Discussion: Should We Deflate the fast Ram/fast CPU Bubble?

[halbhh]

All of us love speed. Speed is good. Damn, speed is great.

So.....

I can't resist deflating the ballons on expensive memory, and faster dual cores, etc.

That's not what matters.

If you want to spend less time waiting on your computer, and you're willing to put a modest amount of extra cash to speed it up, forget the expensive ram (buy the low end and 2Gigs), forget the expensive cpu (it's good enough for most of us to pick any modest (cheaper) dual core: 6300 or 6400 or 4200 or 4600 -- they're all fine, and for both AM2 and intel, upgradable to quad core in the future).....


Instead, put the money where it will pay off.

Novel concept, right??

I seriously hope to get real discussion about this (not silly arguments, but real discussion).

-----------------------------------
Guage whether you want to A)play strategy games and watch video, or B) also play demanding new shooter games.

If A), spend $100 or so on your graphics card, and then just buy a new $100 card again in 12 or 14 months.

If B), spend more than $200, and if you want the total system top level game performance, go ahead and get the 8800 for $500.

Now....let's talk about what actually matters in terms of you sitting there at your keyboard waiting and waiting, a few seconds here, a few seconds there, etc.....

Hard Drive.
----------------------------------------------

2 hard drives, one a raptor, and the second a seagate 7200.10 300Gig.

Install the OS on the raptor, and then move the page file (aka virtual memory file) onto the new 7200.10, to split the disk access wait time.

Raid is fine, but this strategy is better I think because you get 99% of the speed 99% of the time of a raid (for 99% of typical games and use), but for less money.....

Did I mention less money?

And you still get the big gigs of storage for video from your TV capture card, etc.

 

[Gegitech]

I like the way you are thinking. I try to work along those lines that you outline but I wouldn't totally debunk the need for a fast cpu. Certain games like HL2 needed a nice cpu, often the cpu was the limiting factor in that game not the GPU.

 

[halbhh]

I understand that it depends on the graphics card type how much of the workload of the graphics the cpu has to do, and what portion the graphics card itself does. Perhaps we need to research that part more, for our ekeing out performance for low dollar amounts.

 

[geofelt]

The best money I ever spent on a computer upgrade was to buy a second display. The extra display area was nice. More importantly, it lets me keep open e-mail windows and performance monitors while playing games. It is best if the two monitors are EXACTLY the same.

 

[clue69less]

If you want to spend less time waiting on your computer, and you're willing to put a modest amount of extra cash to speed it up, forget the expensive ram (buy the low end and 2Gigs), forget the expensive cpu (any dual core: 6300 or 6400 or 4200 or 4600 -- they're all fine).....

I do some gaming but also do plenty of video editing, 3D rendering, etc., etc. Many people here do more than just game. I feel the need to optimize all performance aspects from the power supply through the GPU and that includes mobo, CPU, RAM, HDs, RAID card, sound card, the Internet connection (excellent article by Marco C. in the new MaxPC by the way) and the user interfaces like keyboard, mouse, joystick, monitor, speakers. You name it and the industry has choices to meet your needs. Put all your eggs in the GPU basket and you'll probably end up with a bottleneck elsewhere.

 

[konfuzd]

For C2D, unless you're overclocking the performance gained from RAM faster than DDR2 533 is almost negligable. This is because there's only so much that can be forced through the fsb.

For the X2, the slowest RAM you should be looking at is DDR2 667. DDR2 800 does get you a performance gain, but it's only noticeable in certain situations. Untill AMD improves efficiency on the processor side, there's not too much to be gained from uber fast RAM since the demand isn't there.

The only catch is all this is based on a machine running xp. In vista, the GPU gets a page file in the system RAM, placing a greater demand on it. Untill vista is released, there's no way to know what the effect will be. But, I'm fairly certain that if you have 2GB of some decent DDR2 667 there's nothing to worry about.

 

[unsmart]

I think this should be broken down in to pc types, The demands of a gaming pc and office are very different. The need of a dualcore isn't a must at this point in gaming but a htpc I would say needs one. Someone should make a sticky for noobs that shows how to brake up there budget for the type of pc they want to make. The only prob is no one here would agree on it.
The one thing missing on your post is the mobo. A lot of people buy the plus models with all the connectors and shiny things that they have no use for. If you don't need it don't pay for it, the more on the board the more that can go wrong.
I do agree on the cpu but ram is a ever more important piece of the system.
It seems cpu's get faster with more cores but everyone wants the gpu to do everything. I don't know how many gpu's and cpu's I can run before the fuse blows. 8 cpu cores, 3 gpus ,4 sticks or ram and 2 hard drives with 10 fans and 20lb of copper to cool it.

 

[calyn]

2 hard drives, one a raptor, and the second a seagate 7200.10 300Gig.

Install the OS on the raptor, and then move the page file (aka virtual memory file) onto the new 7200.10, to split the disk access wait time.

Raid is fine, but this strategy is better I think because you get 99% of the speed 99% of the time of a raid (for 99% of typical games and use), but for less money.....

For gaming, I'd not use this setup as you will probably install the game on the Seagate. Meaning you load graphics and game objects from the same drive as the swapfile, which impacts speed more than retaining the swap file on the Raptor (OS drive). The raptor will generally hold savegames as well as most games place them in the My Documents foder, but this doesn't impact performance as while saving games tend to "pause"

 

[samir_nayanajaad]

as for the hdd thing I would just set up a raid 0 and a raid 1 on two 320gb hdd. then put the os and important stuff on the raid 1 and games and what not on the raid 0. sure you will loose a little space but if you set it up right there should be plenty of space to work with and your important stuff will not be gone if a hdd fails. I love the matrix feature of the new intel chipsets cant wait to get a mobo that can do that.

 

[heartview]

More memory and a faster hard drive can breathe new life into an aging computer, for sure. But, to be fair, most computers bought from a store these days aren't really designed to be upgraded (only replaced). So unless you build your own, computers are cheap enough now that you can buy a new gaming computer every two years for roughly the price of the latest CPU + GPU anyway.

 

[jsc]

A suggestion for improving ypur overall system throughput - typing lessons.

 

[JMecc]

Some of us DO need a fast cpu - I generally use my computer to develop computer programs and run matlab scripts for scientific computing. I don't game, ever. I am not a gamer but I see a need for gaming benchmarks as some people are, but I see way too many posts like this that don't consider non-gamers, stating that everyone is dumb for not optimizing their comps for gaming.

Jo

 

[skyguy]

Apparently Vista will let us use USB memory for paging, and other caching.........If that's the case, then just get a stinkin fast USB jump drive with 2 or 4 gigs for CHEAP CHEAP. Then you're laughing.....why spent $300 more on DDR2???

Interesting enough, if we follow the logic here, then the AM2 is actually driving prices up because it need 667 or 800 RAM, not 533 like the C2D systems. So going C2D and 533 will actually help the theory here. But the OP seems rather pro-AMD.......the irony there is hilarious.

Regardless, it's not just DDR2. DDR prices are up too, it's across the board. So that theory of DDR2 doesn't wash either. CPU prices are up, mobo prices.........it's very simple: more demand = higher prices. Econ 101

So until supply increases or demand drops, or new tech releases.......then don't expect to see huge price drops period. The companies are milking it, and we're feeding it. So then..........which one of you are willing to not upgrade now? The OP? I think not. It's easy to sit here and wax philosophical about pricing and the finer points about technology and economics, but the reality is everyone here wants what they want.......so so it costs MORE. That's the simple bottom line, no different than cars, houses, or widgets. Just so happens it's computers..........

 

[halbhh]

Yeah, having the 2nd display is a great use of money.

 

[halbhh]

totally agree on optimizing all the components, and I'm focusing on what has the most effect per dollar.

 

[halbhh]

I think this should be broken down in to pc types, The demands of a gaming pc and office are very different. The need of a dualcore isn't a must at this point in gaming but a htpc I would say needs one. Someone should make a sticky for noobs that shows how to brake up there budget for the type of pc they want to make. The only prob is no one here would agree on it.
The one thing missing on your post is the mobo. A lot of people buy the plus models with all the connectors and shiny things that they have no use for. If you don't need it don't pay for it, the more on the board the more that can go wrong.
I do agree on the cpu but ram is a ever more important piece of the system.
It seems cpu's get faster with more cores but everyone wants the gpu to do everything. I don't know how many gpu's and cpu's I can run before the fuse blows. 8 cpu cores, 3 gpus ,4 sticks or ram and 2 hard drives with 10 fans and 20lb of copper to cool it.

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

heh heh It's like a battleship. Too bad it's not fault tolerarant like one, where if a part fails, the other parts keep going, lol.

 

[halbhh]

For C2D, unless you're overclocking the performance gained from RAM faster than DDR2 533 is almost negligable. This is because there's only so much that can be forced through the fsb.

For the X2, the slowest RAM you should be looking at is DDR2 667. DDR2 800 does get you a performance gain, but it's only noticeable in certain situations. Untill AMD improves efficiency on the processor side, there's not too much to be gained from uber fast RAM since the demand isn't there.

The only catch is all this is based on a machine running xp. In vista, the GPU gets a page file in the system RAM, placing a greater demand on it. Untill vista is released, there's no way to know what the effect will be. But, I'm fairly certain that if you have 2GB of some decent DDR2 667 there's nothing to worry about.

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

Don't know if folks rate posts much here, but I clicked the 5 star rating on this one. It's good to get the lowdown so easily. Thanks.

 

[halbhh]

I think this should be broken down in to pc types, The demands of a gaming pc and office are very different. The need of a dualcore isn't a must at this point in gaming but a htpc I would say needs one...

---------------
yeah, at least a low end dual core is a must.

I just realized my wording in the OP could be ambiguous on that. I'm saying for most people trying to get the most for their money, they need a 6300, 6400, or 3800, 4200, or 4600. But specialized users will need emphasis of course on some components.

There's a really neat review on the 8800 on Tom's where they point out how the 8800 could be co-opted as a powerful parallel processor of a sort.

 

[halbhh]

2 hard drives, one a raptor, and the second a seagate 7200.10 300Gig.

Install the OS on the raptor, and then move the page file (aka virtual memory file) onto the new 7200.10, to split the disk access wait time.

Raid is fine, but this strategy is better I think because you get 99% of the speed 99% of the time of a raid (for 99% of typical games and use), but for less money.....

For gaming, I'd not use this setup as you will probably install the game on the Seagate. Meaning you load graphics and game objects from the same drive as the swapfile, which impacts speed more than retaining the swap file on the Raptor (OS drive). The raptor will generally hold savegames as well as most games place them in the My Documents foder, but this doesn't impact performance as while saving games tend to "pause"

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

Good thing to think about. There are several permutations, and mine isn't necessarily the best. I do think I'd load my games from the raptor, in my setup. But.... a seagate 7200.10 has very good reading throughput which is quite good for loading games, so....it's possible to imagine reversing my setup, using the 7200.10 as both the system drive and the video drive (with partition), and as the game program drive, leaving the raptor as the swap drive, and possibly for other uses. Also, I remember that WinXP can use more than one swap drive and is supposed to choose the less active one on the fly, so perhaps both drives should have swap files (fixed in size).

I'm curious if you have further thoughts and details on why.

 

[halbhh]

as for the hdd thing I would just set up a raid 0 and a raid 1 on two 320gb hdd. then put the os and important stuff on the raid 1 and games and what not on the raid 0. sure you will loose a little space but if you set it up right there should be plenty of space to work with and your important stuff will not be gone if a hdd fails. I love the matrix feature of the new intel chipsets cant wait to get a mobo that can do that.

Would be curious to know how this works out.

 

[halbhh]

Some of us DO need a fast cpu - I generally use my computer to develop computer programs and run matlab scripts for scientific computing. I don't game, ever. I am not a gamer but I see a need for gaming benchmarks as some people are, but I see way too many posts like this that don't consider non-gamers, stating that everyone is dumb for not optimizing their comps for gaming.

Jo

Absolutely. Good to see a scientist type here. No doubt these are nice days for scientific computing, with so many new ways to go coming on. Another interesting thing I saw was the Nvidia 8800 review here on Tom's where it's pointed out the 8800 can be used as some sort of powerful parallel processor. I hope that gets going, because I'd love to see some new types of games and other software doing the neat stuff I could imagine.

 

[halbhh]

Apparently Vista will let us use USB memory for paging, and other caching.........If that's the case, then just get a stinkin fast USB jump drive with 2 or 4 gigs for CHEAP CHEAP. Then you're laughing.....why spent $300 more on DDR2???

Interesting enough, if we follow the logic here, then the AM2 is actually driving prices up because it need 667 or 800 RAM, not 533 like the C2D systems. So going C2D and 533 will actually help the theory here. But the OP seems rather pro-AMD.......the irony there is hilarious.

Regardless, it's not just DDR2. DDR prices are up too, it's across the board. So that theory of DDR2 doesn't wash either. CPU prices are up, mobo prices.........it's very simple: more demand = higher prices. Econ 101

So until supply increases or demand drops, or new tech releases.......then don't expect to see huge price drops period. The companies are milking it, and we're feeding it. So then..........which one of you are willing to not upgrade now? The OP? I think not. It's easy to sit here and wax philosophical about pricing and the finer points about technology and economics, but the reality is everyone here wants what they want.......so so it costs MORE. That's the simple bottom line, no different than cars, houses, or widgets. Just so happens it's computers..........

Well said, and good points. I think plenty of people have been adding mem to their machines, both for the benefits and also with an eye towards Vista. I read some manufacturers had switched to making NAND intstead of DRAM, and so the NAND got cheap, and the DRAM went up, heh heh. Now some are supposed to be switching lines back to DRAM. Are the fast USB sticks faster than good hard drives? Do they do better than 50Mb/sec?

 

[unsmart]

I believe the flashdrives are like 15MBs read and 10 write they may be a little better by now though. The main benefit is zero seek time with no spin up and a flat transfer rate. When you see transfer rates like 133MBs thats the rate of the interface. the sustained rate is a lot lower for the drive and with a highly fragmented file[ like page file] can be very low. When seek time and fragmentation are factored in the the flashdrive may not look so bad as a swap drive. The only thing that sucks is windows can't use flashdrives in[software] raid from what I could find this can only be done in Linux or OSX. Vista may change this I hope.
Vista doesn't use the flash in the same way as system mem so you won't kick your self for buying 2GB ddr2. It uses flash to cashe commonly used files and reduce hard drive access. It's just using flash as a swap file really.

 

[Neuman]

so are we past the days of being able to buy enough ram to turn off the sys page file all together?

 

[unsmart]

so are we past the days of being able to buy enough ram to turn off the sys page file all together?

That would depend on what your doing and how much ram you can get. Windows and gaming I would say yes about 8 years ago.
I may be the only one that remembers when comps didn't have hard drives. I have a TRS80 in the closet that boost about it's 64kB of mem. Thats why I hated computer until around 1999 when you could do something on them worth a sh*t.
I did find this http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/flash2005.ars It's a year old but read is 22MBs for highend flash but the write is still 10 or so. If you only have one drive then this would most likely be enough to improve swap.