Xoutpost.com - need help from the computer/IT pros

Page 2 of 2

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)

- The Lounge (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/lounge/)

- - need help from the computer/IT pros (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/lounge/3722-need-help-computer-pros.html)

drex	07-25-2005 11:57 PM

thanks everyone for the help, and especially you, josh! that was awesome! i appreciate the after hours phone call and recruitment of your systems specialist!

Bavarian

07-26-2005 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeMansX5

Anybody built PC with Dual -AGP cards? e.g. Intel SLI

Hehehe nope not yet. But my motherboard supports it.

BTW, SLI is nVidia's technology. Nothing to do with Intel. ATI's similar upcoming technology is called Crossfire. And dual cards can only be run on PCI Express 16x slots, not AGP8X ones.

However even with dual high-end cards, you pay twice for the card, but yield only 25% performance boost. :confused:

Chris F.

07-26-2005 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bavarian

I just built my new dual-core PC last weekend, and one of my most favorite toys is the HD, Chris. It's a Western Digital 250GB drive. It spins at 7200RPM, but has the SATA-2 interface. This allows for 3GB/s operation (twice that of SATA-1). Now while my seek time is still twice as slow as yours, the transfer is twice as quick. Plus the 250GB model has a unique 16MB cache, as opposed to 8MB of most others.

OK thanks for the info! So what have folks been saying so far....SATA-1 10kRPM 8MB cache vs. SATA-2 7200 RPM 16MB cache?

Disk always seems to be the holdup in processing data. It drives me crazy....

Chris

LeMansX5

07-26-2005 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bavarian

And dual cards can only be run on PCI Express 16x slots, not AGP8X ones.

That is right. Thanks for the correction.....I read it but so used to calling AGP.

Bavarian

07-26-2005 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris F.

16MB cache 7200RPM SATA-2 drives are so rare at the moment. No comparison has been done yet with a Raptor. I await such a review - always has interesting findings.

I imagine that the Raptor would still win for gaming applications. However for video processing (where lots of data is copied from one place on the HD to another), the 16MB-cache of the SATA-2 drive, plus constant higher transfer would win over.

They are apples and oranges, each with its own strengths. Now, if we had a Raptor using the SATA-2 interface, the winner would be quite clear, 16MB-cache or not. :)

UCrewX5

07-26-2005 05:52 PM

You should have jumped on today's Woot deal - http://woot.com/

hayaku

07-26-2005 06:45 PM

you all squared drex? or you still need help? pm me if you do...

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page