Yawn .... Preamble:
Quality, value builds are a moving target and personal styles and philosophies play no small part. Certain components and elements (architechtural choices) are desirable for all builds (i.e. an adequate Power Supply Unit (PSU) ). But, beyond the fundamental infrastructure which is common to ALL builds, personal usage and proclivities and budgetas well as anyr special requirements will surely influence the nature of the finalized build. We attempt to "measure" our computing experience with benchmarks, and by comparing specs. Some limits on budget are almost always a factor. Emerging trends (such as the SSD) can further alter lagacy formulae for cost/performance (according to individual "philosophy").
When it comes to academic debates over storage and graphics subsystems, for a given price and purpose, there should still be some underlying "most correct" logic. Of course, the customer's (owner's) priorities and circumstances ($80K/yr Designer needs $12k WrkStstn) ultimately should govern where the money goes.
So where and what is that central core logic? Is it some perfect truth, which the community uncovers and collectively approves? Well, yes except that the buyer/owner has ultimate veto, as it should be, but I still believe that old trends and persistent misconceptions(?) fail to provide the best overall throughput (and "per monetary unit") cost/performance ... or ... "value" ... or ... "computing/user experience".
While benchmarks are invaluable in bolstering a debate (premise), it is real world (practical and specific) throughput and the experience and satisfaction of the owner and any users.
BOTTLENECKS !!! In a given commercial application (for instance), even an inadequate printer or routing can stifle efficiency and profits. On the flip side, we are all sensitive to overkill, given that times are hard, PCs are expensive, and they depreciate very quickly toward obsolescence.
The identification of (and solutions to) BOTTLENECKS is fundamental and key to any generic "core build logic" if such a thing exists.
Further, understanding and balancing the true scale and effect of one bottleneck (i.e. speed of memory) versus another (speed of storage), is crucial if any sort of OPTIMIZED THROUGHPUT IS TO BE ACHEIVED (THROU A BETTER BUILD).
How, then, should we (the community with buyer's) evaluate and prioritize these, more general and central, bottlenecks and ... How should we apply our monies for the ultimate efficiency and satisfaction of experience?
So, in future posts, on this thread, I will make a case for my own views (thus far) on where monies should be "focused", in terms of general performance.
Gamers, tho their priorities (manly gpu cards) are different, are so numerous that they deserve special consideration but, within even their domain, some core arguments (between build consultants) persist (as in the "one premium gpu or two mainstream gpus" debate). On less tricky issues, such as PSUs, there is less disagreement.
I intend to make the mathematical/financial case that storage is "far and away", THE LARGEST GENERAL BOTTLENECK of all the core components (unless print-jobs are your bread and butter). I will also argue, with benchmarks, costs, and logic, that "value" (on a per component basis) does not trump performance, when it comes to disproportionate bottlenecks and, Babies, if there is only ONE MAJOR BOTTLENECK in terms of general architecture (and reliability too) it is the storage subsystem !!!
I would also like to discuss the whole "more memory" vs, "faster memory" and also try to determine how much perceptable and cumulative advantages might be gained by various memory (and MMU) architechtures ... From DDR2x1CH w/off-die MMU to DDR#+ x3CH w/on-die MMU.
How much does "Socket Pin Count" effect system performance and sustained (in years) system longevity ?
And there is that whole gamer's graphics thing, which we just might be able to settle, if we can corral all the proper benchmarks ... we might be able to answer some of those functions as well as . . .
. . . WHAT EFFECT WILL PCIe3.0 HAVE ON GAMERS GRAPHICS ?? (in terms of SLI/xFire) ?
I'm a little fried, for now ... I'll pick this train of thought up (with or without you) at some later date. If I get around to it.
All's fair in love and war so, by all means, flame away!
= Alvin =
Quality, value builds are a moving target and personal styles and philosophies play no small part. Certain components and elements (architechtural choices) are desirable for all builds (i.e. an adequate Power Supply Unit (PSU) ). But, beyond the fundamental infrastructure which is common to ALL builds, personal usage and proclivities and budgetas well as anyr special requirements will surely influence the nature of the finalized build. We attempt to "measure" our computing experience with benchmarks, and by comparing specs. Some limits on budget are almost always a factor. Emerging trends (such as the SSD) can further alter lagacy formulae for cost/performance (according to individual "philosophy").
When it comes to academic debates over storage and graphics subsystems, for a given price and purpose, there should still be some underlying "most correct" logic. Of course, the customer's (owner's) priorities and circumstances ($80K/yr Designer needs $12k WrkStstn) ultimately should govern where the money goes.
So where and what is that central core logic? Is it some perfect truth, which the community uncovers and collectively approves? Well, yes except that the buyer/owner has ultimate veto, as it should be, but I still believe that old trends and persistent misconceptions(?) fail to provide the best overall throughput (and "per monetary unit") cost/performance ... or ... "value" ... or ... "computing/user experience".
While benchmarks are invaluable in bolstering a debate (premise), it is real world (practical and specific) throughput and the experience and satisfaction of the owner and any users.
BOTTLENECKS !!! In a given commercial application (for instance), even an inadequate printer or routing can stifle efficiency and profits. On the flip side, we are all sensitive to overkill, given that times are hard, PCs are expensive, and they depreciate very quickly toward obsolescence.
The identification of (and solutions to) BOTTLENECKS is fundamental and key to any generic "core build logic" if such a thing exists.
Further, understanding and balancing the true scale and effect of one bottleneck (i.e. speed of memory) versus another (speed of storage), is crucial if any sort of OPTIMIZED THROUGHPUT IS TO BE ACHEIVED (THROU A BETTER BUILD).
How, then, should we (the community with buyer's) evaluate and prioritize these, more general and central, bottlenecks and ... How should we apply our monies for the ultimate efficiency and satisfaction of experience?
So, in future posts, on this thread, I will make a case for my own views (thus far) on where monies should be "focused", in terms of general performance.
Gamers, tho their priorities (manly gpu cards) are different, are so numerous that they deserve special consideration but, within even their domain, some core arguments (between build consultants) persist (as in the "one premium gpu or two mainstream gpus" debate). On less tricky issues, such as PSUs, there is less disagreement.
I intend to make the mathematical/financial case that storage is "far and away", THE LARGEST GENERAL BOTTLENECK of all the core components (unless print-jobs are your bread and butter). I will also argue, with benchmarks, costs, and logic, that "value" (on a per component basis) does not trump performance, when it comes to disproportionate bottlenecks and, Babies, if there is only ONE MAJOR BOTTLENECK in terms of general architecture (and reliability too) it is the storage subsystem !!!
I would also like to discuss the whole "more memory" vs, "faster memory" and also try to determine how much perceptable and cumulative advantages might be gained by various memory (and MMU) architechtures ... From DDR2x1CH w/off-die MMU to DDR#+ x3CH w/on-die MMU.
How much does "Socket Pin Count" effect system performance and sustained (in years) system longevity ?
And there is that whole gamer's graphics thing, which we just might be able to settle, if we can corral all the proper benchmarks ... we might be able to answer some of those functions as well as . . .
. . . WHAT EFFECT WILL PCIe3.0 HAVE ON GAMERS GRAPHICS ?? (in terms of SLI/xFire) ?
I'm a little fried, for now ... I'll pick this train of thought up (with or without you) at some later date. If I get around to it.
All's fair in love and war so, by all means, flame away!
= Alvin =