Am I chasing the last 5% here?

[Upgr8er]

Hi All. I'm contemplating my upcoming build and I was planning on dual everything . . . dual processor, dual video, dual HD in some form of RAID setup. I dove in the forums here and elsewhere and I'm learning about the pros and cons of chipsets and components but I recently had a seemingly knowledgable tech rep from MSI tell me some things that I'll talk about below.

He said for MY uses (gaming and general use - NO cad or video editing) I would not see much improvement over a single GOOD video and single GOOD hard drive.

In some of my other hobbies (RC helicopters for one) I've found that as you advance up the ladder of better equipment, you start to hit a point of dimishing returns. In other words, lets say the absolute best system is $6000 but one 95% as good is about $3000 . . . does that sound accurate?. My question is basically if dual video and dual hard drives in raid are going to be wasted for my uses.

Maybe I should just get a single kick ass video card and a single great hard drive and be happy with the 95% (assuming that's true)? Because I easily could be.

What about doing RAID 1 just for the redundancy . . . is that worth it?

Thanks All . . . I look forward to your comments.

UPGR8ER.

 

[AVP]

Not a hard drive expert but I suspect that if you get a Western Digital Raptor than you would be all set. A raid setup won't really help gaming or general use to the best of my knowledge. Though you might want to consider getting two hard drives for the sake of storage and maybe a little backup of any business files on there.

Also getting an 8series Nvidia will be much better than using two video cards, ala SLI or Crossfire. You DO want a dual core chipset though, but it seems like you know that.

take my advice with a grain of salt

 

[stogez]

Go with single 8800GTX or wait for whatever DX10 cards ATI comes up with. Go with the raptor or if want RAID 0. I think you might see an improvement in load times for games with RAID 0 over the raptor but not 100% sure.
RAID 1 for redundancy depends on your needs. Do you backup your data? Is your data valuable or can you live with it if your drive dies with all your data? Its worth it if your data is valuable and you don't want to do daily backups.

 

[Matthias99]

Not a hard drive expert but I suspect that if you get a Western Digital Raptor than you would be all set. A raid setup won't really help gaming or general use to the best of my knowledge. Though you might want to consider getting two hard drives for the sake of storage and maybe a little backup of any business files on there.

Agreed. RAID (generally) does very little to help with 'desktop'-type computing (other than adding redundancy if you run RAID1 or RAID5/6). The main thing that RAID0 helps with is transfer rate when load/saving/moving 'big' (at least 100+MB) files around. Most users just aren't pushing that much data around very frequently. Also, depending on what you are doing, having multiple separate (fast) hard drives can actually be better than RAID0 in terms of application performance. Any time you read and write to the same drive or array simultaneously, performance suffers tremendously.

If you care about protecting your data, backups are better than RAID -- RAID helps mostly in cases of disk drive failure, but there are plenty of things it doesn't protect you from. Obviously, having both would be ideal, but in general backing up regularly to an external hard drive will do more for you.

Also getting an 8series Nvidia will be much better than using two video cards, ala SLI or Crossfire. You DO want a dual core chipset though, but it seems like you know that.

Well... two 8800s would be better than just one, but one 8800GTX is going to wipe the floor with pretty much anything else available right now short of two 8800GTXs. And running SLI/Crossfire still can be tricky; you may have to play around with drivers and configurations. However, if you want to run a 24"/30" LCD monitor, a dual-card solution may provide significantly better performance in newer games at high settings. It's not an 100% improvement, but it's usually at least a 50% increase in GPU-limited situations.

In terms of video cards, ATI is supposed to have their new DX10 cards coming out within 6-8 weeks, so if you're thinking top-of-the-line you may want to wait and see what they release (and if NVIDIA puts out something new or cuts prices in response).

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Upgr8er
Hi All. I'm contemplating my upcoming build and I was planning on dual everything . . . dual processor, dual video, dual HD in some form of RAID setup. I dove in the forums here and elsewhere and I'm learning about the pros and cons of chipsets and components but I recently had a seemingly knowledgable tech rep from MSI tell me some things that I'll talk about below.

He said for MY uses (gaming and general use - NO cad or video editing) I would not see much improvement over a single GOOD video and single GOOD hard drive.

In some of my other hobbies (RC helicopters for one) I've found that as you advance up the ladder of better equipment, you start to hit a point of dimishing returns. In other words, lets say the absolute best system is $6000 but one 95% as good is about $3000 . . . does that sound accurate?. My question is basically if dual video and dual hard drives in raid are going to be wasted for my uses.

Maybe I should just get a single kick ass video card and a single great hard drive and be happy with the 95% (assuming that's true)? Because I easily could be.

What about doing RAID 1 just for the redundancy . . . is that worth it?

Thanks All . . . I look forward to your comments.

UPGR8ER.

what type of resolution are we talking here?

as far as hdds, i would go a 74GB 16MB raptor and then a larger seperate one (the seagate 7200.10s are nice drives). there is a small but noticeable improvement having the pagefile on a seperate hdd than the system drive. personally i am not a big fan of raid0 because you are doubling the chances of a hdd failure - 1 drive dies the array dies

dual core - yes - c2d - intel is where it is currently

raid 1 is good but i prefer backing up images to another hdd, eithe external or on another machine

and for your main question - yes, you can easily get 95% of the performance spending much less money especially if you will o/c - example o/cing a 6400 to higher than the 6800extreme is not at all unreachable and has been done many times and is very stable. by doing this your performance would actually be hgiher than the 6800 even if clocks were the same becaue the bus speed would be much higher.

 

[Upgr8er]

Wow . . . you guys are awesome! Thanks!

Yes, dual core by Intel was a given. However, I've been all over the map with MB choices. I was attracted to the new 680 chipset for the maximum capabilities of the PCI-E 2x16 setup AND the fact that I could go SLI with an Intel proc. Then I started slipping down the slope of confusion with everything I started reading about the problems with that chipset and the problems with dual video in general. It was that MSI tech that pulled me up for air!

I'm wondering though if I should wait for a couple of months so the new DX-10 hardware can at least come out full force. If nothing else it will cause the prices to drop on the current stuff. I don't plan on going Vista anytime soon but I imagine a year from now I'll be on it and I don't want to go through this again next year too!! I know Vista will run on non DX-10 hardware but I would rather have what I need to fully enjoy the new operating system. My current machine can carry me a little longer (AMD 3200+) so I might as well do this right.

Thanks again, All.

PS >>> Oh and Bob, as for resolution . . . nothing fancy. Probably a 19 inch CRT monitor or a Samsung 940BW or something in that family (next size up max). Probably more reason to not bother with dual video I bet!

 

[bob4432]

if you can wait by all means do because when you wait you just faster stuff for less money.

for decent, good boards that can o/c very well, the gigabyte 965p-ds3 & 965p-s3 are very good boards and ~$120 or so. the other chipsets offer a lot on paper but with stuff that really doesn't mean much. to be perfect honest i would really like to see a benchmark comparing 2x8800gtx in a 2xpci-e16 and 2xpci-e8 setup - i don't think even 8800gtx need pci-e8 bandwidth since it was just recently that agp really became bandwidth limited (i am pretty sure about this as i don't think even the 7900gtx stuff needed the bandwidth affforded them by agp, even thought they stopped making the high end cards with basically the 6800utra and x850xtpes over a year ago). this whole pci-e deal has been a forced and not necessary for gpus migration up until maybe the 8800gtx (somebody can correct me if i am wrong, but please show number to prove what you are saying - i want facts not fanboys)

just remember that what is on paper is a lot of marketing b.s. - just like the sata and sataII(3.0Gb/s) stuff - the hdds are basically the same speed as their pata couterparts - you don't gain anythiing by going sata except a small cable (with the exception of the raptor) because the drives can't sustain a transfer rate over what ata5/6 offers (100MB/s/133MB/s (the latter 133MB/s i think was only maxtors anyway))

 

[Upgr8er]

Should I be looking at SCSI? I thought the latest hard drives had made leaps and bounds of improvement. I know the SATA interface didn't add much, if anything, but I still have a 1st generation Seagate Barracuda (as a backup and archive drive) and it's SOOOO much slower than anything made in the last couple of years. At the time I bought that one, it was pretty much the top of the line . . . except for SCSI.

And SCSI still seems to be around but it's not talked about much.

 

[bob4432]

scsi is still, defiantely but the move is going to sas - serial attached scsi. if you wanted to you could get a 36GB 15k fujitsu max, mas or mau series hdd for your boot/app/game drive (sorry, i am sick and have a high fever ) along with a u160 pci card. this will make it a snappy setup and won't break the bank. could you get by with a 36GB system/app/game drive? the 74GB ones do start to get up there in price....but you could do the mau or mas drives pretty cheap, and pick up a u160 card/cable and be in for less than ~$120 for 36GB and ~$180 for 74GB

the main thing about the 15k drives is they have suc a quick seek time. yes their firmware is designed more for servers but anytime i have used a friends machine that had a raptor, it felt like when i was running my 10K scsi as the main drive and i can tell the dfiference between the 10 and 15K in seek times.

they are still being pushed harder though as the new seagates are using perpendicular recording and able to hit 300GB (i have one in 74GB flavor and it runs good although i would rather have a max, mas or mau as the system drive and this 15k.5 as storage drive due to its crazy str - 100MB/s + easy - i get burst and str of 96MB/s - basically real world 32bit pci slot max)

personally i would do a 15k over the raptor if you can deal with the space/price issue and then a 7200.10 sata just because of their price/performance ratio

 

[SickBeast]

Get a Raptor and an 8800GTX. If your games aren't fast enough (which they will be) you can always add a second GTX.

Don't worry about SCSI. It will slow down your boot times, and the Raptor is good value in comparison.

 

[SickBeast]

Oh and to answer your question: You're not chasing "5%" by adding a second graphics card. You'd actually be getting 60-80% more gaming perfomance. That said, it's overkill at the moment. The 8800GTX is *massively* powerful and manhandles any game on the market.

Put the extra money towards a killer display and sound setup. I get far more enjoyment out of those two components than anything else. I like the 30" Dell display. The high end klipsch speakers are great apparently.

 

[Roguestar]

60-80% more gaming performance? Assuming he's not bottlenecked by anything else.

OP: Save the arm and a leg you'd spend on a second graphics card (I have never though SLi or CF was a good idea...) and like Sickbeast says, spend that money on a nice big screen you could really appreciate your games on.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Get a Raptor and an 8800GTX. If your games aren't fast enough (which they will be) you can always add a second GTX.

Don't worry about SCSI. It will slow down your boot times, and the Raptor is good value in comparison.

like boot times matter.....:thumbsdown: personally i would not worry about the extra ~30s and get a 15k hdd and you obvsiously don't know the $ of scsi, did you read my thread? look at the costs....not much more than the raptor

i think sick beast is butt hurt over what i said in this thread

also remember that scsi has made the same leaps and bounds, just not published mainstream because who want to drop $700 on a hdd (that is the retail cost of my 15k.5 - i didn't pay that much but that is the retail cost on it....) so if you are talking retail scsi is not good, but for the guys that run scsi, we know where to get them much, much cheaper and even if you buy one wihtouth a warranty, they ae built like tanks and are true enterprise hdd

 

[Ichigo]

You're getting an 8800-series GPU but a 19" monitor? The heck?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Whats interesting is people are telling you not to go raid0 for gaming yet most hardcore...I mean hardcare not like what you would find on these forums are using iether a raid0 set up and backing there data up properly or are using scsi which is way faster unless of course your scsi are set up in a raid0...then wheeee,,,,

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Whats interesting is people are telling you not to go raid0 for gaming yet most hardcore...I mean hardcare not like what you would find on these forums are using iether a raid0 set up and backing there data up properly or are using scsi which is way faster unless of course your scsi are set up in a raid0...then wheeee,,,,

but raid0 scsi 15k hdds need either a 64bit pci slot or a pci-e card and then we are talking big $$$$. i would do 15k single over raid0 anyday

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bob4432
i think sick beast is butt hurt over what i said in this thread

Clever. Not nice, but clever. :thumbsdown:

 

[AVP]

8800 with a 19incher is fine...Wait 6-8 months for new dx10 games to come out and there won't be any wasted frames at a lower resolution.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: bob4432
i think sick beast is butt hurt over what i said in this thread

Clever. Not nice, but clever. :thumbsdown:

dude, i am just f*cking with you....no ill intent...