Building a new machine, AMD VS. INTEL

AMD VS INTEL

  • Total voters
    28
i'd be curious as to why you have such a vehement reaction to this - a good portion of the time you're disk bound. for that matter, if you're only using a single disk then if it fails, it fails - you're in the same boat as you would be with raid 0.

try running 1900x1200 and frapsing full frame @ 60fps using a single disk vs raid 0. sluggish is a nice way to put it.
 
A Raid 0 gives you twice the chance of hardware failure and guess what? You lose 1 drive and your whole array goes bye bye. Of all the parts to die in a computer, the ones that usually do are the ones with moving parts: hard drives and PSU's. Also, if you're going to spend the money and do a good hardware Raid 0, why not just get a solid state drive and have faster performance than Raid 0 anyway?

99% of people never truly see a big performance difference with Raid 0 because they use an inefficient onboard raid controller or try to do software raid which is even worse. Also, 99% of people don't do "1900x1200 and frapsing full frame @ 60fps"
 
An ssd on windows right now is not a good idea. Wait for windows 7 and the support of the TRIM instruction before you migrate to ssd.
 
You lose 1 drive and your whole array goes bye bye
Click to expand...

Uh - if you're running a single disk - you lose 1 drive, and your data goes bye bye too.

99% of people don't do "1900x1200 and frapsing full frame @ 60fps"
Click to expand...

They would if they had the I/O to support it :)

An ssd on windows right now is not a good idea
Click to expand...

True. Plus the quality of SSD drives is sketchy, at best, unless you're willing to shell out for an Intel drive, and those still have *some* issues, but aside from that, are absurdly expensive.

Take a look at Newegg - look at the miserable reviews, out of proportion DOA reports and vendors like OCZ trying to sell "tuning" tricks, when in fact, they apply to ALL drives, not SSDs - and cut back your functionality.

On top of that - 2 velociraptors in raid 0 still blows away most single SSDs - with the exception of the Intel drives.

When SSDs are in a reasonable state and aren't requiring frequent firmware updates (some of which conveniently wipe your data) and it doesn't cost $1500 to build an array of decent quality, I'd still go for raid 0.
 
nattyg said:
Uh - if you're running a single disk - you lose 1 drive, and your data goes bye bye too.
Click to expand...

Yes but running 2 disks doubles your chance of failure.



nattyg said:
They would if they had the I/O to support it :)
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Most people don't use or care about fraps and can't push resolutions that high for gaming at 60FPS anyway, much less stream all that data to disk.
 
Bakey said:
Yes but running 2 disks doubles your chance of failure.
Click to expand...

Let's see...

1 Disk: it fails, system down
2 Disks R0: one disk fails, system down

i.e. they're equivalent. In both cases a single failure results in unavailability.

Frankly, if you're *that* worried about your disks failing to the point where you're so vehemently against raid 0, I sure hope you're running a whole host of disks in 5 or 1+0


No they wouldn't. Most people don't use or care about fraps and can't push resolutions that high for gaming at 60FPS anyway, much less stream all that data to disk.
Click to expand...

If they COULD they WOULD. Heck, I could only support recording at half res until I switched to 2x raptors for recording video.
 
nattyg said:
For useful data - yes (although I'd go w/ more than 3) - for your OS and program files, not much value in it. There it's all about speed.
Click to expand...

lol, yes if you have more than 5 drives to mess with.
 
nattyg said:
Let's see...

1 Disk: it fails, system down
2 Disks R0: one disk fails, system down

i.e. they're equivalent. In both cases a single failure results in unavailability.
Click to expand...

NO they're not. Why's it so hard to understand that 2 pieces of hardware = twice as likely to have a failure?


nattyg said:
Frankly, if you're *that* worried about your disks failing to the point where you're so vehemently against raid 0, I sure hope you're running a whole host of disks in 5 or 1+0
Click to expand...

No, I spend my hard-earned money on places where I can really tell the difference, RAM, CPU, and Video card. Raid 0's a waste of money and a ticking timebomb in your case, just waiting to go off.



nattyg said:
If they COULD they WOULD. Heck, I could only support recording at half res until I switched to 2x raptors for recording video.
Click to expand...

NO they WOULDN'T. 99% of people who use PCs don't care a think about recording a game they're playing. Even if they did, 99% of them don't run at any resolution close to 1900x1200 or whatever humongous thing you're running.

Face it, your machine and setup are NOT normal, because your needs are not normal. Fine, you need Raid 0 and you wanna run raid 0. Most people don't need it, can't set it up anyway, and it'd be a waste of money.
 
1900x1200 isnt that big, most 20+ monitors will run that, my old cheap 19" runs 1440x900 heh

When you upgrade your ram, cpu and video card the bottle neck becomes the hard drive so naturally making that faster should be next in line
 
nattyg said:
The support for them has nothing to do with their atrocious failure rates. They are, in fact, sketchy.
Click to expand...
their failure rates are because of the lack of proper support for the ata TRIM command both hardware and software..as i noted in the post i linked to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top