What is the current recommendation for an ASUS m/b and pro..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hello, All!

My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.

I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.

Again, help appreciated.

Thanks.

Colonel Blip.
E-mail: colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Colonel Blip" <colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:42002ab8$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> Hello, All!
>
> My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
> long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
> what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
> suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
> last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
> recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
> with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.
>
> I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
> although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
> of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.

An Athlon 64 CPU and motherboard is an excellent choice. S939
boards are newer and support faster CPU. The ASUS A8V is
a popular board which we sell a lot of. Send us e-mail for more
info or pricing.


---
Kevin Chalker, Owner KC COMPUTERS
E-mail: kc@kc-computers.com Web: www.kc-computers.com
Internet dealer since 1991!!! See WWW.RESELLERRATINGS.COM!!!

 

[milleron]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:17:25 -0600, "Colonel Blip"
<colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com> wrote:

>Hello, All!
>
>My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
>long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
>what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
>suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
>last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
>recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
>with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.
>
>I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
>although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
>of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.
>
>Again, help appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Colonel Blip.

This has nothing to do with your choice of motherboard or CPU, but
have you done a lot of homework on RAID0? Most of the well-done
review articles (search for them at PC Magazine and Anandtech.com)
come to the conclusion that it offers no appreciable performance
enhancement for desktop computers, other than those doing a lot of
video processing/encoding. Essentially the on-board RAID controllers
task the CPU and can therefore actually hinder performance in some
scenarios. Also on the downside, it's consensus that RAID0
approximately doubles the chance of a HD failure that could cause data
loss. If you're well informed on the subject, you'll know best what
to install on your system. RAID0 might be great for your use. I put
it on my last computer, though, and, while I haven't had a HD failure,
it has given me no discernible benefit. I'll certainly not use it on
the computer I'll be building this spring.

Ron

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Colonel Blip wrote:

> Hello, All!
>
> My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
> long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
> what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
> suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
> last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
> recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
> with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.
>
> I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
> although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
> of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.
>
> Again, help appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Colonel Blip.
> E-mail: colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy
> via Encryption =----

Athlon XP is being phased out & replaced by a Sempron.
For something cheap try Sempron + micro-atx motherboard (3d graphics is
quite good.) like Asus A7N8X-VM.

For something moer upmarket , socket 754 is being phased out to so go for
socket 939.

gtoomey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

milleron wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:17:25 -0600, "Colonel Blip"
> <colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello, All!
> >
> >My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting
rather
> >long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for
upgrading -
> >what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding
edge. I
> >suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to
have it
> >last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
> >recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been
happy
> >with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.
> >
> >I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for
performance
> >although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an
AMD 64
> >of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.
> >
> >Again, help appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Colonel Blip.
>
> This has nothing to do with your choice of motherboard or CPU, but
> have you done a lot of homework on RAID0? Most of the well-done
> review articles (search for them at PC Magazine and Anandtech.com)
> come to the conclusion that it offers no appreciable performance
> enhancement for desktop computers, other than those doing a lot of
> video processing/encoding. Essentially the on-board RAID controllers
> task the CPU and can therefore actually hinder performance in some
> scenarios. Also on the downside, it's consensus that RAID0
> approximately doubles the chance of a HD failure that could cause
data
> loss. If you're well informed on the subject, you'll know best what
> to install on your system. RAID0 might be great for your use. I put
> it on my last computer, though, and, while I haven't had a HD
failure,
> it has given me no discernible benefit. I'll certainly not use it on
> the computer I'll be building this spring.
>
> Ron

I may be wrong about this but I think that the failure probability goes
up by the square root of 2, not 2x. So, if the MTBF is nominally 10,000
hours of operation, running two drives would give you an MTBF of around
7,000 hours.

arnie

 

[milleron]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On 2 Feb 2005 13:40:18 -0800, aberger@u.washington.edu wrote:

>
>milleron wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:17:25 -0600, "Colonel Blip"
>> <colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hello, All!
>> >
>> >My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting
>rather
>> >long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for
>upgrading -
>> >what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding
>edge. I
>> >suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to
>have it
>> >last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
>> >recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been
>happy
>> >with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.
>> >
>> >I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for
>performance
>> >although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an
>AMD 64
>> >of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.
>> >
>> >Again, help appreciated.
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >Colonel Blip.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with your choice of motherboard or CPU, but
>> have you done a lot of homework on RAID0? Most of the well-done
>> review articles (search for them at PC Magazine and Anandtech.com)
>> come to the conclusion that it offers no appreciable performance
>> enhancement for desktop computers, other than those doing a lot of
>> video processing/encoding. Essentially the on-board RAID controllers
>> task the CPU and can therefore actually hinder performance in some
>> scenarios. Also on the downside, it's consensus that RAID0
>> approximately doubles the chance of a HD failure that could cause
>data
>> loss. If you're well informed on the subject, you'll know best what
>> to install on your system. RAID0 might be great for your use. I put
>> it on my last computer, though, and, while I haven't had a HD
>failure,
>> it has given me no discernible benefit. I'll certainly not use it on
>> the computer I'll be building this spring.
>>
>> Ron
>
>I may be wrong about this but I think that the failure probability goes
>up by the square root of 2, not 2x. So, if the MTBF is nominally 10,000
>hours of operation, running two drives would give you an MTBF of around
>7,000 hours.
>
>arnie

Sounds plausible. (This is an example of why I inserted the word,
"approximately.") However, my point is that for the vast majority of
standalone computers, the only significant difference that RAID 0
makes is an increase in the risk of data loss from a HD failure. For
most of us, there's a distinct downside to RAID 0 without an upside to
balance it. For some users, RAID 0 makes perfect sense. For most, in
my nonprofessional opinion, it's nonsense.
Ron