run them separate - onboard RAID doesnt provide much of a performance boost, and running RAID0 means your chances of data loss through drive failure double.
again, look here http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/10/27/kingston-ssd-now-v-series-40gb-intel-x25-x/3 to compare the different drives BT recommend the Crucial 128GB (CT128m225) in the "what hardware should I buy?" article. but this is the kind of thing you should be investigating a bit more yourself. look through the BT reviews and stuff like the customer reviews on newegg.com
if you're going raid, do it with 5 drives if you want performance, then again, the same applies for mirrored raid that allows almost lossless data storage. Lets be honest, you are new to this, dont go raid! Can i offer some advice motas, this site is a wealth of hardware knowledge, both published by the bt / cpc staff and has 000's of peoples posts on new builds, performance, preferences and so forth, its infuriating for me to come on here and read another new build that someone hasnt bothered to read too much into, either through this site or through other sites. please, the buyers guide tells you everything you need to know as a new person, and if you need to know more they've probably reviewed the item they are pointing you too, so click the link and read the comparisons and come to us with useful questions, not like the one quoted above. this isnt pre-school, we cant hold you hand all the way so show some evidence of reading and then ask questions. as it is you wont be hearing from me again mate
I tried to find a comparison between some ssd brands but I couldn't find one that told me much. Has any seen one?
Alright, it's been a while since I've chimed in on anything, but I've GOT to get a few things out here... 1. By the looks and sounds of it, you're trying to build a computer that will be 'upgradable' in the future. In all honesty there's a 95% chance that if you DO upgrade the computer in the future, you will end up replacing the part in question. As an example, with the new ATI cards, a single 5870 outperforms an nVidia GTX295 (which is essentially 2x GTX275's in SLI with a slightly lower clock speed), for a lower amount of power. Now assuming you've already got a single GTX275 in your computer, you'd have to be crazy to buy another 275 for SLI when you could spend around the same cost for a single card with much lower power consumption and better performance. I personally would have to recommend an i5 setup for you, with a single graphics card to power both of your monitors... Assuming the 23" monitors are 1920 x 1080 each, then your total pixel count is just a TAD bit higher than my single 30" monitor, which I have been running happily on a single HD4870 for over a year now. Considering the 5870 has over twice the performing power of my current 4870, one card should work fine for you (not to mention the fact that 99% of the games you're going to play will only use one monitor). If you feel you MUST go for a dual card setup, the i5 will still work fine for it. If you go for the triple SLI board like you're planning on though, I almost guarantee you that at LEAST one slot will be empty until you build your next computer. Here's what I would look at... i5 Processor i5 Motherboard 4 GB of RAM (8 GB if you've got the funds) 40nm Graphics Card (5870 if you can find it) 800w PSU Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD (multiple if you wish, and / or an SSD) The rest is fine... 2. You say you're planning on water-cooling the setup down the road, however you also say you plan on upgrading down the road... Though I've never built a water-cooling setup myself, I'm relatively certain that it will NOT be easy to add more waterblocks / radiators after you set the loop up initially. Along with that, while not doubting your abilities, a full-custom water loop isn't for beginners, and the overall performance gain isn't worth the cost in most cases. If you want the benefits of water-cooling without the hassle, I would recommend something like the Corsair H50... It gives you better performance than a Noctua NH-U12P, for about the same cost. -------------------- I really think you're going for overkill on EVERYTHING as far as the CPU tower itself is concerned. If you're really wanting to spend that much money, go for better monitors. The monitors you picked out are OKAY, but not great. For one, they use TN film panels, which are the cheapest and worst overall panels as far as color reproduction and viewing angles are concerned, and for two, they're not TRUE monitor resolution, they're TV resolution. The 'standard' PC widescreen ratio is 16:10, while the new cheap monitors are 16:9, which is TV widescreen. While most newer games will support the 16:9 resolution, you may run into issues with some of the games that were developed before 16:9 monitors starting getting popular. The HP LP2475w is a great 24" with an awesome panel... Check out B-T's review on it here... http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2009/07/28/hp-lp2475w-24in-widescreen-tft-review/1 Drop your current monitor choices, pick up two of the HP monitors, and go for an i5 setup like I said above. Price wise you should still be on top with my suggestions, and you'll end up being MUCH happier overall. If there's any grammatical errors or parts that don't quite make sense, it's a bit late in the morning!
Probably a stupid question but do US graphics cards work on Australian mobos? Edit: which system would actually be more powerful and faster ^^^^^ or mine? (I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate slow computers that can't do stuff) Edit: also I just got into rendering so extra ram and better cpu would help the speed I think.
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work on an Australian mobo... As for which system would be more powerful, look at B-T's review on the 1156 socket i5 / i7. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1 On the comparison charts the 1366 socket i7 920 is still there. The only thing that the i5 is lacking, is the extra 4 threads, which a lot of programs struggle to take advantage of anyway (aside from benchmark software). The i5 also has a better 'turbo' mode when not using multiple cores... It clocks higher than the i7 920 does for single core / dual core applications. As for thinking the i5 is a 'slow computer that can't do stuff', you're crazy. The majority of the world is still running happily on the Core2 line, and it still does all the 'stuff' people want it to do. The i5 will be plenty fast for a couple years still. If you're going for rendering as well, then then i7 will be a tad bit faster, but not faster enough for the cost difference... Have a look here... http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=2 Read the next page as well... The difference in time with the extra 4 threads (aka HyperThreading) for all of the rendering applications on the first page is 22 seconds or less. The total time difference in their multitasking test is less than a minute and a half. So, is the i7 920 faster for rendering? Yes... By enough of a margin that I would recommend it over the i5? No. If you can't wait an extra 20 seconds for renders then there's not a consumer computer in the world fast enough for you. As for the RAM, go for 8GB... My suggestion is still for the i5.
Thanks. I found the f3 on pccasegear and it arrives tommorow and only $20 more than the f1. The review says if your overclocking go for the 920 and if not i5 because the perfomance is a lot different after overclocking. I was refering to my computer being slow and can't do things because it can't even play Halo on it's native resolution. Also when I have complicated renders will the time difference change if it's taking hours longer to complete? Thanks for everyones help you've all been great
