X38 or 780i

[jirad7359]

Still debating whether I should get an intel based board for the sweet chipsets or nvidia to have some nice sli action. Obviously the intel boards will be more stable and probably a bit better for overclocking, but sli is definately a big performance upgrade when running 2x 8800 gts =|. Anyone here have any experience running either boards atm?

[Zxian]

There isn't too much point in SLI. The benefits don't really justify the extra cost of a second video card, and like you said, Intel based motherboards are more stable than nVidia's.

I'd suggest getting the X38 if you've got the money to spare. Pair that up with a nice quad-core CPU, two drives in RAID0, and an 8800GT/GTS and you'll be off to the races.

[ripken204]

x38 may support SLI in the future

[legionaire]

Pair that up with a nice quad-core CPU, two drives in RAID0, and an 8800GT/GTS and you'll be off to the races.

Bear in mind though that by 'drives' Zxian means 10,000rpm raptors. Anything below that just doesn't deserve being called a 'drive' by Zxian's standards.

It's up to you to decide, however, if a second drive justifies the extra cost - just like with SLI.

Edited January 16, 2008 by legionaire

[firefoxthebomb]

I would go with the intel one instead

[jcarle]

Bear in mind though that by 'drives' Zxian means 10,000rpm raptors. Anything below that just doesn't deserve being called a 'drive' by Zxian's standards.

It's up to you to decide, however, if a second drive justifies the extra cost - just like with SLI.

Um, no. Myself and Zxian both agree that ANY two drives in RAID 0 is faster then ANY single drive. Two 80GB 7,200RPM in RAID 0 will stomp a 74GB 10,000RPM drive. 10,000RPM drives are only recommended for serious performance junkies because they are a] expensive b] noisy and c] of low capacity.

Edited January 16, 2008 by jcarle

[Zxian]

jcarle took the words out of my mouth.

On a second note, the main performance boost that you get with Raptors is the access time. A 320GB 7200RPM drive will match the 74GB Raptor in terms of sustained transfer speed - an ability it picks up due to the high platter density of today's drives.

For a system drive where speed is a priority, a second drive configured in RAID0 always justifies the cost. The hard drives in your system are almost always the bottleneck in terms of overall system performance, and they need all the help they can get.

[ripken204]

i still dont beleive much in RAID0, you guys always make claims about how it is always faster than a single drive.

but you never add in the fact that it is only faster in terms of the sustained transfer speed. the random access time actually drops a little bit.

in my case with my 2x320gb 7200.10's, my random access time dropped 2-3ms.

now i have 2x150GB raptors not in RAID0, access time is what i need, not a high transfer speed.

most people dont work with large files daily, meaning that RAID0 is somewhay pointless for most people.

if you can justify RAID0 then be all means use it, it will most likely help you alot, but for many it is pointless.

[jcarle]

i still dont beleive much in RAID0, you guys always make claims about how it is always faster than a single drive.

but you never add in the fact that it is only faster in terms of the sustained transfer speed. the random access time actually drops a little bit.

in my case with my 2x320gb 7200.10's, my random access time dropped 2-3ms.

now i have 2x150GB raptors not in RAID0, access time is what i need, not a high transfer speed.

most people dont work with large files daily, meaning that RAID0 is somewhay pointless for most people.

if you can justify RAID0 then be all means use it, it will most likely help you alot, but for many it is pointless.

You seriously have to clean the crap out of your eyes. The benefits in performance in RAID 0 have been discussed to DEATH. Access time is CRAP. If you really think that a 5ms increase in access time is going to do jack to change anything, then you understand the concepts even less then I thought. But let me just spell it out to you anyway.

There are 1000 (ONE THOUSAND!) milliseconds in a single second. Decreasing access time by 5ms yields a 0.5 % increase in performance. However, increased transfer speeds from 65Mbit/s to 120Mbit/s yields an 84.6 % increase in performance. Unless your running a file server with hundreds of users, you will NEVER see a real world difference in access time. Even with thousands of files. Considering 1,000 files @ 5ms slower would take a whole 5 seconds more!!!

Yet, increasing your transfer speed by 55Mbit/s would mean that a 1.5GB file would copy a whole 1 minute 25 seconds faster. Now THAT's something worth noticing.

Increase your RAID 0 to four high density 7200RPM drives and use a hardware RAID controller and you've increased performance so much at such little cost that you'll never come close to the same performance at the same cost using 10000RPM drives.

If you look up the definition of RAID in the first place, you'd find that RAID means Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Drives. Yes, I'm aware that there is no redundancy in RAID 0, and therefore it's not considered a true RAID but the principal still applies. Lower costs for higher benefits.

You might want to do research instead of flaunting ignorance.

Edited January 17, 2008 by jcarle

[ripken204]

wow you need to watch yourself.

i said that raid0 only helps with high transfer speeds, which is all that you really said above.

i also said that it only helps with transfering large files, which you also said above.

and i also said that most people dont transfer large files. who copies 1.5GB files daily?

are any of these things wrong?

[jcarle]

wow you need to watch yourself.

i said that raid0 only helps with high transfer speeds, which is all that you really said above.

i also said that it only helps with transfering large files, which you also said above.

and i also said that most people dont transfer large files. who copies 1.5GB files daily?

are any of these things wrong?

Access time on a RAID 0 does not change. RAID 0 access times are IDENTICAL to the drive's access time without RAID.

Since access time does NOT change and transfer speed does INCREASE, then it takes less time to read ALL files, large or small. You're not going to notice a real world difference reading small files NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. 10000RPM drives, RAID 0, nothing changes anything unless you start going with something extreme like solid state drives because small files are just that, SMALL. You WILL notice the delay on large files and there are PLENTY of large files on a typical computer today. Unless you don't install anything!

The ONLY time access time has ANY relevance is when running a server with a HIGH transactional rate requiring a LOT of SIMULTANEOUS AND RANDOM access to files. Which no one in a typical home environment will ever have to do.

Transfer speed helps EVERYWHERE. From Windows boot times to game loading to application loading. It's the difference between going to get a drink while you wait for your game to load and barely having time to wipe your nose first.

If you can't grasp these concepts then you have no business even giving an ounce of advice to anyone about hardware because it will obviously be beyond you.

[ripken204]

i have came to my conclusions and so have others. also, both me and others have measured a decrease in access times while in raid0 by using benchmarking programs.

my games load times are extremely fast. the game that takes longest to load is BF2142 and i am always one of the first ppl on the map anyways.

[jcarle]

i have came to my conclusions and so have others. also, both me and others have measured a decrease in access times while in raid0 by using benchmarking programs.

my games load times are extremely fast. the game that takes longest to load is BF2142 and i am always one of the first ppl on the map anyways.

And the hundreds of professionals who have done thousands of tests using professional equipment and have professional backgrounds are wrong. Okay, you're right.