View Full Version : [OT] Final computer specification
So... after reading various reviews and stuff I have come to the following decision for a new computer:
ASUS Radeon AX800XT/TVD/256M X800XT Platinum
Asus A8V Deluxe/Wifi-g, K8T800 4DDR, AGP 8X, Lan, Wifi
AMD Athlon 64 3800+/2.4Ghz L2-512KB Box 939p
Selectra 2x512MB PC3200 CAS2.5-7-4-4 400MHz (Dual Channel)
Western Digital Raptor WD740GD, 74 GB SATA, 10000 rpm
Philips 200P4SS/20.1" TFT .255 94kHz TCO03 20,1" LCD, 1600x1200, 176/176, 16ms, DVI&VGA, dual cable
I was tempted to wait for the s939 FX-53, but from what I gather, the speed gained is very little and it doesn't really justify the price/wait.
Regarding the monitor, from what I've heard this is a darn good monitor with 16ms response time. I have a very good Samsung 19" CRT now, but it is just too ugly and bulky. I want to leave the CRT "era" for good.
Also, I'll go for a padded AcoustiCase which is supposedly very good at killing noise.
Any thoughts? :)
Yeah....
Don't make us jealous by posting your fps when you log in to neocron :-)
Yeah....
Don't make us jealous by posting your fps when you log in to neocron :-)
I'll be sure to wait for that until NC uses DX9 :p ;)
jesus, if you have that much money to spend on a new comp, go ahead and get 2 gigs of ram, might as well since your getting an amd 64 3800 and xt PLATNUM (not worth the price unless you have money to burn in my opinion) you might as well go all out. Other then that should be insane, my AMD 64 3400 1 gig of corsair 3200 Radeon pro smokes, so that comp should be sick.
jesus, if you have that much money to spend on a new comp, go ahead and get 2 gigs of ram, might as well since your getting an amd 64 3800 and xt PLATNUM (not worth the price unless you have money to burn in my opinion) you might as well go all out. Other then that should be insane, my AMD 64 3400 1 gig of corsair 3200 Radeon pro smokes, so that comp should be sick.
o_O I am just now reading about GF6800 Ultra EXTREME, which supposedly should kick ass o_O
Damnit.. I hate this... :p
Also, it might seem that Samsung is a better choice for the monitor. Been reading up on some gamer forums and people are generally happy with them.
Might go for the 19" version then, since that is somewhat more economic :p
u dont need a LCD screen... its such a rip off. My monitor is a 22" CRT NEC Multisync FE1250+. The quality is excellent, It goes above 1600X1200... though i cant remeber how high, some uselessy high ress. It cost me $700 3 years ago, was $1000 in stores but I got it online. I belive www.monitordepot.com, but its been 3 years... Anyway, its a bitch to lift at about 70lbs... but how often do I pick it up? Fact is, it looks BETTER then an LCD, its biggers then most, and it cost 1/3 as much.
Make sure if you get a 6800 your PSU is at least 480 watt...
Problem is I don't want a CRT screen. It's so ugly and bulky.
Mainly because I'm a design ************ and I want things to look slim and clean :p
It's like you enter my living room, see the beautiful LCD TV.. and then you see the computer monitor and "wtf?!" o_O
well, if thats worth a HUGE price diff to you, If your buying a 3800 amd 64 and a xt800 platnum, $ is no object so it doesnt matter. But even if I was rich id still buy a CRT. I cant understand you or anyone who buys an LCD, but its your $.
I know that CRTs are still better, response wise etc.
For me, it's a pure design matter :)
I'd personally buy more memory, a very good system board with lots of cache memory, really fast harddrives (15000 rpm minimum) with low access time/high datatransfer rate. Killing/minimising virtual memory useage will help too.
If possible, i'd create a huge ramdisk and play games from that, i hate it when u play a FSP game on internet and the game laggs because some intern-wannabe-programmer forgot to load that sound into memory with the map.
As for sound, gor some quite fast card, soundcards can quickly become the bottleneck in a system. As for monitor, Ditch any CRT totally and go for a large one. You be glad you did, when i get a real income, i'm getting a large TFT screen and all the above stuff.
If you buy something that will last, it will last till your next upgrade. If not, it will suck when you buy your next game.
Personally, I have a 19" CRT monitor atm, and I really don't see any reason on going bigger, nor on going flatscreen or LCD or whatever. My desk is large enough to fit it on easily, and it was alot cheaper. Winnar!
Go phunge... is money really like, no problem?
Yeah, was thinking of the game-in-ram-memory as well :p
As for the money, I'll spend about $3000-3500 in total.
EDIT: That would be the money spent here in Sweden that is. In the US, you would get more for the same amount of money.
Logan_storm_03
28-06-04, 11:40
damn it man, u had to make me jealours :P, my computer is practicly made out of wood :(
I can see the need for over 1GB of RAM yet, but I could understand if you went for Quad Channel. :p
If you're spending that much anyway and going for S-ATA, get a second hard drive and set it up for RAID 0.
If you're spending that much anyway and going for S-ATA, get a second hard drive and set it up for RAID 0.
I did think of that. However, I have a file server in my closet so I don't really need that much space on my "work" computer :)
Was thinking of getting the 36Gb only even, since that is a little bit faster apparently.
Only need space for a couple of games and temporary pr0n anyway :p
And even with a PC- that high spec -
* FATAL RUN TIME ERROR * :lol:
just get a DELL like MJS then no-one will fatal :rolleyes:
And even with a PC- that high spec -
* FATAL RUN TIME ERROR * :lol:
just get a DELL like MJS then no-one will fatal :rolleyes:
I was actually thinking of getting a dell...
Dell Sweden has begun to sell the XPS systems with the X800XT PCI-e cards.
Only with Intel CPUs though, which is a bit of a let down.
Given the obvious performance difference I mean...
I wish I has a pc like that I really bloody do, when you see me pvp i'm on
1.7 ghz amd oc'ed to 2.2(ish) ghz
512mb pc2100
gf4 4200ti
Soltek pos mobo DLV-75
I cant wait to see your run speed dude, WARP 10 LA FORGE!!!! SHE CANNE TAKE IT CAPTIN!!! oh wrong series...
ROFL, I just checked what that Dell XPS would cost with their 20" LCD... $5300
o_O
I'm at $3500 now with a samsung 12ms LCD monitor and the other things I listed above (Excluding the philips monitor).
The Intel and PCI-e seems to really rush the price up.
EDIT: Ok, I actually said "rofl" out loud now o_O
You were right not to go with the fx 53, 939 is a better socket and other that the fx53 is identical to the 3800 but its multiplier unlocked, an unlocked chip of this desgin is not worth an extra £200.
A 16ms monitor transmit time is high for gaming, if you have the room on your desktop get a good CRT with a sony trinitron tube :)
MY PRRRRRECIOOOOOOOUSSSSSSSSS
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1728/
*sees VISA card implode* :p
If i was to spend that amount of money on a pc, i certainly wouldnt be buying some of the hardware you are
pc3200 ram? lol
If i was to spend that amount of money on a pc, i certainly wouldnt be buying some of the hardware you are
pc3200 ram? lol
I'm not going to overclock it anyway.. Besides, the store I will buy it at lacks corsair and the like atm (for some reason)...
ANYWAY... The SLI 2xGF6800 PCI-e config with a xeon and a intel xeon MB + RAM would cost me just a liiiittle more than the above, but without monitor and the other rubbish... I can TOTALLY live with that :p
rofl.
EDIT: I'm going to implode soon.. I'll need to calm down and think this over :p
EDIT 2: Yes, I've probably hit my head.
EDIT 3: Grrrr.. the PCI-e GF6800 cards won't be here until Q3-Q4.
I did think of that. However, I have a file server in my closet so I don't really need that much space on my "work" computer :)
Was thinking of getting the 36Gb only even, since that is a little bit faster apparently.
Only need space for a couple of games and temporary pr0n anyway :p
RAID 0 means you wouldn't have any extra storage space. It means everything will load up faster (plus Windows will perform better when it does its crazy "I want to use a swap file despite the 800MB of free RAM" thing).
RAID 0 means you wouldn't have any extra storage space. It means everything will load up faster (plus Windows will perform better when it does its crazy "I want to use a swap file despite the 800MB of free RAM" thing).
Ok, I admit I didn't read your post properly :p
RAID 0 is crazy. I'll sleep on it :p
I suggest you try using a flatpanel before you buy one (if you havent already) just to make sure you will like it. In particular, the fact that there will be some ghosting of moving images. True, the ghosting is very much reduced for 16ms response time, but it will still exist. If that doesnt bother you though, a flatpanel can be a dandy choice - much crisper than ordinary monitors. Also, if you have not yet read up on the other pros and cons of flatpanel displays i suggest you do so before buying; also good if you can find a professional review of that particular device.
Spook @ Pluto
Some Raid descriptions ...
Striping (RAID 0): Reads and writes sectors of data interleaved between multiple drives. When any disk member fails, it affects the entire array. Performance is better than a single drive since the workload is balanced between the array members. This array type is for high performance systems. Identical drives are recommended for performance as well as data storage efficiency. The disk array data capacity is equal to the number of drive members times the smallest member capacity. For example, one 1GB and three 1.2GB drives will form a 4GB (4 x 1GB) disk array.
Mirroring (RAID 1): Writes duplicate data on to a pair of drives while reads are performed in parallel. ATA RAID 1 is fault tolerant because each drive of a mirrored pair is installed on separate IDE channels. If one of the mirrored drives suffers a mechanical failure (e.g. spindle failure) or does not respond, the remaining drive will continue to function. This is called Fault Tolerance. If one drive has a physical sector error, the mirrored drive will continue to function.
Striping/Mirroring (RAID 0+1): A combination of both above array types. It can increase performance by reading and writing data in parallel while protecting data with duplication. A minimum of four drives needs to be installed. With a four-drive disk array, two pairs of drives are striped. Each pair mirrors the data on the other pair of striped drives. The data capacity is similar to a standard Mirroring array with half of total capacity dedicated for redundancy.
With Intel's new Matrix Raid, a pair of drives are each split into two partitions and the partitions are then striped and mirrored to provide both speed and redundancy of data; i.e. it acts like you have 4 distinct disk drives ala Raid 0+1, when in fact you only have 2.
Spook @ Pluto
Comp looks very nice, though me being a cheap skate would rather buy an A643000+ for £150 and overclock it to its £500 big brother linkz0r (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5) using the very board you have (and only board able) to do it (the bios for that isnt released publicly yet though, but will be)
Edit/ I forgot to add what i originally was going to say...http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMz http://graphics.tomshardware.com/index.html
Its not yet known if they will be adding it for the NV4x but i think they will for $$$....obviously 2 6800ultra's @ £400 a shot is pretty expensive :lol: nevermind how much a 2 slot 16x PCIe mobo would cost (when they come out)
With Intel's new Matrix Raid, a pair of drives are each split into two partitions and the partitions are then striped and mirrored to provide both speed and redundancy of data; i.e. it acts like you have 4 distinct disk drives ala Raid 0+1, when in fact you only have 2.
Erm, can't say I know much about this, but if you are writing half of the information to one drive, and half to the other, to gain the simultaneous bonus of both drives, but then you go ahead and write each piece of information twice, didn't you just nullify the speed gain you just got?
The RAM you've chosen has poor CAS latency. Especially for PC-3200 DDR memory. I could understand 2.5-4-4-7 at PC-4500 speeds... but 3200? Come on. My PC-2700 memory runs at 2-3-3-6 overclocked to PC-3200!
Also, only 512K L2 cache on that chip? hm.
Comp looks very nice, though me being a cheap skate would rather buy an A643000+ for £150 and overclock it to its £500 big brother linkz0r using the very board you have (and only board able) to do it (the bios for that isnt released publicly yet though, but will be)
Precisely. You could buy a system that is 9/10ths as fast, and it would cost 3/5 the price, and you could overclock it to something faster.
Ok, I admit I didn't read your post properly :p
RAID 0 is crazy. I'll sleep on it :pRAID 0 is quite nice. :D If you want the mother of all storage with that motherboard, simply buy 6 74 GB WD Raptors, set 2 as RAID 0 for the OS, and the other 4 as RAID 0 for massively fast storage. :D ;) Of course, in RAID 0, if one HD goes, you lose *all* data in the array.
--Stryfe
Can't you go for 2^n+1 drives for a parity that way you don't lose information if one hdd goes? I forget which that's called, RAID-5? RAID 10? (1+0) or something, I don't know. but that's what I'd do.
RAID 5: RAID 5 throws out mirroring in favor of striping with distributed parity. As with RAID 0, data is striped across the array's multiple drives, but this time, a parity bit is also calculated. An index of these parity bits is spread across each drive in the array. Maintaining that index of parity bits slows down a RAID 5 array's performance, but gives it a level of redundancy that striped RAID 0 arrays otherwise lack. If a drive is lost, a RAID 5 array can rebuild itself using the data on the other physical disks, the parity bit index, and some simple binary math.
The storage capacity of a RAID 5 array depends on the number of drives in the array. The parity bit index requires storage capacity equal to the size of one of the physical disks in a RAID 5 array. The more physical drives in a RAID 5 array, the less overall storage capacity, percentage-wise, is eaten by the parity index.
RAID 10 versus 0+1: RAID 10 and 0+1 are similar in that they attempt to achieve better performance and redundancy by combining RAID 0 and RAID 1 arrays. However, RAID 10 and 0+1 go about combining mirroring and striping a little differently. RAID 10 is a striped set of mirrored arrays, while RAID 0+1 is a mirrored pair of striped arrays. Striped mirrors versus mirrored stripes.
Spook @ Pluto
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.