7,200RPM VS 10,000RPM

Hi, Im fairly new to all this computer stuff...hence why I registered here (among other places) to try to learn as much as I can. So please forgive me if I ask a stupid question. Im getting ready to buy my first serious computer ( to me anyway ) and im looking for a little help with a couple questions I have. First, 7,200 VS 10,000 both 16MB caches. From what ive read ( this computer is JUST for gaming...right now anyway) if you have the ram to support a 7,200RPM speed, its really not a huge deal. Im planning on going with 4GB of Patriot if I go with the 500GB 7,200RPM Hard drive. If I go with the 360 GB 10,000RPM Im looking at just 2GB. My main question is, is the money better spent on the Hard drive or the Ram? Am I going to see a huge performance increase one way or the other?

The second question I had is about Video Cards. I plan on using the 9800GTX and was wondering if its worth the money to run a dual setup? Thanks in advance for any bits of information you guys got for me!

Josh

 

I only run one screen but most people with two say its well worth the money to do so.
as for a hard drive, you wont see a difference in games with a faster drive so get the bigger one.
and if you are getting a 64bit os, and not a 32bit one, get 4gb of ram. if you are getting a 32bit os, then get the 2gb of ram.

If you do get 4gb of ram though, dont get 4 1gb sticks, get 2 2gb sticks.

 

Thanks Chris for the info. I forgot to add my last question to my above post. (SRY!) Ive been trying to decide between a Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz 6MB Cache and a Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz 12MB Cache. Any thoughts about these two processors? Thanks!

 

A 500 gig 7200rpm will be fine and much cheaper the Seagate 7200.11 has 32 megs of cache and has a good guarantee

2X2 gig sticks of ram for a total of 4 gigs will be worthwhile esp as ram is cheap (even if you run 32bit 4 gigs will still be better as you will get to use about 3.4 of your 4 gigs which is alot better than 2)

One good quality graphics card would be fine I am sure the guys on the forum will give you some links to the best value cards as with specials it differs from week to week

 

I think he means dual cards to one monitor (Crossfire/SLI).

Even with 32x OS, 4Gb beats 2Gb even if only 3-3.3Gb of it is useable.

Four cores aren't of any great benefit with current games, so the faster dual may rule. You do know the E8500 needs a motherboard with a x9.5 multiplier step? Many haven't.

 

I wont argue that point, but how much better?

 

7200rpm with 4gb ram would be the better choice, a 10k hd will make games load and install faster that is all (for gaming) where as ram will make your games load faster and run either higher settings or more fps in some cases both. plus i think it would be a bit silly to get a raptor with ssds in the not to distant future

 

Here, I found a site that did a test, 2gb vs 4gb in games.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/709/3/
crysis saw an extra 5fps with an extra 2gb of ram. not exactly worth the money to me, even if ram is "cheap". Especaially when you look at other games like Bioshock where the FPS went up a whopping .2%

 

I found that when I added another 2gb of ram that my system just felt overall much faster.

And that article just shows the average frame rate. For me the improvement has been in the load times and the minimum frame rate, which can make the difference between playable and unplayable.All lags in games I had before (which to be honest where not many) in intense battles with a lot going on, just vanished with more ram.

One more point about that article, if you look at the frame rates they are getting in the first place the system must be pretty fantastic* therefor adding more ram is not going to make much difference. I am sure if you tested the same games with system specs that most people use then it would tell a very difference story.

My point is 4gb of ram is definatly an improvement no matter what any articles or reviews say and its definatly better to go for 7200 and 4gb.

Edit: * Just seen the review system, I was right.

 

Thanks guys...this information has been MOST helpful.

 

I have 3GB, (going to get 4) and I have 16MB free at the moment, I love Vistas caching feature, makes things load so much faster, especially on a laptop with a 5400rpm drive. For the HDD, got for the new Seagates, the 7200.11s are very fast. Slightly slower than the 150GB raptors.

 

the difference between 2GB and 4GB is day and night, while the difference between 10k RPM and 7.2k RPM hard drive is little.
so get 4GB without question.
even going from 4GB to 8GB also felt very large jump in system responsiveness.

for video card, 9800GTX is a marketing gimic, you are better off getting 8800GTS, exactly same card, just cheaper without the powersaving feature (which no Intel motherboard on the market can take advantage of)

 

check the system that the op is getting, a 9800gtx.
is that what most of us are using? No, I still run on a 1950 pro. a far cry from the 98xx series. his gtx isn't quite the gx2, but its not far off either.

how do you define "much faster"? Do you have any numbers, like load times that can back that up? much faster is a very subjective term and with computers its best to not go there.

The point that I am trying to make here is that spending double the money for 1 or 2 seconds reduction in load times, or a few fps when you are already over 60, just isn't worth the money. It might help in a few years, but by then I bet ddr2 will be a lot cheaper.

 

How much is DDR right now, or even a couple of years ago, DDR2 won't get much cheaper, and when they start ramping up DDR3 production, DDR2 will fall by the wayside, and the cost will go up.

 

I'd go for the Ram and a 2 platter 640gb or 3 platter 1tb 7200rpm hard drive. The platter density on them means they really fly.

 

For a start, you just proved my point in your first comment. You are saying most people do not have a 9800GTX, that was my point. If you are already getting the highest frame rates you could get on one of the fastest cards around with a brand new qaud core clocked at 3.8ghz then more memory is not going to matter at all. My comment was not directly at the OP I was saying that in general 4gb is better than 2gb.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/05/15/bfg-tech-geforce-9800-gtx-ocx-512mb/1
If you compare the benchmarks the basic 9800GTX (not the ocx version) is clearly not as good as the GX2, and this will become even more true as driver updates and games take advantage of 2 cores. Also note how the system should not be giving the half the frame rates when comparing crysis results, which is one of the reason why I do not trust the legit reviews article.

My dig wasn't at you, it was at a poorly written and thought out article, they should have done atleast 2 systems their one, and another which is more like the average users, ie core2duo @ around 3ghz, 8800GT or HD3850. But as you seem to be having a go at me about my lack of benchmarks I thought it was only fair to get ratty with you.

Also "spending double the money", DDR2 is dirt cheap, there is no excuse to not go for 4gb.

And I am very sorry I didn't benchmark my performance upgrade when putting in another 2gb of ram. Zero lags in games should be a fair enough point in the first place, as like I said the minimum frame rate was upped. Vista boots about 10 seconds faster. Generally the system is smoother and more responsive even under heavy loads.

Before adding another 2gb of ram crysis was fine on XP but unplayable on vista, but now with 4gb it runs just as good as it did on XP. Is that good enough for you.

Before you respond arguing your point back, just take a look at the other responses. 4GB is better than 2GB there is no denying it.

 

I must actually apologise to chrisb2e9 after I read back what I just said.

Sorry mate, I got a little p*ssed off there, having a bad night.

 

also about your processor choice the only difference between the e8500 and the e8400 is the multiplier, the e8400 is 9x (i believe) and the e8500 is 9.5x the extra .5 is what your paying for. but the thing is if you motherboard doesn't support the specific 9.5 multiplier it runs it effectively at only 9x so unless you get a mobo that'll run 9.5 your basicly spending exta money for nothing. correct me if I'm wrong but i remember reading that somewhere, perhaps here at bit-tech.

I have an e8400 and it rips, super easy to overclock, i have mine running 4.2 on air cooling, i recommend it.