Pages: 1 2 3

 

2005-10-20 17:43:27
Heffty
Member
+9|6768|Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Badcomp wrote:

I would just buy additional ram honestly. You have a decent sized HDD that is at 7200rpm, I would just spend whatever you have left over on additional RAM after buying a new board. That's my $.02
I think getting the additional RAM and a board that supports dual channel would be your wisest choice for now since you say the funding for your upgrade will be limited.
I have 2 Gigs...why would I want more than that?

Regarding what everyone else is writting. Nobody has posted me any info on whether or not a dual channel mbo would help and by how much. All I've been given is heresay. If dual channel wouldn't help an AMD board considerably then why would the technology be put in place?
2005-10-20 18:04:40
IronGeek
One Shot, One Kill
+4|6794|Canberra, Australia
Too make money......
2005-10-21 05:28:10
Badcomp
Member
+2|6789|U.S.

Heffty wrote:

Badcomp wrote:

I would just buy additional ram honestly. You have a decent sized HDD that is at 7200rpm, I would just spend whatever you have left over on additional RAM after buying a new board. That's my $.02
I think getting the additional RAM and a board that supports dual channel would be your wisest choice for now since you say the funding for your upgrade will be limited.
I have 2 Gigs...why would I want more than that?

Regarding what everyone else is writting. Nobody has posted me any info on whether or not a dual channel mbo would help and by how much. All I've been given is heresay. If dual channel wouldn't help an AMD board considerably then why would the technology be put in place?
Sorry about that, I didn't catch it in your specs. My apologies.
Dual channel will help a little. It won't be night and day differences but you'll notice a bit.
2005-10-21 05:28:16
shortah
Oh did you want that tank?
+0|6772|Mechanicsville, VA

Heffty wrote:

I have 2 Gigs...why would I want more than that?

Regarding what everyone else is writting. Nobody has posted me any info on whether or not a dual channel mbo would help and by how much. All I've been given is heresay. If dual channel wouldn't help an AMD board considerably then why would the technology be put in place?
I have 2 gigs in my computer, upgrading to more would have no point, a faster mobo with dual channel would be slightly faster if you got faster ram to go with it. But also consider that your mobo has to accept dual channel so unless you get a dual channel mobo there is no point in getting dual channel ram.  But yes dual channel ram will be faster than single.  If you currently have single, and don't feel like buying a new mobo & ram. I would suggest just getting 2 gigs of low latency ram fastest that ur CPU/mobo supports and using that
www.ocz.com is where I got mine (2x1gig Platinum Edition Matched Pair), you can also go to corsair, kingston

DO NOT GET VALUE RAM
DO NOT GET VALUE RAM
DO NOT GET VALUE RAM

value ram is NOT low latency ram and it BLOWS
and thats my 2 cents
2005-10-21 06:18:13
Badcomp
Member
+2|6789|U.S.
Amen To That!!
2005-10-21 09:40:48
vjs
Member
+19|6772

shortah wrote:

yea those 8 drive RISC arrays are f'n discusting in read/write times .. we created one in my hyperformance network storage class... along w/ clustering and every raid arrangement you can think of..
Are you saying they have a very slow read write??? Even in a stripe/mirror with an on-board buffer and some form of raid processor?

I find that a little suprising. I know raid-5 is alittle slow unless you use at least 5 disks. But it all comes down to the raid card.

If you don't have an onboard raid processor your correct they are slow and consume alot of CPU.

Can you please quote specs as opposed to saying they are bad. I'm seriously considering a 4-drive 0+1 stripe Mylex and Dell cards are sometimes sold pretty cheap (cheap is relative). Alot of the servers are moving to sata, in a raid 5 or raid 6. For a server enviorment 1 disk crash isn't a big deal in a raid 5 or 6 and generally someone is there to replace it. Also 10K's do just fine for most servers.
2005-10-21 11:36:59
shortah
Oh did you want that tank?
+0|6772|Mechanicsville, VA
f'n discusting = insanely fast NOT slow .... lol i was agreeing with you that a 8 disc RISC array was fast ... lmao
2005-10-21 12:46:08
CBRad929
Member
+1|6785

CBRad929 wrote:

Will you notice a difference on Dual Channel?  If you are using the same 2GB pc3200 to a board that supports dual channel, it will be faster, but not sure if you will notice a tremendous difference.
Everyone is still saying the same thing, but I'm not sure if you are reading it correctly.  You will notice a slight performance increase, but it wont be night and day.

Can we give you accurate numbers to tell you how much of an improvment you will get?  No, because we dont have the exact same setup as you do.  We can give you estimates to how much you will see, ie not enough to spend the money difference.

Do a reference run with 3dMark2005 now and after you upgrade.  Then come back and tell us if it was worth the 30-50 dollars to you.
2005-10-21 13:39:40
BudRell
Member
+2|6838|Home
With AMD you don't get much fun with dual channel. Intel P4 NEEDS dual channel, and with aggressive timings !

In theory single channel will give you 3.2Gb/s speed and dual channel 6.4Gb/s speed. P4 processors have FSB bandwidth in 6.4Gb/s so yes, for P4 you do need dual.

If you have not tried good memory (in dual mode) with P4 then you really can't imagine the difference IN CALCULATION TIME compared to "normal" mode (playing games = full time calculations). So it has direct boost to FPS too.
In tests, likeSuperPi, those DC-memories will boost P4 dramatically also.

For games I would try these maybe these :
- Mushkin's PC3500 Level II
- Corsair's TwinX-3200LL

Some of Kingston HyperX memories are working great too with higher FSB-speeds.

And maybe OCZ memory too...OCZ is not the best choice for casual user (atleast not for P4 users..).

P.S. If single channel memories are marked as index 1.00, then dual channel system have index 1.1 (10% faster) and dual channel with PAT is 1.20 (20% faster).
That is what you get with P4...with AMD I do not know (because I have always used PROCESSORS in my PC..)
Value for money ? Well if you did get 100FPS in games and then you get 120FPS MAX...do you need that ?
2005-10-21 18:19:46
Badcomp
Member
+2|6789|U.S.

BudRell wrote:

That is what you get with P4...with AMD I do not know (because I have always used PROCESSORS in my PC..)
Value for money ? Well if you did get 100FPS in games and then you get 120FPS MAX...do you need that ?
Egads!! Down fan boy!! DOWN!!      <---- In case you are offended this is sarcasm.

Last edited by Badcomp (2005-10-21 18:20:44)

2005-10-21 19:40:54
nayo450
Member
+-1|6793
dual channel only helps out intels crapy memory addressing system
2005-10-22 02:33:35
DeC
Member
+0|6764|Brooklyn
RAID isnt gonna help you any in real world performace RAID-0 doesnt really help at all in game loading, i have 2x 10k RPM HDs in raid-0 its fast for something, but like bf2 doesnt matter, whats gonna cause you a really long loading time is that CPU its a XP 3200+ which is like 2 or 2.2ghz but its not a A64, a  A64 system would be much faster.
2005-10-22 02:50:12
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|6786|Perth, Western Australia
Whao, hey this is in the wrong thread and should be moved. Wouldn't usually say but i posted basically the same thing 2 weeks ago and got 3 replies and the thread changed.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!!
2005-10-22 04:40:37
BudRell
Member
+2|6838|Home

nayo450 wrote:

dual channel only helps out intels crapy memory addressing system
Oh boy...what ?

Which "addressing system" do you mean ?

I would have understood if you had written about chipsets...they were unable to deal bandwidth. New chipsets (865, 875 and +) are capable to do that.


Egads!! Down fan boy!! DOWN!!      <---- In case you are offended this is sarcasm.
Thehe...Well I forgot to put one centence there :
If you compare AMD to Intel on wrong basis, these new 64bit AMD processors are quite close to real crunchers and they sometimes are almost at the same line with Intel stones.

P.S. It's true that Intel P4 was NOT designed for gaming and AMD has never done anything else than gaming processors. Still P4 works as good or better.
ALL AMD-fans ! Try this :
- Start BF2 and go to some server
- let the BF2 stay on and go back to Windows (or linux or whatever...) and open your Internet browser.
- Download some file(s) (good reference could be CATALYST 5.10 for example..)

How does it work...thehehe....it may be working with the newest AMD processors but never with older...
P4 is capable on doing those and few more when needed....
2005-10-22 08:28:44
Badcomp
Member
+2|6789|U.S.

BudRell wrote:

P.S. It's true that Intel P4 was NOT designed for gaming and AMD has never done anything else than gaming processors. Still P4 works as good or better.
ALL AMD-fans ! Try this :
- Start BF2 and go to some server
- let the BF2 stay on and go back to Windows (or linux or whatever...) and open your Internet browser.
- Download some file(s) (good reference could be CATALYST 5.10 for example..)

How does it work...thehehe....it may be working with the newest AMD processors but never with older...
P4 is capable on doing those and few more when needed....
Works fine....???


P.S. Opteron isn't a gaming CPU.

Both makers make good chips. I like em both. I do admit that I currently use a A64 setup tho.

Last edited by Badcomp (2005-10-22 08:31:06)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard