If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
"DRS" wrote in message ... "Ed Light" wrote in message news4a5g.666$KB.218@fed1read08 Not being a math genius, If you are using two drives from a batch that has one per 100 fail, then with one drive the probability is 1%, with two drives it's 2%. But the MTBF - a measure of the average life of all such drives - doesn't change. Right. Me too. -- Ed Light Smiley :-/ MS Smiley :-\ Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org Fight Spam: http://bluesecurity.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
DRS wrote:
"Ed Light" wrote in message news4a5g.666$KB.218@fed1read08 Not being a math genius, If you are using two drives from a batch that has one per 100 fail, then with one drive the probability is 1%, with two drives it's 2%. But the MTBF - a measure of the average life of all such drives - doesn't change. Note that he was talking about the MTBF for the disk *system*, not the MTBF of individual drives. The MTBF of the individual drives of course remains the same (and more or less completely disconnected from the MTBF figure given by the drive manufacturer, but that's another topic ...) but the MTBF of the system is divided by two (as the assumption is the failure rate of a drive is an exponential distribution), compared to running a single larger disk. Of course, the MTBF of a 2-disk RAID 0 system is the same as the MTBF for a 2-disk RAID 1 system, but the impact of these failures are much different MTBDL (mean time between data loss) is a far more useful figure. -- Michael Brown Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
There are a couple of magazines out(CPU and Smart Computing) that review the
new Vista operating system. They say you will want a dual core processor due to the fact that Vista has no less than 36 background programs running, and you want hard drives that have NCQ like Western Digital's Raid Edition hard drives. And if he wants a responsive system, you will want to do a Raid 0 setup. All this talk of drive failure is a bunch of bull. I'll have 6 WD 320 gb Raid Edition drives in 3 raid 0 arrays when I'm done upgrading. The secret to drive longevity is to make sure you have fans blowing or sucking air over them to help keep them cool. -- Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 512mb AGP MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner Thermaltake LanFire Midtower with Antec 550 Watt PSU Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C 2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5 Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter PATA WD 80+120 Gb HD 8mb buffers Pioneer 110D+Liteon 1693S Dual Layer burner Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick Microsoft ergonomic keyboard Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones 3DMark05Free-Overall 4006 Original Drivers Cpu 4264 3Dmark2001 - 17680 Games I'm Playing- Battlezone II, IL-2 Sturmovick Series Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2, Civ IV "Cal Vanize" wrote in message ... [OK, so I cross-posted.] Background: I'm in the process of building a new computer for a friend who is a rather demanding business power-user. The computer will be used mostly for internet browsing / email, business applications, and some light gaming. The game that would probably present the most CPU burden would be MS Flight Simulator 2004. User often has 4 - 6 business applications open at the same time then may launch FS keeping the other apps in the background. He indicated that memory usage sometimes tops 1g in his current system. He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him express any concerns about stability. System considerations: The hard drives will be two WD SE16 250gb in RAID 0 (I have concerns about the reliability of Raptors). Memory will be two gig (2x1gb) of Corsair XMS Platinum CAS2 (becuase I have it). O/S will either be W2K or XP Home. I'll probably use a ASUS A8N-VM CSM since there is not a heavy burden on video performance. (I run FS 2004 on a GF-6100 board without any problems.) The board is only capable of ~ 20% overclocking but reports indicate its VERY stable. I'm interested in using a dual core processor for this application and are considering either a X2 3800 or an Opteron 165. Question: In this application, are there any opinions on whether the X2 3800 or Opteron 165 would perform better? TIA, CV |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
As far as HDD go, Western Digital are more prone to failure than most other
brands. I service computers. When the HDD is the failing component, it is most often a Western Digital (all flavors). I don't have hard figures, but a best guess would be that perhaps 70% of bad HDD are WD. Also high on the list are Iomega and AcomDATA. I would not recommend them *AT ALL*. FWIW, the most reliable hard drives are the ones made by Seagate. I see very few failed Seagate HDD. Raid 0 in not necessary or recommended for the average user, and is not necessary for Vista. The new breed of drives with Perpendicular Recording and NCQ are fast enough in a JBOD installation. I would also stay away from any Microsoft joysticks. Since you are already going with a Logitech mouse, I would also recommend one of their keyboards and joysticks. They are of much better build quality than the MS. Bobby "VanShania" wrote in message ... There are a couple of magazines out(CPU and Smart Computing) that review the new Vista operating system. They say you will want a dual core processor due to the fact that Vista has no less than 36 background programs running, and you want hard drives that have NCQ like Western Digital's Raid Edition hard drives. And if he wants a responsive system, you will want to do a Raid 0 setup. All this talk of drive failure is a bunch of bull. I'll have 6 WD 320 gb Raid Edition drives in 3 raid 0 arrays when I'm done upgrading. The secret to drive longevity is to make sure you have fans blowing or sucking air over them to help keep them cool. -- Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 512mb AGP MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner Thermaltake LanFire Midtower with Antec 550 Watt PSU Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C 2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5 Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter PATA WD 80+120 Gb HD 8mb buffers Pioneer 110D+Liteon 1693S Dual Layer burner Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick Microsoft ergonomic keyboard Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones 3DMark05Free-Overall 4006 Original Drivers Cpu 4264 3Dmark2001 - 17680 Games I'm Playing- Battlezone II, IL-2 Sturmovick Series Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2, Civ IV "Cal Vanize" wrote in message ... [OK, so I cross-posted.] Background: I'm in the process of building a new computer for a friend who is a rather demanding business power-user. The computer will be used mostly for internet browsing / email, business applications, and some light gaming. The game that would probably present the most CPU burden would be MS Flight Simulator 2004. User often has 4 - 6 business applications open at the same time then may launch FS keeping the other apps in the background. He indicated that memory usage sometimes tops 1g in his current system. He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him express any concerns about stability. System considerations: The hard drives will be two WD SE16 250gb in RAID 0 (I have concerns about the reliability of Raptors). Memory will be two gig (2x1gb) of Corsair XMS Platinum CAS2 (becuase I have it). O/S will either be W2K or XP Home. I'll probably use a ASUS A8N-VM CSM since there is not a heavy burden on video performance. (I run FS 2004 on a GF-6100 board without any problems.) The board is only capable of ~ 20% overclocking but reports indicate its VERY stable. I'm interested in using a dual core processor for this application and are considering either a X2 3800 or an Opteron 165. Question: In this application, are there any opinions on whether the X2 3800 or Opteron 165 would perform better? TIA, CV |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in message ... As far as HDD go, Western Digital are more prone to failure than most other brands. I service computers. When the HDD is the failing component, it is most often a Western Digital (all flavors). I don't have hard figures, but a best guess would be that perhaps 70% of bad HDD are WD. Also high on the list are Iomega and AcomDATA. I would not recommend them *AT ALL*. My experience is the opposite of yours, the #1 failed brand I run across is IBM with WD being one of the most reliable makes. I don't think any single persons relatively small dataset means a whole lot. (* |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
VanShania wrote:
There are a couple of magazines out(CPU and Smart Computing) that review the new Vista operating system. They say you will want a dual core processor due to the fact that Vista has no less than 36 background programs running, All that overhead and an Windows's basic functions havent changed since Win95. If what you read is true, then Vista better be a huge advancement in OS function, not just look and feel. Otherwise you could run Win2K on my old Duron 700 and it would be just as "snappy" as Vista on my current X2 3800. -Dylan C |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
"Cal Vanize" wrote...
The computer will be used mostly for internet browsing / email, business applications, and some light gaming. The game that would probably present the most CPU burden would be MS Flight Simulator 2004. User often has 4 - 6 business applications open at the same time then may launch FS keeping the other apps in the background. He indicated that memory usage sometimes tops 1g in his current system. He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him express any concerns about stability. System considerations: The hard drives will be two WD SE16 250gb in RAID 0 (I have concerns about the reliability of Raptors). Memory will be two gig (2x1gb) of Corsair XMS Platinum CAS2 (becuase I have it). O/S will either be W2K or XP Home. I'll probably use a ASUS A8N-VM CSM since there is not a heavy burden on video performance. (I run FS 2004 on a GF-6100 board without any problems.) The board is only capable of ~ 20% overclocking but reports indicate its VERY stable. I'm interested in using a dual core processor for this application and are considering either a X2 3800 or an Opteron 165. Question: In this application, are there any opinions on whether the X2 3800 or Opteron 165 would perform better? Stability concerns are at odds with overclocking and RAID 0. I've already lost a RAID array due to a MS foulup in a Win XP update. You may be lucky so far, but... I have seen no concerns about reliability with the Raptor 74s (I have a pair). I saw some early concerns about the Raptor 36s, but researching statistics I could find at the time indicated the failure/return rate was in line with other IDE HDs (as many for noise as for actual failure). The 74s have been very reliable (and quiet); the 150s should be the same. I'd go with the fastest X2 you can afford. The X2 goes to 2.4 GHz now (3800+ is 2 GHz), while the 165 is at 1.8 GHz. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
personally, I think hard drives fail mainly because of bad handling by the
vendors and /or new owners. I had 1 WD HD fail, but it gave warning signs right out of the antistatic covering(OEM). It was clicking anytime it was accessed. And since the vendor I bought it from dropped my replacement on the desk, I guess that said it all. I did try a logitech joystick once and I wasn't impressed. Although their new 10 button one looked pretty good. But I found microsoft's joysticks to be more user friendly. I think most people start out as average users until they get to see how a computer can make life simpler. Then they become power users and wish they would have gone with a raid enabled motherboard so those 4gb (home/ripped)movies would transfer a little quicker, or games load/install quicker, etc. I read an online review recently and he said that once you go raid 0, you'll never go back. Also JBOD is also a (slowest)raid array that is the slower than any non-raid setup, and I believe if one drive fails, the whole array is also lost. You have used Vista yourself? -- Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 512mb AGP MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner Thermaltake LanFire Midtower with Antec 550 Watt PSU Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C 2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5 Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter PATA WD 80+120 Gb HD 8mb buffers Pioneer 110D+Liteon 1693S Dual Layer burner Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick Microsoft ergonomic keyboard Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones 3DMark05Free-Overall 4006 Original Drivers Cpu 4264 3Dmark2001 - 17680 Games I'm Playing- Battlezone II, IL-2 Sturmovick Series Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2, Civ IV "NoNoBadDog!" wrote in message ... As far as HDD go, Western Digital are more prone to failure than most other brands. I service computers. When the HDD is the failing component, it is most often a Western Digital (all flavors). I don't have hard figures, but a best guess would be that perhaps 70% of bad HDD are WD. Also high on the list are Iomega and AcomDATA. I would not recommend them *AT ALL*. FWIW, the most reliable hard drives are the ones made by Seagate. I see very few failed Seagate HDD. Raid 0 in not necessary or recommended for the average user, and is not necessary for Vista. The new breed of drives with Perpendicular Recording and NCQ are fast enough in a JBOD installation. I would also stay away from any Microsoft joysticks. Since you are already going with a Logitech mouse, I would also recommend one of their keyboards and joysticks. They are of much better build quality than the MS. Bobby "VanShania" wrote in message ... There are a couple of magazines out(CPU and Smart Computing) that review the new Vista operating system. They say you will want a dual core processor due to the fact that Vista has no less than 36 background programs running, and you want hard drives that have NCQ like Western Digital's Raid Edition hard drives. And if he wants a responsive system, you will want to do a Raid 0 setup. All this talk of drive failure is a bunch of bull. I'll have 6 WD 320 gb Raid Edition drives in 3 raid 0 arrays when I'm done upgrading. The secret to drive longevity is to make sure you have fans blowing or sucking air over them to help keep them cool. -- Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 512mb AGP MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner Thermaltake LanFire Midtower with Antec 550 Watt PSU Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C 2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5 Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter PATA WD 80+120 Gb HD 8mb buffers Pioneer 110D+Liteon 1693S Dual Layer burner Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick Microsoft ergonomic keyboard Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones 3DMark05Free-Overall 4006 Original Drivers Cpu 4264 3Dmark2001 - 17680 Games I'm Playing- Battlezone II, IL-2 Sturmovick Series Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2, Civ IV "Cal Vanize" wrote in message ... [OK, so I cross-posted.] Background: I'm in the process of building a new computer for a friend who is a rather demanding business power-user. The computer will be used mostly for internet browsing / email, business applications, and some light gaming. The game that would probably present the most CPU burden would be MS Flight Simulator 2004. User often has 4 - 6 business applications open at the same time then may launch FS keeping the other apps in the background. He indicated that memory usage sometimes tops 1g in his current system. He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him express any concerns about stability. System considerations: The hard drives will be two WD SE16 250gb in RAID 0 (I have concerns about the reliability of Raptors). Memory will be two gig (2x1gb) of Corsair XMS Platinum CAS2 (becuase I have it). O/S will either be W2K or XP Home. I'll probably use a ASUS A8N-VM CSM since there is not a heavy burden on video performance. (I run FS 2004 on a GF-6100 board without any problems.) The board is only capable of ~ 20% overclocking but reports indicate its VERY stable. I'm interested in using a dual core processor for this application and are considering either a X2 3800 or an Opteron 165. Question: In this application, are there any opinions on whether the X2 3800 or Opteron 165 would perform better? TIA, CV |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
I'd go with the fastest X2 you can afford. The X2 goes to 2.4 GHz now (3800+ is 2 GHz), while the 165 is at 1.8 GHz. As long as this is an OC group I need to ask this question: won't a 3800+ OC to the same max as the fastest X2 that uses the same core? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dual Core Comparison
"user" wrote in message ... I'd go with the fastest X2 you can afford. The X2 goes to 2.4 GHz now (3800+ is 2 GHz), while the 165 is at 1.8 GHz. As long as this is an OC group I need to ask this question: won't a 3800+ OC to the same max as the fastest X2 that uses the same core? Yes. 2.4 is easy. It may need a tad more voltage. Try out alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd too. -- Ed Light Smiley :-/ MS Smiley :-\ Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org Fight Spam: http://bluesecurity.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMD Dual core is better than Intels... | Jay B | Dell Computers | 1 | December 5th 05 04:31 PM |
AMD or Intel : Dual core | Brian | Intel | 9 | July 29th 05 05:19 PM |
for those wondering about dual core bios | dead kitty | AMD x86-64 Processors | 3 | July 27th 05 06:11 PM |
Dual Core Chips vs Dual Processors | nikoli | General | 2 | May 26th 05 12:04 PM |
"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped | Yousuf Khan | Intel | 69 | November 5th 04 12:51 AM |