Computer parts/building computers/pc stuff... - Page 4

_Byakuya_ · 04-13-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staradderdragoon

@byakuya
i was seriously considering the armor, but i hate how the harddrive cage is set, and its apparently a bitch to remove stuff and what not. plus, the whole front is a giant dust collector. other than that its good. i hate the flaps though. i need some opinions about those 3 i chose though. i dont read the reviews on newegg cause ppl automatically hate the Silverstone because of the required length for the PSU cable which isnt a problem for me and also the gigabyte chassis isnt as well known as the Armor.

Reading some reviews I saw, supposedly there are 2 places for HDD's, one is at the top in an odd location, and theres another at the bottom where they usually are.
Also, supposedly the flaps can be removed easily, I think it's really pointless too, so I'd definitely do that.

edit:: I think I'm gonna get this one. It's basically the same thing but it has a 250mm fan on the side, I guess it's not needed if you plan on going water cooling...

staradderdragoon · 04-17-2007, 04:02 PM

Aight, found some new info on upcoming processors:

Penryn, the new Intel coming out either late 2007 or early 2008 is a 45nm CPU with increased cache sizes. it will go from 4mb to 6mb of cache for the dual cores and 8mb to 12mb of cache for the quad core. Intel is also releasing a 3.33ghz quad core CPU that will be the new flagship under the Penryn name.

Now is it me, or is Intel trying to bring back the gigahertz war?

HOOfan_1 · 04-17-2007, 04:37 PM

not really...true you can only compare clockspeed to clockspeed within a processor architecture (meaning you can't compare a higher clocked Prescott against a lower clocked Conroe) but clockspeed is still a general method for bumping the speed of processors. Intel is reducing leakage with the Penryn and Nehalem architectures but upping the efficiency will only take you so far. Considering that the Prescott family got up to 3.73 Ghz and 3 years later Intel's flagship processor will be running at 400Mhz less than that, no I don't think the Ghz wars are coming back. Several years ago Intel expected to be up to 10Ghz by now and then realized that die shrinks and reducing leakage were the way to do and 10Ghz would just make for insanely hot and insanley energy inefficient chips. At that time they decided dual core was the future and the Pentium D was just a stopgap measure to compete with AMD (I believe the Pentium D even came out before the Ahtlon 64X2). Conroe is the actual realization of Intel's dual core strategy, but while clockspeed is no longer king, it is important.

staradderdragoon · 04-17-2007, 04:52 PM

what do u mean reducing leakage?

btw, the prescott family suckeded ass. i have no idea what intel did with that. hottest mofo of a chip ever.

anyhow, did i even mention intel copying AMD like the entire way. first the integrated memory controller in nahelem, and now a copy of AMD's fusion. no innovation at intel whatsoever.

HOOfan_1 · 04-17-2007, 08:09 PM

leakage is when the electricity that operates the processor escapes the channels that it is supposed to be in...usually gets worse when you shrink transistor size...this wastes electricity and causes excess heat. With many processor manufacturers all the processors in a certain family are made on the same line...then they test them for efficiency and separate them by "binning" more efficent processors which have less leakage become the higher priced and faster clocked processors...processors with alot of leakage are clocked lower and priced lower. The reason alot of people liked to buy the AMD Operton processor is that being server chips they were binned more conservatively because they were expected to be run under load in hot environments 24 hours a day, so Opterons could be safely overclocked higher.

staradderdragoon · 04-17-2007, 11:36 PM

^oh ic. thats how come the processors are cheaper. they're just made worse. lol. opterons are pretty nice i must say. i always thought ppl went opterons because of the two physical CPU's so they could up the core count.

anyhow, new 8600GTS or something? kinda sucks in my opinion. i mean apparently the x1950pro platinum edition can compete with it and that's a DX9 card. wtf?

staradderdragoon · 04-18-2007, 04:16 PM

I have to post this otherwise ppl wont notice. anyhow, the source of this article sucks, but its still info

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31669/135/

intel has released info on Penryn.

HOOfan_1 · 04-18-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staradderdragoon

anyhow, new 8600GTS or something? kinda sucks in my opinion. i mean apparently the x1950pro platinum edition can compete with it and that's a DX9 card. wtf?

well I believe when the 1950pro came out it was considered a little higher than mainstream (which the 8600GTS is kind of considered) being that it is older now the 1950 pro costs about the same as the 8600GTS though. In some of the benchmarks I have seen the 1950 pro beats the 8600GTS in others the 8600GTS wins...and even outdoes the nvidia 7950 which was the highest end part of Nvidia's last generation. I think you have to consider though that for a fairly similar performance from teh 8600GTS you are getting a DX10 card....if the benchmarks and price were exactly the same, would you buy a card that will be obsolete in 3 months as oppsosed the the DX10 capable 8600GTS?

staradderdragoon · 04-18-2007, 10:57 PM

^true true. but, then again, i'd wait and spend a little. im on a budget but i know where to spend and where to save. graphics card is not a place to save on if u want it to last. entry level cards are a joke to me. the fact is, im dissappointed in that a DX10 card was beat by a DX9 card. you'd think it would beat it in almost all tests but the ones if seen are about half and half. not good at all. also, its more than 3 months. its like 5-6 months cause crysis will come out like september/october time frame and by that time, the 8600GTS will also be like crap. so it really wouldnt matter.

HOOfan_1 · 04-18-2007, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staradderdragoon

^true true. but, then again, i'd wait and spend a little. im on a budget but i know where to spend and where to save. graphics card is not a place to save on if u want it to last. entry level cards are a joke to me. the fact is, im dissappointed in that a DX10 card was beat by a DX9 card. you'd think it would beat it in almost all tests but the ones if seen are about half and half. not good at all. also, its more than 3 months. its like 5-6 months cause crysis will come out like september/october time frame and by that time, the 8600GTS will also be like crap. so it really wouldnt matter.

that happens with most generations though, that a next gen mainstream card doesn't outdo the last gen's near top of the line card (the Nvidia 7900GS did outdo the 7800GTX, but that is an exception to the rule)...but I have to say with this card even at the same price point just being DX10 gives it the advantage.

The nvidia G81 series 8900 etc. is supposed to come out in August. I have to say that ATI sure is taking their sweet time bringing out the HD 2900 series.

staradderdragoon · 04-18-2007, 11:35 PM

well ATI is releasing the entire lineup. not just the high end ones like nVidia does.

nVidia is realesint the 8900 series in august but ATI is already working on r610, the revision of r600 so they'll be releasing new cards at the end of this year as well.

Sketchy · 04-21-2007, 01:57 PM

Did you guys heard that dell accidently put the specs of the 8800 ultra online

(but removed it almost instantly!! It is supposed to be 30% faster then the GTX, It will have a core clock of 650mhz, the memory will be clocked @ 2160mhz and will be gddr3 not 4

.

HOOfan_1 · 04-21-2007, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sketchy

Did you guys heard that dell accidently put the specs of the 8800 ultra online

(but removed it almost instantly!! It is supposed to be 30% faster then the GTX, It will have a core clock of 650mhz, the memory will be clocked @ 2160mhz and will be gddr3 not 4

.

this is a common occurence with Dell I sometimes wonder if they do it own purpose...or at least one of their employees does...though I haven't heard anything about the 8800 Ultra before...the 8900 I have heard about.

staradderdragoon · 04-22-2007, 12:30 AM

ive never even heard of a 8800ultra. 8900 yes but that's not until Q4 of this year if i remember correctly. or maybe its Q3.

here's a question:
i went to microcenter today and i said i was probably going to get the x2800xtx so what PSU would be good. i was like the corsair or thermaltake at like 750W or even the koolance one. he said it doesnt matter how many watts it has, if the 12V rail doesnt have enough amps, it wont be able to power the graphics card well. soooo, single rail or multiple rails? whats the advantage of each?

Up In FlameZ♥ · 04-22-2007, 08:08 PM

Since the Core 2 Duo dropped in price, that gives me like an extra 70 bucks. What should that go to? A better graphics card? A better mobo? Also about the graphics card....im confused on which one to get. Its all like GT, GTS,GTX..

The only games i will really be playing is probably Counter-strike,counter-strike source. Possibly DOD and DOD: Source. Some help please?

staradderdragoon · 04-22-2007, 10:03 PM

which one are you getting? i'd seriously consider the e6600.
i find the motherboard to be a better investment than the graphics card. mobos tend to last longer than graphics cards in terms of performance and what not.

as for cards? im thinking about an EVG-A 8800GTS 320mb Superclocked. that is if i go nVidia. otherwise, i'm looking at an x2800xt which will come out next month.

Ssj3_Goku · 04-22-2007, 10:19 PM

multiple rails star and ya more amps = better the PSU.

staradderdragoon · 04-22-2007, 10:24 PM

yeah cause i was debating this:
http://www.silverstonetek.com/products/da750/da750.html
or this:
http://www.silverstonetek.com/products/st75f/st75f.html

i guess i'll go with the strider series. i was just confused cause the 12V rails each had 18A.

k, new info on ATI's DX10 graphics cards
http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Release...ticle6903c.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/22/a...d-in-the-wild/
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6138

info i just foundon K8L. its now called K10
http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Talks+D...rticle6918.htm

Up In FlameZ♥ · 04-23-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staradderdragoon

which one are you getting? i'd seriously consider the e6600.
i find the motherboard to be a better investment than the graphics card. mobos tend to last longer than graphics cards in terms of performance and what not.

as for cards? im thinking about an EVG-A 8800GTS 320mb Superclocked. that is if i go nVidia. otherwise, i'm looking at an x2800xt which will come out next month.

So a 320 mb GTS is better than a 7950GT 512 mb?

staradderdragoon · 04-23-2007, 01:44 AM

oh yeah. definitely. the 8800GTS 320MB OCed beats a stock 8800GTS 640MB.

i like to use thi interactive chart to compare where cards stand against each other

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=608&chart=224

select an 8800GTS 640mb and a 7950GT. you'll see. RAM really comes into play if ur playing at 1600 x 1200. so like me, who has a 1680 x 1050 monitor, i need something with more ram.