New Computer

[Grimjack01]

Hi all,
As this is my first computer built in 6 Yrs would like some input as how my selections look:

MB Epox 8KTA3+
1.2 gig AMD Athlon B
256 megs CL2 crucial Ram
Radion ViVo 64 meg DDR
Fop 32-I cooler w artic silver
IBM 15.3 HD 7200 RPM
OS 98 SE
SB 128 run through NEC Equalizer in Box

Reasoning:
MB is very stable and I am not going to overclock
AMD is better for all but video commands so nice card
256 more then enough and cl2 for a bit more speed
32-I is good cooler
98SE has better drivers at this time then 2000/ME
Radion 64 ViVo is best card (IMHO)unless I want to go $400 plus US, This is as far as I could tell from all the articles on Arts and Tom's.
SB 128 through equalizer for sound, I have had a SB live and really think my old setup was better as it ran a 64 AWE through my old radio shack sterio system.

Any thoughts comments advice would be appreciated.


Grimjack


Nice blaster,Have a Jelly baby

 

[Guest]

Arts??? could you please provide me with Art's link
I'm a newbie and need all the help I can get!!!
Thank's
Charlie Tee

If you build it,they will come...and I will crash it

 

[Grimjack01]

Hi all,
Ahk, half asleep, I meant Aceshardware.com.

Grim

 

[Toejam31]

Three comments:

"Radeon 64 ViVo is best card"

For DVD ... yes. For gameplay ... not necessarily. That may change with the Radeon II.

"98SE has better drivers at this time then 2000/ME"

Not in my opinion. Win2k has been around long enough that drivers are much easier to find. And a 32bit driver is going to be inherently more stable than a 16bit driver. As for hardware ... case in point - absolutely no difficulty with my SoundBlaster 5.1 Platinum in Win2k, and no conflicts because of 16bit emulation. The only problems I still see with Win2k are with some scanners ... the manufacturers need to get up to speed. There is a distinct advantage to using an OS that is 32bit ... stability. How about a near absence of blue screens?


"IBM 15.3 HD 7200 RPM"

Considering the prices on storage, I'd seriously consider getting a larger hard drive ... or two, for that matter. Having a second drive will allow you to easily isolate your personal files from everything else, and if you ever need to format, your won't have to fool with partitions. And there is a performance boost when placing the swap file on the second drive. When using programs like Adobe Photoshop, there is also an advantage to having the scratch disk and virtual memory on separate drives.


My two cents ...

Toejam31




<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>

 

[Grimjack01]

Hi all,
Thanks Toejam, I agree with your comment RE the Video card but as far as I can tell Price/performance above 16 bit colour at 1024/762 the Radeon Vs Geforce the Radion has a better cost ratio Vs performance against the Geforce2 Ultra. To spend above $200 or so for what is basicaly a throw away item (after 3-6 months the next latest greatest comes out)is not for me. I think I have some Scotch blood in me somewhere. As of last month 98SE was still better OVERALL in driver stability then 2k, but in next 6 months it would change, I have 98se right now and I feel that spending $200 for a new OS isnt cost effective at this time. I am still hearing horror stories around about instability from non-optimized drivers in 2k. As for the IBM 15.3, I am going to SCSI but shelling out 675 for the segate and adaptech isnt in the cards right now, Can you say WIFE is raising cane about me spending 500 on 2 HDs (18 gigs each). My current system is a 300 PII w/190 megs ram win 95 and a 6.4 gig HD,Matrox G-200/8 megs ram is video card so as you can see I will be going way up in capability. Thanks for the comments, when I build a new system I like to get critiques to see if I could do something dif. again thanks.

Grim

Universe is a dangerous place, want a Jelly baby

 

[Toejam31]

Sure ... I like to do the same thing. Different opinions make the world go 'round. Stop by and ask questions, or post something anytime, everyone here likes to make comments! Sometimes we even know what we are talking about.

<GRIN>

Enjoy the new system!

Toejam31

P.S. I can't help it ... please forgive in advance! Considering the cost of SCSI drives, and the controller card ... have you considered IDE RAID? These newer 7,200 drives are certainly fast, and can actually be superior to SCSI in some respects. With a mainboard that has this built-in, it would definitely be more cost-effective, and you could afford to purchase drives with more disk space.

I used to run SCSI drives, but I find that I now prefer the larger-capacity IDE drives. Cooler, nearly as fast (and with RAID ... faster) ... and no controller card to fill up a PCI slot.

Just a suggestion ... I couldn't help myself. ;-)

Okay ... I'm done now! LOL!

See ya in the funny papers.

<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>

 

[Gog]

Got to agree I'm really not sure if SCSI is worth the extra cost, get a couple of eide IBM Deskstar drives and use them in a RAID format

--------------------------------

Look at the size of that thing!

 

[FatBurger]

nearly as fast (and with RAID ... faster)

Ok, but remember that SCSI is faster than IDE, and SCSI+RAID is faster than IDE+RAID. You can't handicap one thing in a comparison, remember.
But I agree, SCSI isn't worth the price for most people.

BTW, go with a C Athlon (266 bus), not the B. It's not that much cheaper, and quite a bit faster.

------------------------------
My Athlon can beat your Ferrari off the line.

 

[Toejam31]

FatBurger. I'm well aware of the differences between SCSI, SCSI-RAID, IDE, and IDE-RAID.

I try to stay with the tone of the original post. There's only so much that can be written on a subject in a single message without writing "War And Peace".

My comparision was based what would be a fairly expensive setup for a home desktop system, such an Adaptec 29160N controller, and a couple of 10,000RPM SCSI drives ... OR two 7,200 IDE drives set up for disk striping with a built-in RAID controller. And it was only a suggestion to try and save him some money. And ... often times, drives set up in this kind of configuration ARE faster than SCSI, despite the differences in the threads.

I didn't see any need to go into a detailed explanation of all the varied possibilities, just as you didn't take the time to explain all the different flavors of RAID to me. He just wanted some comments about the configuration, for the sake of comparision.

Are we through with the subject now, Sir?

Quit trying to teach your Grandma to suck eggs, Fats.

Toejam31

<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>

 

[FatBurger]

And that's exactly why you should try to avoid posting things that will be confusing to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Teaching my Grandma to suck eggs, huh? Forget it, I'm ignoring this thread from now on.

------------------------------
My Athlon can beat your Ferrari off the line.

 

[Toejam31]

"And that's exactly why you should try to avoid posting things that will be confusing to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

He built his computer six years ago, Fats. He may have heard of RAID, at least once or twice in all that time. It's not an entirely new concept.

Actually, I'd appreciate it if you somehow managed to ignore <i>anything</i> you see with my name by it. I'd don't need to be educated by an arrogant help desk tech still wet behind the ears.

Any part of that "confusing" to you?

Toejam31



<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>

 

[Grimjack01]

Hi all,
Fats, Toe thanks for the input, I am currently researching Raid 0 and how to do this in the near future. I was not aware that this would have faster/better performance then SCSI 160 w/adaptec 1960 (Around 250 apiece US). As far as I can tell on the HD at 15.3 IBM, this apears to be one that has no issues on reliability as other sizes seem to. Problem with multi platters and more then 1 set of mag heads maybe??. As for the discussion you two are having, try going to seminars with anthropologists or astronomers, these skinny heads almost try and kill each other LOL, Experts always have dif in opinion. One thing that I noticed is that cost of HD/controllers is always mentioned in any post EIDE Vs SCSI but rarely in Ultra 2/3 Vs Radion/Herc. An increase of 5 - 15 % performance in a throwawy device for 300% increase in cost is acceptable in a Video card but not in a HD. Also the more complex you make a system the more prone it is to failure. A SCSI 160 can have 14 plus controller Vs the need to work on IRQs and addresses would seem to be more reliable. Thoughts on this gentle souls??.


Grim

"Kiss" It is a way of life not an expletive
Keep It Simple Stupid