Can't choose between a Raptor HD or 2Gb memory for my amd ..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I
mostly use it for games.

Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
(7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

RAPTOR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I
> mostly use it for games.
>
> Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
> (7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
> put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?

I have a machine with 2 gigs of ram, one with 1 gig, and one with 512
megs. In some games (Far Cry, D3), going from 512 to 1 gig makes a
difference - but so far, I haven't seen a single game where there was an
improvement going from 1 gig to 2 gigs, so I wouldn't worry about getting
two gigs of memory.

As for the raptors, they're pretty pricey. Instead of $177 for a single
74-gig raptor, I'd probably buy a pair of 120- or 160-gig drives and put
them in RAID 0, but that's just me. If low latency is more of a concern
than bandwidth to you, then by all means, get the raptor.

steve

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:41bf2300$0$154$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
> Here is my problem I want to build a new system
> with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I mostly use it for
> games.
>
> Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of
> memory and use a older HD (7200 rpm with 8mb
> cache) or
> put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>

What about buying all the memory you want and a
cheapy RAID card and putting your old discs into
an array? (Doesn't really work if you've only
ever had one disc though, and if you have two with
different capacities, you'll not be able tomake
full use of all the storage).

Neil

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I thought the latest 7200 RPM drives are faster than the raptors now anyway?

Dan

"Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41bf4752$0$52968$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> "S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:41bf2300$0$154$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
> > Here is my problem I want to build a new system
> > with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I mostly use it for
> > games.
> >
> > Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of
> > memory and use a older HD (7200 rpm with 8mb
> > cache) or
> > put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
> >
>
> What about buying all the memory you want and a
> cheapy RAID card and putting your old discs into
> an array? (Doesn't really work if you've only
> ever had one disc though, and if you have two with
> different capacities, you'll not be able tomake
> full use of all the storage).
>
> Neil
>
>

 

[PapaSurf]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Dan" <d@d.com> wrote in message
news:41bf6931$0$16573$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>I thought the latest 7200 RPM drives are faster than the raptors now
>anyway?
>
> Dan
>
> "Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:41bf4752$0$52968$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>> "S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:41bf2300$0$154$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
>> > Here is my problem I want to build a new system
>> > with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I mostly use it for
>> > games.
>> >
>> > Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of
>> > memory and use a older HD (7200 rpm with 8mb
>> > cache) or
>> > put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>> >
>>
>> What about buying all the memory you want and a
>> cheapy RAID card and putting your old discs into
>> an array? (Doesn't really work if you've only
>> ever had one disc though, and if you have two with
>> different capacities, you'll not be able tomake
>> full use of all the storage).
>>
>> Neil
>>
Raptor is faster than latest 7200 drives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41bf4752$0$52968$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> "S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:41bf2300$0$154$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
> > Here is my problem I want to build a new system
> > with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I mostly use it for
> > games.
> >
> > Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of
> > memory and use a older HD (7200 rpm with 8mb
> > cache) or
> > put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
> >
>
> What about buying all the memory you want and a
> cheapy RAID card and putting your old discs into
> an array? (Doesn't really work if you've only
> ever had one disc though, and if you have two with
> different capacities, you'll not be able tomake
> full use of all the storage).
>
> Neil
>
>


Neither one will probably not help performance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

No by much and only in some areas


On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:53:59 -0800, "papasurf" <papa@nospam.net>
wrote:

>
>"Dan" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>news:41bf6931$0$16573$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>I thought the latest 7200 RPM drives are faster than the raptors now
>>anyway?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> "Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:41bf4752$0$52968$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>> "S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:41bf2300$0$154$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
>>> > Here is my problem I want to build a new system
>>> > with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I mostly use it for
>>> > games.
>>> >
>>> > Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of
>>> > memory and use a older HD (7200 rpm with 8mb
>>> > cache) or
>>> > put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>>> >
>>>
>>> What about buying all the memory you want and a
>>> cheapy RAID card and putting your old discs into
>>> an array? (Doesn't really work if you've only
>>> ever had one disc though, and if you have two with
>>> different capacities, you'll not be able tomake
>>> full use of all the storage).
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>Raptor is faster than latest 7200 drives.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"The Other Guy." <2221@1.com> wrote in message
news:f49vr0hsj89lo9ecch9jig48uajh32n4k2@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> No by much and only in some areas
>

bah and humbug.


>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:53:59 -0800, "papasurf" <papa@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dan" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>>news:41bf6931$0$16573$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>>I thought the latest 7200 RPM drives are faster than the raptors now
>>>anyway?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> "Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:41bf4752$0$52968$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>>> "S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:41bf2300$0$154$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
>>>> > Here is my problem I want to build a new system
>>>> > with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I mostly use it for
>>>> > games.
>>>> >
>>>> > Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of
>>>> > memory and use a older HD (7200 rpm with 8mb
>>>> > cache) or
>>>> > put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> What about buying all the memory you want and a
>>>> cheapy RAID card and putting your old discs into
>>>> an array? (Doesn't really work if you've only
>>>> ever had one disc though, and if you have two with
>>>> different capacities, you'll not be able tomake
>>>> full use of all the storage).
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>Raptor is faster than latest 7200 drives.
>>
>

 

[chip]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, BLT, MP, PBJ, LSMFT" <Aardvark@microsnort.com>
wrote in message news:g4Tvd.263312$R05.251229@attbi_s53...
>
> "The Other Guy." <2221@1.com> wrote in message
> news:f49vr0hsj89lo9ecch9jig48uajh32n4k2@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> No by much and only in some areas
>>
>
> bah and humbug.
>

I agree!

The Other Guy: Name me another drive that gives you 7.X seconds access
times. Thats the reason the Raptors feel so fast. The benchmark suites
place too much emphasis on burst rates and sustained read and write speeds.
Very relevant for loading big files. But what about loading 50 million
piddly little DLLs. i.e. Windows! The Raptors make mincemeat of other
drives.

Chip

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Thanx Steve, that was helpfull.

I will buy the Raptor then. In the future I can allways buy a second one and
put these in Raid 0.


"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> schreef in bericht
news:32a1r9F3je3taU1@individual.net...
>> Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I
>> mostly use it for games.
>>
>> Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
>> (7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
>> put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>
> I have a machine with 2 gigs of ram, one with 1 gig, and one with 512
> megs. In some games (Far Cry, D3), going from 512 to 1 gig makes a
> difference - but so far, I haven't seen a single game where there was an
> improvement going from 1 gig to 2 gigs, so I wouldn't worry about getting
> two gigs of memory.
>
> As for the raptors, they're pretty pricey. Instead of $177 for a single
> 74-gig raptor, I'd probably buy a pair of 120- or 160-gig drives and put
> them in RAID 0, but that's just me. If low latency is more of a concern
> than bandwidth to you, then by all means, get the raptor.
>
> steve
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I have two 36.7 GB WD Raptors in RAID 0, it kicks butt. I would def go with
2 raptors and one GB of RAM, thats what I run now. AWESOME
"S D" <s.dielis@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:41c08049$0$152$3a628fcd@reader1.nntp.hccnet.nl...
> Thanx Steve, that was helpfull.
>
> I will buy the Raptor then. In the future I can allways buy a second one
and
> put these in Raid 0.
>
>
> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> schreef in bericht
> news:32a1r9F3je3taU1@individual.net...
> >> Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu.
I
> >> mostly use it for games.
> >>
> >> Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
> >> (7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
> >> put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
> >
> > I have a machine with 2 gigs of ram, one with 1 gig, and one with 512
> > megs. In some games (Far Cry, D3), going from 512 to 1 gig makes a
> > difference - but so far, I haven't seen a single game where there was an
> > improvement going from 1 gig to 2 gigs, so I wouldn't worry about
getting
> > two gigs of memory.
> >
> > As for the raptors, they're pretty pricey. Instead of $177 for a
single
> > 74-gig raptor, I'd probably buy a pair of 120- or 160-gig drives and put
> > them in RAID 0, but that's just me. If low latency is more of a concern
> > than bandwidth to you, then by all means, get the raptor.
> >
> > steve
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

S D wrote:
> Thanx Steve, that was helpfull.
>
> I will buy the Raptor then. In the future I can allways buy a second one and
> put these in Raid 0.
>
>
> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> schreef in bericht
> news:32a1r9F3je3taU1@individual.net...
>
>>>Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I
>>>mostly use it for games.
>>>
>>>Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
>>>(7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
>>>put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>>
>> I have a machine with 2 gigs of ram, one with 1 gig, and one with 512
>>megs. In some games (Far Cry, D3), going from 512 to 1 gig makes a
>>difference - but so far, I haven't seen a single game where there was an
>>improvement going from 1 gig to 2 gigs, so I wouldn't worry about getting
>>two gigs of memory.
>>
>> As for the raptors, they're pretty pricey. Instead of $177 for a single
>>74-gig raptor, I'd probably buy a pair of 120- or 160-gig drives and put
>>them in RAID 0, but that's just me. If low latency is more of a concern
>>than bandwidth to you, then by all means, get the raptor.
>>
>>steve
>>
>>
>
>
>

Going with 2Gig RAM won't do much better than 1 Gig in ANY games that
are on the market today or even in the (near) future. Go with Raptor,
have one myself and it's speedy as hell

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Der Steppenwolf" <hellno@spam.net> wrote in message
news:Ockwd.3814$3N5.2276@amstwist00...
>S D wrote:
>> Thanx Steve, that was helpfull.
>>
>> I will buy the Raptor then. In the future I can allways buy a second one
>> and put these in Raid 0.
>>
>>
>> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:32a1r9F3je3taU1@individual.net...
>>
>>>>Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu.
>>>>I
>>>>mostly use it for games.
>>>>
>>>>Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
>>>>(7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
>>>>put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>>>
>>> I have a machine with 2 gigs of ram, one with 1 gig, and one with 512
>>>megs. In some games (Far Cry, D3), going from 512 to 1 gig makes a
>>>difference - but so far, I haven't seen a single game where there was an
>>>improvement going from 1 gig to 2 gigs, so I wouldn't worry about getting
>>>two gigs of memory.
>>>
>>> As for the raptors, they're pretty pricey. Instead of $177 for a single
>>>74-gig raptor, I'd probably buy a pair of 120- or 160-gig drives and put
>>>them in RAID 0, but that's just me. If low latency is more of a concern
>>>than bandwidth to you, then by all means, get the raptor.
>>>
>>>steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Going with 2Gig RAM won't do much better than 1 Gig in ANY games that are
> on the market today or even in the (near) future. Go with Raptor, have one
> myself and it's speedy as hell

EQ2. I got a gig. Uses ALL my available physical RAM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Bruin" <bruinwarBLAH@BLAHexcite.com> wrote in message
news:vNWdnf8Ob798KV_cRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
>
> "Der Steppenwolf" <hellno@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:Ockwd.3814$3N5.2276@amstwist00...
>>S D wrote:
>>> Thanx Steve, that was helpfull.
>>>
>>> I will buy the Raptor then. In the future I can allways buy a second one
>>> and put these in Raid 0.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:32a1r9F3je3taU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>>Here is my problem I want to build a new system with a AMD 64 3500 cpu.
>>>>>I
>>>>>mostly use it for games.
>>>>>
>>>>>Would it be better to put in 2GB (DDR 400) of memory and use a older HD
>>>>>(7200 rpm with 8mb cache) or
>>>>>put in 1 GB and buy a Raptor instead?
>>>>
>>>> I have a machine with 2 gigs of ram, one with 1 gig, and one with 512
>>>>megs. In some games (Far Cry, D3), going from 512 to 1 gig makes a
>>>>difference - but so far, I haven't seen a single game where there was an
>>>>improvement going from 1 gig to 2 gigs, so I wouldn't worry about
>>>>getting
>>>>two gigs of memory.
>>>>
>>>> As for the raptors, they're pretty pricey. Instead of $177 for a
>>>> single
>>>>74-gig raptor, I'd probably buy a pair of 120- or 160-gig drives and put
>>>>them in RAID 0, but that's just me. If low latency is more of a concern
>>>>than bandwidth to you, then by all means, get the raptor.
>>>>
>>>>steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Going with 2Gig RAM won't do much better than 1 Gig in ANY games that are
>> on the market today or even in the (near) future. Go with Raptor, have
>> one myself and it's speedy as hell
>
> EQ2. I got a gig. Uses ALL my available physical RAM.

Ah! For EQ2 you really need the Raptor and the biggest, baddest, fastest
video card you can get. Video is the bottleneck in EQ.