong, let me know.
And should I be worried about having a processor that's too powerful for the rest of the system in terms of efficiency? For some reason it seems like the RAM and GeForce won't take full advantage of the 4000+, and most of its potential will go to waste.
For my money I'd go for a lesser sound card and less HD space in order to have a more capable video card.
I have very little faith in my ability to upgrade my hard drive (I need the space for pictures and probably stuff in my 3d modeling and animation classes next semester). And the sound card has a fire wire port with it. So I don't really want to swap those out.
The 128 thing with the GT concerned me as well; but the next best 256 card is $186 more; unless I want to shave off $125 and go with a GeForce FX 5700 256MB, or $68 for a Radeon 9600 XT 256.
I could go up to the GT 6800 256, but that bumps up the price to $2367.
Also, I'm becoming increasingly tempted to make the $64 jump to an FX-55, which is .2 GHz faster than the 4000+ (which looks like an FX-53 to me). Otherwise, the product descriptions don't show any other difference.
[B]Hmmm...read the GeForce review Biggles. Sounds like a solid choice. But, will it be 'good enough' in six months? With the 256MB lines making a strong showing, is it wise financially and performance-wise (forward-looking) to plug a 128MB card into this system? [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless you're going to be running games at 1600x1200, you're not really going to see a difference. The extra memory is for working with [b]really[/b] large texture files. Its not really going to overall boost your performance over a 128MB model when you're only playing at like 1024x768. At 1024, 128 will be just as fast as 256. If you want to blow more money on a 256MB card, go for it...but all its going to do is serve as a "I've got a bigger penis!" value.
[B]I ended up with the Maxtor because I didn't find any negative reviews for it with my google search. That, and it's Serial ATA 150, over Western Digital's ATA 100. I doubt I'm making a huge mistake, considering everything else people have posted. But if I'm wrong, let me know.[/b][/quote]
You need to make sure your IDE controller isn't run through the PCI bus like when SATA first came out. Otherwise, you're capped at a [b]maximum[/b] of 133MB/sec. Even so, you'll never see that kind of speed out of an IDE hard drive anytime soon. I've yet to see an IDE hard drive max out at 100MB/sec let alone 150. SATA is a waste of money IMO. You can only hook up one hard drive to a channel, and the speeds aren't that much more than a standard IDE drive. If you really want fast hard drives, then go SCSI. Just be aware that they're not cheap, and the drives aren't all that large in terms of available usable space.
[quote][b]And should I be worried about having a processor that's too powerful for the rest of the system in terms of efficiency? For some reason it seems like the RAM and GeForce won't take full advantage of the 4000+, and most of its potential will go to waste. [/B][/QUOTE]
Somehow, I don't think that'll be an issue. With hardware that fast, you're not really going to notice until maybe 5 years or so down the road when even faster video cards are out.
[B]Unless you're going to be running games at 1600x1200, you're not really going to see a difference. The extra memory is for working with [b]really[/b] large texture files. Its not really going to overall boost your performance over a 128MB model when you're only playing at like 1024x768. At 1024, 128 will be just as fast as 256. If you want to blow more money on a 256MB card, go for it...but all its going to do is serve as a "I've got a bigger penis!" value. [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless you're going to do Dual Video via the DVI adapter, then that extra 128 will come in real handy for the second display...
:)
I don't know what JackN is talking about, so I'm guessing it's something I shouldn't worry about.
[B]Unless you're going to do Dual Video via the DVI adapter, then that extra 128 will come in real handy for the second display...
:) [/B][/QUOTE]
Seeing as not many games actually support multiple monitor displays....thats kind of a moot point.
[B]Seeing as not many games actually support multiple monitor displays....thats kind of a moot point. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's assuming Dual Display for gaming...
:)
Dual comes in real handy for things beyond gaming...
;)
[B]That's assuming Dual Display for gaming...
:)
Dual comes in real handy for things beyond gaming...
;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, but think about this for a second. What could he possibly be doing that would eat up 128MB of RAM before it could clear that doesn't involve gaming? Unless he's going to be rendering animations larger than HDTV, 128MB will do just fine.
[B]If you say that because SATA cables take up less space, then I should probably point out that I'm ordering rounded cables with the system. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have both rounded cables and SATA cables in my comp. Believe me when I say that rounded cables are huge airflow blockers compared to SATA cables.
[url]http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041129/index.html[/url]:D
There's also difference in quality of signal you get out from DVI connector between different cards. (read that article)
[B]Yes, but think about this for a second. What could he possibly be doing that would eat up 128MB of RAM before it could clear that doesn't involve gaming? Unless he's going to be rendering animations larger than HDTV, 128MB will do just fine. [/B][/QUOTE]
My point being... ;)
... that when you use dual display for things besides gaming, the available ram on the video card is generally split between the displays (lose the double buffer). So, when you DO go to play that game, a card with 256 Meg its primary display will still have 128 to work with instead of being split down to 64.
This is all simply a discussion about usage. If gaming is all that will be done, then of course 128 is quite a bit! :)
[B]... that when you use dual display for things besides gaming, the available ram on the video card is generally split between the displays (lose the double buffer). So, when you DO go to play that game, a card with 256 Meg its primary display will still have 128 to work with instead of being split down to 64.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think it's entirely so, of course both displays require memomy for their frame buffers but I don't believe they store textures separately.
(or why they would do that?)
[B]I don't think it's entirely so, of course both displays require memomy for their frame buffers but I don't believe they store textures separately.
(or why they would do that?) [/B][/QUOTE]
You are speaking of use during the gaming session right?
I'm pretty sure that when you set up a dual display setup in windows on a card with DVI, the memory is split for that purpose. This would mean the game would only see the memory available on the display you are going to use for the game.
I could be wrong of course but I've heard this from several people.
:)
[B]Talking about DVI...
[url=http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041129/index.html]*image here*[/url]:D
There's also difference in quality of signal you get out from DVI connector between different cards. (read that article) [/B][/QUOTE]
Psst! Stealing bandwith is wrong. Notice that the image only shows up as a Toms Hardware transparent GIF instead of what you wanted.....its because people are too lazy to save the image and host it THEMSELVES!
If you aren't hosting it yourself, don't embed it!