How much of perfomance increase do these components have?

[AirForceElite]

in multitasking, gaming

---Dual Channel vs Single Channel

---800MHz vs 667MHz vs 533MHz

---Perpendicular (Seagate 7200.10) vs non-Perpendicular hard drive (any hard drive besides Seagate)

---16MB buffer HD vs 8MB buffer HD

---2xSATA drives in RAID0 vs 1xSATA drive by itself

---SATA2 vs SATA1

---7200RPM SATA2 drive vs SCSI drive


Please post your opinion. If possible, I need actual data such as FPS.
I mean I realize one is faster than the other, but HOW faster?

I am not big fun of paying more, to gain few frames per second which i will not notice anyways.
Like Will my Windows load 1-2 seconds faster if i use SCSI drive instead of SATA?
Or will win WinAmp start faster by 0.0001 second if I use 800MHz RAM vs 533MHz?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

 

[hofan41]

i dont think perpendicular recording technology enhances performance, it just allows more data to be stored on a single platter. so you can strike one of those off.

 

[themisfit610]

Dual Channel is most important on the Intel side of things. This was the case with the Pentium 4, and I don't know if it's still the case with the Core 2 Duo, but I would not be surprised. It's always shown little to no improvement on the AMD systems. The same goes for DDR2 800/667/533. There isn't much price difference between the 3 anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Timings make more difference than anything. I would go for good CAS4 DDR2 667 instead of CAS5 DDR2 800. But then again I don't have too much experience with DDR2 platforms yet. I still run DDR, so take my words with a grain of salt BTW, if you use integrated graphics, like a GeForce 6100, then dual channel memory will improve FPS immensely. Of course, this is all relative considering that integrated graphics will pretty much suck a fat one with most modern games, but it's worth the extra cash in that case!

What hofan41 said about perpendicular recording is totally correct. No difference.

A 16mb buffer will improve things enough for it to be worth the extra $5-10 per drive.

RAID0 is great if you work with lots of large files - video editing, databases, etc, and other generally I/O bound tasks. For example, copying files between RAID0 arrays is very very fast. Copying from/to a RAID 0 array from/to a normal drive is not any faster than single drive to single drive. It's the ONLY way to go if you capture uncompressed video, in both SD or HD resolutions. It also makes windows boot a bit faster, and levels in games load a little faster. No FPS difference for games - if anything slower because you have CPU overhead for handling the RAID - unless you have a dedicated hardware controller.

SATA2 vs SATA1 = no difference, unless you do big RAID where the extra bandwidth helps. SATA2 has the advantage of native command queuing (NCQ), which can help in multitasking, but it doesn't make that much difference.

7200rpm SATA vs 15,000 RPM SCSI = big big big difference, especially in seek times, and the 320mb/s peak interface helps too. Most consumer IDE / SATA drives have a ~8ms seek time. An enterprise grade SCSI drive can have a seek time under 2ms IIRC, and they can do that 24x7 for 3-5 years under warranty. They also cost WAY more, and are a lot smaller. If you've got loads and loads of cash, then a large RAID array of SCSI drives will give you the fastest possible I/O, but seriously, at over $300 / 72GB drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822332003), it gets expensive VERY quickly.

In conclusion, spending extra money to get these things if you are a gamer / average user will not net you the same performance increase as would say a faster processor, or better video card. I personally always go for 16MB SATA2 drives, because they're not much more, and will generally try to do dual channel, even if the performance difference is pretty minor.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

in multitasking, gaming

---Dual Channel vs Single Channel
-important
---800MHz vs 667MHz vs 533MHz
-important
---Perpendicular (Seagate 7200.10) vs non-Perpendicular hard drive (any hard drive besides Seagate)
-not very, but allows each platter to be more dense, allowing for faster transfer/seek times (not sure if i'm correct)
---16MB buffer HD vs 8MB buffer HD
-important
---2xSATA drives in RAID0 vs 1xSATA drive by itself
-not very, not in multitasking or gaming at least
---SATA2 vs SATA1
-not important
---7200RPM SATA2 drive vs SCSI drive
-important 7200 vs 10000 will show a big increase in overall snappiness of computer, boot times, program loads, spyware searches, game loads, map changes, everything

 

[Madwand1]

Increasing the storage density (e.g. by perpendicular recording) is a great way to improve performance. Think about it -- how does the data density affect the data transfer rate when the rotational speed is kept constant? How does increasing the data density affect seek distance and hence seek time across the same amount of data?

That said, there's much more to HD performance than just STR and seek time measurements, and some perpendicular drives are outperformed by other 7200 drives in some tests.

Read Storage Review for much more on drive performance.

Understand that drive performance doesn't matter so much in a number of applications. FPS gaming? How exactly will a faster drive system help? It'll help in gaps between areas, but it won't help render your 3D any faster. Also note that separating your OS/swap/personal folders from your programs/data onto separate drives can give you reduced seeking hence better drive-related performance in some cases.

 

[corkyg]

Agree with Madwand1. I replaced a Seagate 100 GB drive with the Seagate 160 GB PRT drive, and gained not only significant more storage, but programs also loaded faster, and drive writes were faster. Very noticeable when cloning.

 

[AirForceElite]

So far, all replies have mentioned the same thing.
Except LOUISSSS
So do you think 800MHz RAM will have a lot of performance increase over 533?
And Dual Channel will too?

 

[modestninja]

Originally posted by: AirForceElite
So far, all replies have mentioned the same thing.
Except LOUISSSS
So do you think 800MHz RAM will have a lot of performance increase over 533?
And Dual Channel will too?

As far as the 800Mhz ram vs. 533Mhz ram there isn't much difference if the computer is set to the same speed.

For example, if you have an E6600 set at 9x267 = 2403Mhz and at 6x400Mhz = 2400Mhz, there isn't a statistically significant difference in the speed of the computer. With the C2D, however, the 800Mhz ram will allow you a much higher OC than the 533Mhz ram and that does make a significant difference in FPS. If you get a C2D processor it's best to match the ram with the processor you're getting and how much you'd like to OC. With the E6600 above you'd be fine with 667Mhz ram if you are planning a ~3ghz OC (and most 667mhz ram can be OC'd to 800Mhz levels anyway so you could go even higher.)

Hope that made sense.