AOA Forums AOA Forums AOA Forums Folding For Team 45 AOA Files Home Front Page Become an AOA Subscriber! UserCP Calendar Memberlist FAQ Search Forum Home


Go Back   AOA Forums > Hardware > General Hardware Discussion

General Hardware Discussion Hard drives, CD, DVD Monitors, All hardware questions not better served by our other Topics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 15th August, 2003, 11:04 PM
Invalid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2003
Posts: 218
Send a message via AIM to Invalid

more memory or a faster HDD??

Hey,
Ive recently got some spending money and i just cant decide what to get out of the following, im looking for supreme speed in games and multitasking :

choice 1: Another stick of OCZ 3500 EL to make 512Mb (dual channel) plus 40/80Gig 7200 ATA133 model (caviar or something similar)...

choice 2: Two 40/80Gig 7200 ATA133 model (caviar or something similar) in raid-0...

so which one would anyone recommend?? I currently have a 40gig seagate 5400rpm HDD LoL...

Thanks!,

Ross
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 15th August, 2003, 11:14 PM
Staz's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: June 2002
Location: Lafayette LA
Posts: 3,241
Send a message via Yahoo to Staz

If you are currently running Win XP with only 256mb RAM then choice one would be a better choice. IMHO
__________________
How come whenever I have a 50/50 chance I'm wrong 80% of the time?

What goes in a computer? Click me to find out.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 15th August, 2003, 11:30 PM
Invalid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2003
Posts: 218
Send a message via AIM to Invalid

yea i suppose, XP does eat memory...i dont use XP that much though, i do web design on XP, games on 2000 and i use linux generally
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 15th August, 2003, 11:46 PM
cloasters's Avatar
Asst. BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 21,956

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invalid
Hey,
Ive recently got some spending money and i just cant decide what to get out of the following, im looking for supreme speed in games and multitasking :

choice 1: Another stick of OCZ 3500 EL to make 512Mb (dual channel) plus 40/80Gig 7200 ATA133 model (caviar or something similar)...

choice 2: Two 40/80Gig 7200 ATA133 model (caviar or something similar) in raid-0...

so which one would anyone recommend?? I currently have a 40gig seagate 5400rpm HDD LoL...

Thanks!,

Ross
The Western Digital's with the 8 Mb Cache are popular, they come with a 3 year warranty as well--or at least used to. As Staz posted, 256 Mb of RAM is pretty much history if you want to run WinXP.

Hate to mention it, Ross, however please remove the graphic in your signature. It's quite stylish, but rules are rules.
__________________
When the world will be better.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 16th August, 2003, 12:52 AM
Alexandrus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Secret Laboratory
Posts: 832

My vote goes to more RAM as well.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 16th August, 2003, 02:59 AM
SteveI's Avatar
AOA Staff
Tetris Champion
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,971

Ram would help... going dual ddr definitely doesn't hurt either. HDD performance has very little impact in games. But if you get another HDD, get 8meg cache... much faster disk performance. I've done raid0. It helps, but not worth the hassle in the long run. I just stick with 8meg cache drives now.
__________________
AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 16th August, 2003, 08:42 AM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

256Mb of RAM is a little on the short side for graphics work under either 2K or XP! I would consider that to be a sensible minimum for either OS.

Secondly, adding another hard disk can provide benefits in that you can split up OS, apps and swap space. You can see a boost in performance simply by placing your swap file on a different hard disk to your apps/OS.

In any case, it might be sensible to take advantage of programs built into the OS (like perfmon) to see how much swapping, memory usage and disk usage is actually happening. That will help you see where your system is currently bottlenecked.
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 16th August, 2003, 02:07 PM
Invalid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2003
Posts: 218
Send a message via AIM to Invalid

oops sorry cloasters, didnt realise, i will remove it at once...thanks for all the input guys, it seems i will get some more memory and an 8Mb cache HDD then....

Thanks!

Ross
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 16th August, 2003, 08:59 PM
Invalid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2003
Posts: 218
Send a message via AIM to Invalid

hmm, ok now it begs the questions, should i go with the Maxtor DiamondMAX plus 9 8Mb cache, £75 for 80 gig or the Western Digital Caviar 7200RPM 80GB 8MB for £70.00...does anyone have any experience with either drive, or have a HDD for about £70-£80 they would highly recomment?

Thanks!,

Ross
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 16th August, 2003, 11:29 PM
danrok's Avatar
AOA Staff
 
Join Date: March 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 18,917

Go for more memory if you want better performance in games.
__________________
Desktop PC: AMD FX-8370E / Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 Motherboard / 16GB DDR3 RAM / GeForce GTX 970
AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 17th August, 2003, 12:48 AM
Lazgoat's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: October 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,868

Invalid, have a look at the WD Caviar SE 120GB drives on Ebuyer.co.uk for £87 inc VAT.
I have the 80Gb version of the WD Caviar and Maxtor.The WD Caviar is noticeably faster and quieter, plus you get 3 years warranty!

Laz.
__________________
DFI SLi-D, Opteron 144 @ 2.8Ghz, 4x512MB PDP XBLK, 160GB WD Caviar SE, Benq 1620DW DVD-RW, X1800XT 256MB,Custom WC.


AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 17th August, 2003, 01:36 AM
cloasters's Avatar
Asst. BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 21,956

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invalid
oops sorry cloasters, didnt realise, i will remove it at once...thanks for all the input guys, it seems i will get some more memory and an 8Mb cache HDD then....

Thanks!

Ross
Thank you, Ross! Sorry that it had to go, it was danged nice.
__________________
When the world will be better.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 17th August, 2003, 11:26 AM
Invalid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2003
Posts: 218
Send a message via AIM to Invalid

hehe, dont matter...hmm, yes, ive been recommended the caviar from ebuyer...but i had some bad experiences with 2 dead mobos fro them so im a little hesitent, it is a nice deal though

Ross
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 3rd September, 2003, 06:15 AM
Member
 
Join Date: September 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 9

If I had less than 512 I would get it. As well, running the whole system (apps and os) raid0 is asking for trouble. Especialy if the controller is a software controller. You will lose it eventualy. The safest way is to have a single drive for the os and then raid the apps.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which should be faster Samuknow General Hardware Discussion 6 8th October, 2006 05:24 PM
Can I get it any faster? djXternal AMD Motherboards & CPUs 7 10th June, 2006 04:04 PM
Why does "faster" PC have lower Sandra memory scores? TrevorS AMD Motherboards & CPUs 4 6th June, 2005 06:58 AM
Looking for a faster P4?!?! robbie Intel Motherboards & CPUs 2 18th March, 2004 02:13 PM
Can't run faster than 166 FSB, Why? Uncle Bob EPoX MotherBoards 22 1st August, 2002 01:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums
Don't Click Here Don't Click Here Either

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0