Jump to content
Comet Forums
Dark_Shroud

My new baby.

Recommended Posts

This is my first new PC in 7 years. It's also the first I built compleatly from scratch for myself. It works so fast now that I actually don't know what to do now besides surf and play games when I have time.

Core i7 2600K

Noctua NH-U12P SE2 aftermarket CPU cooler

Gigabyte P67A-UD3-B3

Sapphire AMD HD 6970 2GB

Dell SP2309w native res @ 2048x1152

WD Black HDs

LiteOn BD-ROM

Plextor DVD-RW with Light Scribe

Corsair Vengence (2 x 4GB) 1600 (8-8-8-24)

Corsair HX1000

Cooler Master HAF 932

Killer 2100

When I'm able to get some more money together I'll be getting some Intel SSDs.

The PC I upgraded from is an old P4 system, I'll leave it at that unless you guys actually want to know. :)

Edited by Dark_Shroud (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what, pray tell, are "SSDs"?

The PC I upgraded from is an old P4 system, I'll leave it at that unless you guys actually want to know. smile.gif

P4 is old? Does that mean that my desktop (Pentium III - 800) is prehistoric, then?? No. Wait... I don't wanna know :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSD (solid state drive) Basically a harddrive without moving parts, kinda like a usb memory stick, but with sata2/3 interface so it CAN actually transfer the 3/6gb/s data that the technology supports. For example, and SATA2 drive can transfer 3gb/s, but not if it has to read/write it too.. WAIT!!! isn't "read/write" ALL a harddrive does?

Short answer, yes!

Your harddrive does have a cache, and it can transfer from that cache to the cpu/ram at 3gb/s, but it cannot sustain the speed because it runs out of data to send. However, sata2 is loads faster then anything prior, even ditched my very expensive SCSI harddrives to use it, but SolidState is the future.

The downside is Capicity/cost. It's a vicious balance, the small ones are fairly cheap, but who wants a small harddrive, and an even modest size one begins to get hugely expensive.

Most high-end systems use a single SSD drive to run the operating system and any vital programs, and a second SATA drive for storage.

SSD is the future of laptops, being the move a lot, and movement id difficult for drives to handle. I want to get SSD drives for my laptops, but I'm waiting for a good design to come out.

What I want is an SSD drive that plugs into your SATA internal connector, and still leaes room for an SATA harddrive to connect.

Either the SSD drive would need to be tiny, or perhaps make it a full size 2.5 inch enclosure with SSD that holds an internal 1.8" sata drive.

They do have Hybrid drives, both SSD and SATA, but I'd prefer to be able to replace/upgrade the SATA without losing my very expensive SSD.

Keep in mind that if well made, and SSD will outlive a dozen sata drives... (barring electrical surge of course) no moving parts to wear out.

ps. Nice system m8, bet it smokes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually TUUS you "forgot" to mention the current downsides of SSD. Two of the most poignant are:

  • the limited number of write operations any address location on a SSD can sustain (granted it's in the hundred of thousands magnitude order, but still) which leads to the new axiom regarding SSDs and magnetic HDDs: "whith magnetic drives the question was IF your drive was going to fail, with SSDs the question is WHEN your drive is going to fail you".
    There are quite a lot of computers which run smoothly OS-es such as DOS and the likes of it with working applications to the day, and are even as old as 20 years! Their HDDs haven't failed yet. You won't be able to say the same thing about a SSD currently manufactured, in 20 years.
  • related to the first, is also the second issue: while the most expensive SSDs have special algorithms implemented in firmware, which help minimize the "wearing" of the SSD flash cells by making sure that data is being written with equal frequency across the whole disk span, the more cheap ones don't have such performant algorithms implemented or don't have them at all, therefore you may soon end up with a drive with certain address locations which won't be written anymore (due to more extensive usage) even though the rest of the disk is still usable. This makes choosing a really good SSD all the more difficult, at present time.

The above-mentioned conditions make SSD a very good choice for holding OS and applications (as they will run way faster) but not the most recommended choice for any sensible data or any files that you may want stored for long term.

Granted, these childhood diseases will probably be overcome (or perhaps an even better storing technology will emerge), but at present time even if the costs went downhill SSD still wouldn't be able to totally and reliably replace magnetic storage devices.

P4 is old?

:lol: Are you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, Cassie, I found a system just like yours.

They were digging a foundation for a new building, and found it among potsherds and ancient firepits. There was a cool flint arrowhead, too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks wiz, very valid point. I assumed they had surpassed that problem with ssd drives. I don't own one, so haven't researched it that deep. I just assumed they would use methods that could be rewritten an infinite number of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very earliest computers held their essential operating systems in Read-Only Memory (ROM's). This was before disks came along. The instructions for, say, reading from a cassette, reading from the keyboard and displaying on the screen, were burned (programmed) into a ROM.

Solid-state drives are tending back that way, a fast way to store and retrieve the operating system, very rarely written to and often read from -- essentially Read-Only Memory.

What I found in my recent system-building adventure is that while a lot of things *are* faster, they're not *enough* faster to really make any noticeable difference. I found this to be so in case after case.

The difference between the AMD Athlon II processor and the Phenom processor is that the latter has a Level 3 (L3) cache. Does this really make a difference? Well, yes, measurably, but not enough that you're going to notice any difference in day-to-day operations. You'll save a lot of money on the difference.

The fastest Intel processor is a LOT faster than the fastest AMD processor, but that fast Intel costs over a thousand dollars US. AMD still gives you much more bang for the buck at middle range.

You can get a processor with four cores, but nobody has ever demonstrated appreciably better application speeds at four cores vs. two cores. Two vs. one, yes, but not four vs. two. Now that may be a software issue, and future applications may use the other cores more efficiently, but that hasn't happened yet. It's a gamble whether it will. Meanwhile, two cores are definitely worth the money, four cores, maybe not. (I went with four anyway, because of the terms of the deal I got.)

DDR-3 memory comes in a variety of speeds, with the faster being increasingly expensive. But the difference between memory rated at 1333 and 1600 is tiny. You won't really see the advantage of DDR 3 over DDR2 until speeds get above 1800 or so, but that's very pricey still. I concluded that paying extra for 1600 speed is just not worth it

So also with SSD speed over fast SATA-2 speed -- just not enough to be worth the money. As the price drops, as the drives get more reliable, someday SSD may be worth doing as your OS drive. Not now, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, Cassie, I found a system just like yours.

They were digging a foundation for a new building, and found it among potsherds and ancient firepits. There was a cool flint arrowhead, too!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That was a killer one.

Sorry Cassie, no offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P4 is old? Does that mean that my desktop (Pentium III - 800) is prehistoric, then?? No. Wait... I don't wanna know :(

Cassie, last month I sent out another P4 system that I could have shipped to you. At 2.4ghz it would have been an upgrade for you. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you come across a P4 mobile cpu that will fit a thinkpad A31, I'd like to upgrade mine. I currently have 2 (1.6ghz) and 1 (1.9ghz). They will take upto 2.6ghz pentium4m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cassie, if it comforts you in any way, I've seen schools here that don't have the luxury of a PIII...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that you were into archeaology, kluelos... :lol:

You mean that the Intel Core i7-980X on my netbook is not good enough, then?? :rolleyes:

Seriously, my net book has this

netbook-1.jpg

Bear in mind that, apart from the fact that prices for computers (any kind) are a lot steeper than in the USA, my main beef is that of my connection... both the speed/service and its price (worst and highest in Europe, respectively). :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know exactly what is in an "Atom" processor. I know the benchmarks put an Atom at about half the speed of a single core Pentium mobile processor. However, I have a notebook with a pentium 1.6ghz which should be twice as fast as our kitties netbook, but this laptop is so slow that I can't imagine someting being sold today (bought mine in 2002) without having evey unit returned after one day of use.

I've also read that some newer atoms have dual core and internal GPU, so is an Atom now becoming a rebranded "i" series chip that doesn't meet the standards? like the celeron chips used to be defective pentiums that the L2 cache didn't work. Since the "i" series introduced the internal GPU, I'd say its likely some atoms went down the "i" series line.

On another subject. A "Scene" group released Win 7 "starter" edition today. I've been wanting this. If it's what microsoft claims, then it might be a good OS to run on all my computers being it has all the bloat stripped off. I'm just afraid that they have removed some things that are needed to do highend stuff, like perhaps multiple core support perhaps.

I downloaded it, but I'd like any info you guys have on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very middle-of-the-road for a netbook, nothing to be dismissed. On the other hand, it IS a netbook, with all that implies. It just wasn't made for serious converting or intensive computation, and the Atom is a lightweight processor more concerned with extending battery life than anything else. That's a good priority for a netbook.

Can you buy from other merchants and have the merchandise shipped to you? You should be able to get competitive pricing on hardware, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if I install win7 starter on my old laptop, will it run twice as fast as a current netbook?

I'm sure the netbooks have faster harddrives and ram memory, but if the pentium really is twice as fast as an atom, then I'm guessing the OS must make the difference.

Are there any holes in my theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that a lot of stuff got added on to the processor over time. First there was the numerical coprocessor -- a separate chip, to be added to the mainboard in a separate socket, in the 286 days. Now it's part of the CPU. Then there were the MMX enhanced instructions. Now, the second generation of Core processors all come with a GPU built-in.

The Atom is a stripped-down processor, with this sort of thing left out in order to extend battery life. I don't think that the OS will make much of a difference. It's worth trying, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Since I'm completly lost with your current discussion (nothing new, I know, but don't worry about it... I'm used to it), the only thing that I can apport is that, when I purchased my netbook, it originally came with the option of either having (I'm pretty sure) "Windows 7 Starter" or "Win XP Home".

The only thing that the technician said about Windows 7 Starter was that he personally thought that it was "very poor" and, quite frankly, "caca" ('poop'). Since I already had Win XP Pro on my desktop (yup, the Pentium III - now an 'antique' - that I acquired, way back in 2000) and was used to it, I opted to go with that OS, instead (knowing full well that MS intended to phase it out in the very near future).

Now, is my super-duper post, here, of any value/interest to you at all? If not... just ignore it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That salesman was an a** to tell you that. Yes Win7 Starter is limited but it's better than XP and its actually designed to run on ultra portables.

kluelos, don't forget that the memory controller is also now built in the the Intel Core CPUs the same as AMD's Phenom & soon Bulldozer series. The next big CPU upgrade will hopefully be some type of eDRAM. Because AMD is able to use the Crossfire tech for the on-die "vector" (GPU) core & stand alone video cards to work with each other. If they mix sideport or eDRAM into that it will be a great combo. Intel could use this as an opportunity to revive RAMBUS if they wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark_Shroud, what (if any) disadvantages (or advantages) would I get if I switched from Seven ultimate to Starter?

Also, I have a laptop with an amd phenum II triple core. Someone told me my os (win7 premium x64) could only use 2 cores, but if that was true, would HP have shipped with that default OS? seems unlikely.

Also, it only has 512k L2 cache, where their 2x core cpus have 1 or 2mb of cache. My laptop was very cheap, so I can't complain, but I am curious about this processor's performance. The AMD website offers no comparison of performance, only list it's stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark_Shroud, what (if any) disadvantages (or advantages) would I get if I switched from Seven ultimate to Starter?

At the most you would see a general performance boost. But you would probably notice it feeling restricted in settings after having used Ultimate. For laptops upgrading to an SSD is the best upgrade you can do.

Also, I have a laptop with an amd phenum II triple core. Someone told me my os (win7 premium x64) could only use 2 cores, but if that was true, would HP have shipped with that default OS? seems unlikely.

Whoever told you that doesn't know what they're talking about. I've built PCs running AMD Phenom II x3s without issuess with Windows seeing & using all the cores.

Also, it only has 512k L2 cache, where their 2x core cpus have 1 or 2mb of cache. My laptop was very cheap, so I can't complain, but I am curious about this processor's performance. The AMD website offers no comparison of performance, only list it's stats.

Honestly I'm not sure how that's measured without reading up on the specific CPU. But in reality you want a minmum 2mb of L2 cache to not have it be a bottle neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I read in a review is that the windows version this laptop comes with, (windows 7 home premium x64) can only use two cores and I'd have to upgrade to profession or ultimate version to use all three. It sounded strange, but I've seen stranger, like Lenovo selling a laptop with 16gb ram with win7 32bit, which only has address space for 4gb and can use even less (3-3.5gb), so I guess I could imagine manufactures just throwing parts together without concern for them being a good choice.

How can you confirm they are all working? It lists all three in device manager with no warning about any being disabled, but I haven't seen any utilities that actually test them.

As for the Cache, all the phenum II (3core) mobile processors have 512k L2 cache. The Turion (2core) processors have 1 or 2mb L2 cache.

I can't really complain about the HP, it's about the best laptop you can get under $600 that has a 17inch screen, so I can't complain, I just find the cpu design very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a rumor from before any version of Win7 was released. According to Paul Thurrot, all versions of Win7 do support unlimited cores.

There is still a grain of truth to this, though. Nobody's been able to demonstrate actual significant improvement of performance with more than 2 cores, on normal applications in normal consumer use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that win7 starter only supports 2gB of ram, so I guess thats out for an option as far as I'm concerned, unless its going on an old computer of course.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/aa366778.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...