FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What do you think of this rig?





Denvis
Intel i7 920
EX58-VD3R
6GB DDR3 RAM
1TB HDD 7200RPM
GTX280 OR ATI 5870
650W PS

it comes close to 1.8k AUS. I use computer's a lot. I don't game much and this is more of a gamer's rig however I do edit, have the money and like to have the option to game if I choose to. What do you think? Should i fork out 1.8 grand and buy the parts?

I prefer i7 920 over i5 750, it has a higher QPI. Also, I haven't decided to get GTX or ATI... not sure but I might just go with GTX cause it's cheaper. I don't know, what are your suggestions? I'm not even sure if they're all compatible with each other so if I can get some confirmation that they all do indeed work that would be great.
ForceRun
Looks fine, would be nice hardware to have. I would get the Ati card if you are buying right now. And that is a Nvidia customer talking, Nvidia will release their cards ina month or two so i would wait for them over getting the 280 if you want to go that route.
ocalhoun
Denvis wrote:
I don't game much and this is more of a gamer's rig however I do edit, have the money and like to have the option to game if I choose to.

First of all, if you don't game much, a lesser computer could probably still do all the gaming you want, unless you absolutely must have the latest and greatest games running at max resolution with all the visual effects turned on.

What do you edit? Videos? 3D graphics? Then a powerful computer is justified.
Web code, programming code, images? A much less powerful (and less expensive) computer could do that.

Surely you must have something else in your life that much money could help with?
ForceRun
Even for general use, I think investing in solid hardware is a good idea. If you buy a cheap hp or Dell it will run okay for 2-3 years. But if you build a system like he is talking about you will have a solid computer for at least 5 years. And a good side system for after that. For example, I have build 3 main systems for myself. And all my computers are still up and running, and being used. My old PIII 800Mhz is running for my little sister so she can play the Sims. My AMD 3400+, is up as a back up gaming rig and still works fine as a general computer.
ocalhoun
ForceRun wrote:
If you buy a cheap hp or Dell it will run okay for 2-3 years. But if you build a system like he is talking about you will have a solid computer for at least 5 years.

Well, in my experience, commercially built machines actually tend to be a little bit more reliable than custom-built machines...
They'll become obsolete sooner, but I don't consider something obsolete until it no longer works.
Donutey
If you're spending that kind of money you MUST get a SSD (intel or ocz is probably your best bet).

My suggestion is to get a 80 or 160GB SSD for your programs and OS, and buy the 1TB drive for your media and such.

Even for much less costly computers an upgrade to an SSD is one of the best cost/performance upgrades you can make. You can get a fast 40GB SSD (for an OS and some programs) for about $130USD.
Denvis
ForceRun wrote:
Looks fine, would be nice hardware to have. I would get the Ati card if you are buying right now. And that is a Nvidia customer talking, Nvidia will release their cards ina month or two so i would wait for them over getting the 280 if you want to go that route.


I'm still deciding if I should buy. If I do it would probably be in a couple months time. I think I might just wait.

ocalhoun wrote:
First of all, if you don't game much, a lesser computer could probably still do all the gaming you want, unless you absolutely must have the latest and greatest games running at max resolution with all the visual effects turned on.

What do you edit? Videos? 3D graphics? Then a powerful computer is justified.
Web code, programming code, images? A much less powerful (and less expensive) computer could do that.

Surely you must have something else in your life that much money could help with?


Yes, it is defiantly a must Laughing I figure, if I'm going to pay good money for something, I may as well get the best.

I do bit of everything. However my main focus is more or less video editing. Not so much 3D graphics, although I have just started using 3Ds max. I use AE CS4 though.

There is something else in my life that amount of money would contribute to. It's a 6 grand cbr 250 but that's 4 grand off and will take me a while to save up the entire amount and knowing myself I'd probably spend it all buying little things rather than saving up.

Donutey wrote:
If you're spending that kind of money you MUST get a SSD (intel or ocz is probably your best bet).

My suggestion is to get a 80 or 160GB SSD for your programs and OS, and buy the 1TB drive for your media and such.

Even for much less costly computers an upgrade to an SSD is one of the best cost/performance upgrades you can make. You can get a fast 40GB SSD (for an OS and some programs) for about $130USD.


When I look for performance I normally don't look at hdd so I probably won't be getting a SSD. I'm quite happy with my shabby WD 1TB 7200RPM hdd. I have plenty of external hdd I can use for storage if I needed.

Thanks.
ocalhoun
Quote:
ocalhoun wrote:
First of all, if you don't game much, a lesser computer could probably still do all the gaming you want, unless you absolutely must have the latest and greatest games running at max resolution with all the visual effects turned on.

What do you edit? Videos? 3D graphics? Then a powerful computer is justified.
Web code, programming code, images? A much less powerful (and less expensive) computer could do that.

Surely you must have something else in your life that much money could help with?


Yes, it is defiantly a must Laughing I figure, if I'm going to pay good money for something, I may as well get the best.

Well, I guess it depends on your priorities... For anything that isn't priority 1, 'good enough' is better than best, because it saves more money for priority #1, while still getting the job done.
Quote:

I do bit of everything. However my main focus is more or less video editing. Not so much 3D graphics, although I have just started using 3Ds max. I use AE CS4 though.

So, you do have a productive use for all that power. Hopefully you could use that to make some money.
Quote:

There is something else in my life that amount of money would contribute to. It's a 6 grand cbr 250 but that's 4 grand off and will take me a while to save up the entire amount and knowing myself I'd probably spend it all buying little things rather than saving up.

What? Little things like extra-power computers? Couldn't be!
Jean-Clod
Go for the 5870! Pretty hard to find (at least in Europe), but hey! it's a beast

I agree with what Donutey said: a tiny&fast SSD may actually really help getting better performance! But if you're happy with the 7200rpm HDD, maybe that's enough for you ^^

(BTW, you say 1800 AUS, that means how much in ?)
Denvis
Jean-Clod wrote:
Go for the 5870! Pretty hard to find (at least in Europe), but hey! it's a beast

I agree with what Donutey said: a tiny&fast SSD may actually really help getting better performance! But if you're happy with the 7200rpm HDD, maybe that's enough for you ^^

(BTW, you say 1800 AUS, that means how much in ?)


I did a little research on SSD. They are the future of data storage. Future, not now. There are many advantages because the speed and many other things are faster but not efficient. The more you use an SSD the slower it gets. At least that's what i've read and heard

1,800 in aus is roughly 1,100 - 1,200 euro
ForceRun
The first generation of SSD did have some serious problems such as a short life span, unreliable speed, and such. But they have worked out most of the problems, and most of the drives on the market are solid units that will last just as long as the standard spinning disk drives. The focus of your hardware seems to be focused on power. It is very interesting for people who want a fast computer the hardware that matters the most. The speed and responsiveness of a computer use to be based more on the CPU, as that improved RAM mattered more, RAM is super cheap and abundant now. Gamers speed is still based mainly off the GPU. But as CPUs have advanced, and programs requirements have been reduced, there reaches a point where the speed of the CPU does little to impact the speed of the system.

However, all the task we give our systems have to access the hard drive. So the speed of the hard drive is starting to matter more and more as to the overall speed of the system. Sure with a faster hard drive video encoding won't be significantly improved, but how often do you encode. Most of the time I spend on my system is surfing the net, watching movies and tv shows, sorting files, and such. When I got my VelicoRapier 10,000 RPM WD Sata 2 Hard drive, it felt like I had a new computer. And SSDs are faster. Windows boots in less then half the time. View the hard drive is quick and fast. Programs boot much faster, and access task much faster. As far as gaming goes, I'm first loaded into any multi-player match, load screens flash quickly by. So for what we see when using a computer, windows booting, launching and running apps, and just clicking around your drives the hard drive is the key component. Do yourself a favor and get a fast hard drive or SSD.
Flakky
The GTX280 is way to expensive if you are not going to play games. I do not recommend it because it is very expensive for what you really going to use. Save and buy an SSD Smile
Denvis
ForceRun wrote:
Do yourself a favor and get a fast hard drive or SSD.


Indeed I will. In fact may buy a SSD. Highly unlikely though. I have my mind set out on a HDD somewhere along the lines of 7200RMP. I'm buying 3 so I can tripple boot 3 OS (1 os per hdd) I really don't wanna put so much money into the storage. I'm on a budget and process/motherboard/video card > SDD or 10,000 RPM HDD. Thanks for that insight.

Flakky wrote:
The GTX280 is way to expensive if you are not going to play games. I do not recommend it because it is very expensive for what you really going to use. Save and buy an SSD


It's like $300 - $400 AUS? I think. Last time I checked anyway. So it is pretty expensive. I do play games but not as much as. Maybe once every 2 days and for about 20 - 30mins so If I wasn't to get the GTX 280, what do you suggest?
ocalhoun
Denvis wrote:
ForceRun wrote:
Do yourself a favor and get a fast hard drive or SSD.


Indeed I will. In fact may buy a SSD. Highly unlikely though. I have my mind set out on a HDD somewhere along the lines of 7200RMP. I'm buying 3 so I can tripple boot 3 OS (1 os per hdd) I really don't wanna put so much money into the storage. I'm on a budget and process/motherboard/video card > SDD or 10,000 RPM HDD. Thanks for that insight.

Consider using RAID...
With 3 or more drives, you can set it up to be both more reliable and faster than just one hard drive.
RAID 5 or RAID 0+1 will give you a little more speed and more reliability,
RAID 0 will give you a lot more speed, but actually be less reliable than a single drive.
(And RAID 1 will give you a lot more reliability, but may possibly be slower than a single drive.)

Once using RAID 5, the three drives will behave as one somewhat smaller drive. But, in exchange for giving up that space, you get the added speed and better reliability. (In a 3 drive setup, it could store less, but be 2x faster (by reading/writing from multiple drives at once for the same task), and be far more reliable, because any single drive could be lost without loosing any data.) That 'single drive' could then be partitioned for your multiple OS's.
Adding more drives than 3 will improve the benefits you get while making the cost (in hard drive space) less. (But 3 drives is the minimum for RAID 5; If you only have 2, you can only choose between RAID 1 and RAID 0.)

This site:
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html
Has a pretty good graphic explanation of RAID.
The numbers at the top represent the various kinds of RAID setups; pay the most attention to 0, 1, 0+1, and 5, because those are the simplest and the most common. (And least expensive.)
Serial IDE raid controllers are not hard to find (some motherboards include them), nor are they prohibitively expensive.
(Linux can do software-based raid, but that is slightly slower, and uses processing power, and I don't think windows supports it yet.)
Denvis
ocalhoun wrote:
Denvis wrote:
ForceRun wrote:
Do yourself a favor and get a fast hard drive or SSD.


Indeed I will. In fact may buy a SSD. Highly unlikely though. I have my mind set out on a HDD somewhere along the lines of 7200RMP. I'm buying 3 so I can tripple boot 3 OS (1 os per hdd) I really don't wanna put so much money into the storage. I'm on a budget and process/motherboard/video card > SDD or 10,000 RPM HDD. Thanks for that insight.

Consider using RAID...
With 3 or more drives, you can set it up to be both more reliable and faster than just one hard drive.
RAID 5 or RAID 0+1 will give you a little more speed and more reliability,
RAID 0 will give you a lot more speed, but actually be less reliable than a single drive.
(And RAID 1 will give you a lot more reliability, but may possibly be slower than a single drive.)

Once using RAID 5, the three drives will behave as one somewhat smaller drive. But, in exchange for giving up that space, you get the added speed and better reliability. (In a 3 drive setup, it could store less, but be 2x faster (by reading/writing from multiple drives at once for the same task), and be far more reliable, because any single drive could be lost without loosing any data.) That 'single drive' could then be partitioned for your multiple OS's.
Adding more drives than 3 will improve the benefits you get while making the cost (in hard drive space) less. (But 3 drives is the minimum for RAID 5; If you only have 2, you can only choose between RAID 1 and RAID 0.)

This site:
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html
Has a pretty good graphic explanation of RAID.
The numbers at the top represent the various kinds of RAID setups; pay the most attention to 0, 1, 0+1, and 5, because those are the simplest and the most common. (And least expensive.)
Serial IDE raid controllers are not hard to find (some motherboards include them), nor are they prohibitively expensive.
(Linux can do software-based raid, but that is slightly slower, and uses processing power, and I don't think windows supports it yet.)


RAID 5 I like the idea of linking up all my hdd together but do the pros outweigh the cons? The max storage space will be only as good as the smallest hdd. 500gb? not enough. How will it work if i am to have a different os on each hdd? (I want each hdd to have its own os) is having x2 extra speed worth losing all that space? is it possible to use raid 5 and have different os on each hdd? Also, when you said reliable, what did you mean? more secure data? reduce chance of data loss?
The-Nisk
If you have the money this is what you should go for:


    Intel i7 975 Extreme Edition
    Nvidia's new Fermi architecture GPU (you'll have to wait for it a bit)
    1x HDD (12000 r.p.m.) + 2/3/...x HDD (7200 r.p.m.) RAID.
    Insert fancy/fast motherboard here
    Some neat cpu/gpu cooling


Install your OS on the faster HDD and use the other(s) for storage - Your system will fly (hopefully not out the window - pun intended).
ocalhoun
Denvis wrote:


RAID 5 I like the idea of linking up all my hdd together but do the pros outweigh the cons?

Cons:
cost of controller card (if not included on motherboard)
Reduces space some (by a fraction of the total space available... it doesn't limit to the size of the largest drive.)
more difficult to set up
works best if all drives are the same size

Pros:
Faster (read/write from multiple disks at the same time)
More reliable (any single drive can completely fail without causing any data loss)
Quote:
The max storage space will be only as good as the smallest hdd. 500gb? not enough.

Not true for Raid 5. In a setup with three 500GB disks, it would make those three disks appear to be one 1000GB disk. (A very fast and reliable 1000GB disk) In a setup with four disks, it would only remove 1/4 of each disk, for five, 1/5th, and so on.
Quote:
How will it work if i am to have a different os on each hdd? (I want each hdd to have its own os)

The drives would all be combined into one virtual 'drive'... You could partition that, but all the OS's would still think that they were on the same hard drive.
Quote:
is having x2 extra speed worth losing all that space?

(Assuming your 3 500GB disk setup)
You'd have to decide which is more important: 2x speed or 1.5x storage space.
That just depends on your priorities and what you want to do with it.
Quote:
is it possible to use raid 5 and have different os on each hdd?

No, all the OS's would share the 'single disk' created by the RAID system.
(You could have a separate 'single disk' for each OS, but you'd have to have 3 hard drives per OS.)
Quote:
Also, when you said reliable, what did you mean? more secure data? reduce chance of data loss?

Reduce chance of data loss.
That extra space that's wasted? It's used to make a backup copy of all the data on the drives.
That way, any one of the three (or more) drives could completely fail, but the data on it could be reconstructed by the remaining two drives, so you wouldn't loose any.
Denvis
ocalhoun wrote:
Cons:
cost of controller card (if not included on motherboard)
Reduces space some (by a fraction of the total space available... it doesn't limit to the size of the largest drive.)
more difficult to set up
works best if all drives are the same size

Pros:
Faster (read/write from multiple disks at the same time)
More reliable (any single drive can completely fail without causing any data loss)


Can you tell me a bit more about controller cards?
Is the reduction of space inevitable? What happens if all my HDD are the same will I still lose space? or it is because it's a RAID 5 system space will always be lost and used for backup purposes?

ocalhoun wrote:
No, all the OS's would share the 'single disk' created by the RAID system.
(You could have a separate 'single disk' for each OS, but you'd have to have 3 hard drives per OS.)


So If I decide to go with RAID 5 and link up all 3 HDD together forming 1 virtual disk. Have all 3 os installed on the 1 virtual disk but on 3 separate partitions would I still need to go into my BIOS and choose which os to run on? Or will there be some form of GUI which will allow me to choose?

If I have an ext HDD it won't affect the RAID 5 system, right?

If I have 3TB of storage (assuming each hdd are all 1TB each) i'd lose 1/3 of the total space? which is 1TB?

I don't have a clue on how to setup RAID 5, do you think with a little research I can do it on my own or would I need to hire a pro do it for me?
ocalhoun
Denvis wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Cons:
cost of controller card (if not included on motherboard)
Reduces space some (by a fraction of the total space available... it doesn't limit to the size of the largest drive.)
more difficult to set up
works best if all drives are the same size

Pros:
Faster (read/write from multiple disks at the same time)
More reliable (any single drive can completely fail without causing any data loss)


Can you tell me a bit more about controller cards?

Usually a PCI card with several hard drive connections on it. (Sometimes built into the motherboard instead of on a card.)
Here's a selection of cards you could use.
Out of that selection, I would recommend this one or this one.
(Because those two have 3 or more internal SATA ports, which you'll need in order to use RAID 5.)

Note! Not all cards (or motherboard built-in units) support RAID 5. Make sure a card or motherboard has more than 2 SATA ports, and make sure it says it supports RAID 5 before buying it. (Some only support RAID 1 or 0)
Quote:

Is the reduction of space inevitable? What happens if all my HDD are the same will I still lose space? or it is because it's a RAID 5 system space will always be lost and used for backup purposes?

Yes, in RAID 5, you'll always loose 1/(number of drives) of your space, so it can create backup copies of all the files.
(Also, if the drives are different sizes, it will act as if all the drives are the size of the smallest one, which is why it's best to have all the drives be the same size.)

RAID 0 is faster than 5, and lets you use all your space, but it is very risky to use: if any of the drives fail, you'll loose all the data on all the drives.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
No, all the OS's would share the 'single disk' created by the RAID system.
(You could have a separate 'single disk' for each OS, but you'd have to have 3 hard drives per OS.)


So If I decide to go with RAID 5 and link up all 3 HDD together forming 1 virtual disk. Have all 3 os installed on the 1 virtual disk but on 3 separate partitions would I still need to go into my BIOS and choose which os to run on? Or will there be some form of GUI which will allow me to choose?

There would be a GUI to allow you to choose which OS to boot; it will be provided by the last OS you install. So, if you're adding Linux as one of the OS's, install it last, so that you can use the (much better) OS-choosing-GUI (aka bootloader) that is included with Linux.

A couple decent guides on how to set up a dual-boot system:
For RedHat
For Ubuntu
(You can probably find a guide written specifically for the OS you want, if you search for it.)
An article about setting up a triple-boot (3 OS) system on one drive.

It can be complicated, but some Linux distros will set up a dual, triple, whatever-boot system automatically for you. (SuSE does). The trick is to install a Linux distro that does this after installing all the other OS's.
(Also, make sure you tell the linux installers to not modify the MBR of the disk- Windows requires a certain Master Boot Record in order to work, but most Linux distros don't need it.
Quote:

If I have an ext HDD it won't affect the RAID 5 system, right?

Right. Only disks that are originally set up as part of the RAID system will affect it in any way.
Quote:

If I have 3TB of storage (assuming each hdd are all 1TB each) i'd lose 1/3 of the total space? which is 1TB?

I think this is correct. With 4 drives, you'd loose 1/4th, with 5, 1/5th, and so on.
Quote:

I don't have a clue on how to setup RAID 5, do you think with a little research I can do it on my own or would I need to hire a pro do it for me?


Three decent guides on how to set up a RAID system:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/393/1
http://www.pcworld.com/article/132877/how_to_set_up_raid_on_your_pc.html
http://www.pctechguide.com/tutorials/RAID.htm
Related topics
your specs
Longhorn And XP Patch 15% Increse In Program Loading Time
Overclocking.....
Mac vs. PC?
XGI Volari V8 Graphic Card, 256MB DDR2, AGP8x.
PC or MAC?
What Computer have you got!!!
Radeon x1800xt or nVidia 7800gtx 512mb
Ram Question
Post Your Rig!
What's your rig?
Rig of the Month (March)
My new Trail Rig (new pics) It's an International Harvester!
What do you think about my new custom built rig?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Hardware and Electronics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.