New system with questions

[maverix]

Hello all...long time lurker first time poster! I am going to build another gaming system (plan on OC'ing) and I think I have it pretty much nailed down.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16811156062 for a case. I know I can buy this without a junk power powersupply but I have an old system that needs one and for $10 it is perfect.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16817703005 for the power supply.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814130080 for a GPU.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16820148070 either 2 of these for memory or 2 of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146565 is it worth it for the tracer?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16813128064 this for a MOBO or upgrade to this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131181 opinions please.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819115017 this for a CPU
and I have existing GIGABYTE water cooling so I will add this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16835128016 to my new graphics card I will have to call them and get the right bracket.
Also I would like a little information on the difference between SATA 3.0 and a Raptor drive. I understand that the raptor spins at 10,000 but it is 1.5...correct? Is the difference worth it? What about a RAM drive? I am lacking in knowledge on the differences.
Thanks in advance!
-Mav

 

[Maziar]

Hello and welcome to the forums m8
well the motherboard you choosed is DDR3 only , and those ram are DDR2 so they wont work , so change the motherboard to P5K-E(dont worry about DDR3)

the First RAM is DDR2 1066 with 5-5-5-15 timing
the second on is DDR2 800 with 4-4-4-12 timing
the differenece between DDR2 800 and 1066 isnt much , the second ram has better timing too But if u can pay $139 , go for OCZ REAPER DDR2 800 with 3-4-4-15 timing also its cheaper than that crucial (DDR2 1066), here is it :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227261

 

[maverix]

Thanks for the info so far. The first MOBO I listed was a DS4. What about the HD questions? Is the P5K-E stable for OC?
Thanks!
-Mav

 

[millwright]

Until they make HDs spin at 20,000 or find another way of getting data off them they can't really take advantage of SATA 3.0 or even the UDMA 133 interface.
I don,t know the specs of your drive, but it could be as fast or faster than any SATA 3.0 drive.

 

[Maziar]

Thanks for the info so far. The first MOBO I listed was a DS4. What about the HD questions? Is the P5K-E stable for OC?
Thanks!
-Mav

P5K-E is very good for OC

 

[maverix]

Until they make HDs spin at 20,000 or find another way of getting data off them they can't really take advantage of SATA 3.0 or even the UDMA 133 interface.
I don,t know the specs of your drive, but it could be as fast or faster than any SATA 3.0 drive.

Sorry my question was vague. I am trying to decide between SATA 3.0, a Raptor Drive (10,000) or a RAM Drive. I am just looking for enough information to make a decision. I am curious if a SATA 3.0 is faster then then the Raptor because of the Raptor being Serial ATA150, I know that the latency of a Raptor is just under 3 and the SATA is just over 4. I have heard that the Raptors are pretty loud and they are more money the RAM Drive is way more but I can see how that is faster then the SATA or the Raptor drives. Just looking for opinions.
Thanks!
-Mav

 

[barneybadass]

well... the real issue re: speed comes down to several notions.

are you going to try and RAID 0 your drives ( seems like while you get better performance the general consensus is not to do it for home environments).

As for speed... the real question is how large are your files you will be processing (reading).

If the files are small, then you won't likely see any appreciative difference. Where the difference seems to be noticeable is when you have fairly large files (say >-= 100 Mb or so). Then you might see observe some difference; but really its not going to be much.

With all that, there's one other thing to take into account. That is the HDD I/O all goes through the south bridge. Some systems support both speeds but when you have a mixed environment (SATA I & SATA II) & try to put SATA I's & SATA II's in two RAID arrays concurrently; things get squirley... meaning only one or the other can be in the RAID array... and the other SATA drives might step down to the SATA I speeds.

Ok, what's this mean?

Let's say you have a pair of SATA I RAPTOR's and a pair of SATA II's.

So you put the Raptors into an array Great... so your speed is 150Mbps for those because that's the fastest they can go.

Now you try to put the SATA II's into a RAID array. Seems like these drives are now limited to only SATA I speeds even though they have the capability to step up to SATA II speeds. One explanation I've heard is that the pipes in the south bridge for the HDD I/O just isn't quite up to snuff to do it all at the same time.

If you are really bent on doing two raid structures with different speeds and have each of the SATA I & SATA II drives in individual raid structures; you might be required to acquire; install and configure an add on board for your SATA II's since you'll likely use the RAPTORS as your boot drives.

Oh, and as it goes for SSD's... they are a ways off just yet... and the question about how long they will be good (because of state changes) is going to be the key here... certainly the speeds are up to snuff... meaning the SSD's likely won't be much of the big bottleneck anymore.. but again.. that's still a ways off.

Now, how do I know this; I tried it and spent 17 kinds of H@#L sorting it out. Then I spent a long time talking with some engineers and got it all sorted out... and my resolution was to get a PCI Raid card.

If you don't raid the drives you should be fine and the south bridge should be able to push data to each drive at it's respective speed.

YMMV.

 

[systemlord]

Sorry my question was vague. I am trying to decide between SATA 3.0, a Raptor Drive (10,000) or a RAM Drive. I am just looking for enough information to make a decision. I am curious if a SATA 3.0 is faster then then the Raptor because of the Raptor being Serial ATA150, I know that the latency of a Raptor is just under 3 and the SATA is just over 4. I have heard that the Raptors are pretty loud and they are more money the RAM Drive is way more but I can see how that is faster then the SATA or the Raptor drives. Just looking for opinions.
Thanks!
-Mav

The Raptor will beat most HDD because of the 10,000 RPMs. For normal computer use and gaming you can't knock a Raptor! Also the SATA 3.0 bandwidth is waiting to be tapped into but no HDD has yet. Having a Raptor gives your PC a responsiveness that has to be seen, its fast! Raptors are not loud either, if you have a PC case that has a lot of lose metal you will notice it. My case is very sturdy and I never hear it unless I'm defragging my HDD.

 

[maverix]

well... the real issue re: speed comes down to several notions.

are you going to try and RAID 0 your drives ( seems like while you get better performance the general consensus is not to do it for home environments).

As for speed... the real question is how large are your files you will be processing (reading).

If the files are small, then you won't likely see any appreciative difference. Where the difference seems to be noticeable is when you have fairly large files (say >-= 100 Mb or so). Then you might see observe some difference; but really its not going to be much.

With all that, there's one other thing to take into account. That is the HDD I/O all goes through the south bridge. Some systems support both speeds but when you have a mixed environment (SATA I & SATA II) & try to put SATA I's & SATA II's in two RAID arrays concurrently; things get squirley... meaning only one or the other can be in the RAID array... and the other SATA drives might step down to the SATA I speeds.

Ok, what's this mean?

Let's say you have a pair of SATA I RAPTOR's and a pair of SATA II's.

So you put the Raptors into an array Great... so your speed is 150Mbps for those because that's the fastest they can go.

Now you try to put the SATA II's into a RAID array. Seems like these drives are now limited to only SATA I speeds even though they have the capability to step up to SATA II speeds. One explanation I've heard is that the pipes in the south bridge for the HDD I/O just isn't quite up to snuff to do it all at the same time.

If you are really bent on doing two raid structures with different speeds and have each of the SATA I & SATA II drives in individual raid structures; you might be required to acquire; install and configure an add on board for your SATA II's since you'll likely use the RAPTORS as your boot drives.

Oh, and as it goes for SSD's... they are a ways off just yet... and the question about how long they will be good (because of state changes) is going to be the key here... certainly the speeds are up to snuff... meaning the SSD's likely won't be much of the big bottleneck anymore.. but again.. that's still a ways off.

Now, how do I know this; I tried it and spent 17 kinds of H@#L sorting it out. Then I spent a long time talking with some engineers and got it all sorted out... and my resolution was to get a PCI Raid card.

If you don't raid the drives you should be fine and the south bridge should be able to push data to each drive at it's respective speed.

YMMV.

I this machine will be mainly for gaming. I was planning on putting one HD in it for now and adding other drives for storage when I need it. My current PC is RAID 5 and I have alot of room left on it for storage. I will cross the RAID bridge for this machine when I get there.
Thanks!
-Mav

 

[systemlord]

I this machine will be mainly for gaming. I was planning on putting one HD in it for now and adding other drives for storage when I need it. My current PC is RAID 5 and I have alot of room left on it for storage. I will cross the RAID bridge for this machine when I get there.
Thanks!
-Mav

You might want to have a dual boot system, XP on one & Vista on the other. The reason for this is some games you lose too much performance with Vista.

 

[Maziar]

agreed^^ , i have VISTA 32+ XP64 and i use XP for gaming and VISTA for watching videos or some games that only run with VISTA (like HALO2)