Sign in to follow this  
skw

Aquagate tubing size

Recommended Posts

cyberwiz97    0

So far, it's stable. Tested with 3DMark2005 build 1.20 (9555 marks) and with DOOM 3 (with video settings set to the highest possible, in spite of the warning it gave me). Total hours of testing is about 7.

I've been playing around with oc settings, and can't seem to improve on this much, but a solid 2.9 is still ok. I know this...games have never been smoother and never looked better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merovingian    0
So far, it's stable. Tested with 3DMark2005 build 1.20 (9555 marks) and with DOOM 3 (with video settings set to the highest possible, in spite of the warning it gave me). Total hours of testing is about 7.

I've been playing around with oc settings, and can't seem to improve on this much, but a solid 2.9 is still ok. I know this...games have never been smoother and never looked better.

If you can do an hour or two of prime 95, I think your in good shape. I think it's true that your processor is still the bottleneck so I suppose going with that set up is pretty choice although, can you actually see the difference cause I thought that the human eye can tell beyond 40 fps. Anyway, once you get those raptors replaced, you will have everybodys dream system. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyberwiz97    0

I'll run the Prime 95, as you suggest. I've got a couple other benchmarks and burn-in tests to run, as well.

True, more than 40 fps isn't really detectable by the human eye, but the latest games have a lot to render, and will often drop frame rates way down. With high fps on benchmark tests (avg 42 on the first test in 3DMark2005), I'm assured that the lowest fps will be above the detectable range.

merovingian, I'm interested in what your take is on the Raptor drives. 10,000 rpm SATA drives seem to be high performance units (SCSI aside). :?: I'm always open to opions. Thanx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merovingian    0
I'll run the Prime 95, as you suggest. I've got a couple other benchmarks and burn-in tests to run, as well.

True, more than 40 fps isn't really detectable by the human eye, but the latest games have a lot to render, and will often drop frame rates way down. With high fps on benchmark tests (avg 42 on the first test in 3DMark2005), I'm assured that the lowest fps will be above the detectable range.

merovingian, I'm interested in what your take is on the Raptor drives. 10,000 rpm SATA drives seem to be high performance units (SCSI aside). :?: I'm always open to opions. Thanx.

Well jeez dude, if I slip up and tell you about the 15,000 RPM cheetah drives by seagates I'm going to have to be jealous of your smoking fast system.:D Okay, so here goes...

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 38R&depa=0

Roughly $350 plus cost of scsi card.

Not much research done but this is the cheapest scsi card that meets spec from a reputable company from new egg. And you don't need to go over spec with this, trust me so no SCSI 320 Required.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 127&depa=0

$140

Why the drive is not available in sata I have no idea, but I suppose most people, uhh, nevermind I just have no idea. Anyway, you don't need raid 0. You just need nice fast access times which is why your current set up doesn't yield a performance boost in most cases. When I set up my system, I was going to use 4xraptor drives in raid 0 on the sata II sata slot on our type of mobo so I could insta load apps and windows. The result would have been 288GB/S transfer on a 300MB/s sata II. :D But that's not exactly telling of the actual performance. :( So, then I realized that what was needed was fast access times as that is what is important in loading programs and the processor which I think you have covered. When you go raid 0, all that increases is the throughput which just increase the transfer rate of large files when simply copying files from one raid system to another. Anyway, think of the raptor as a bmw m3 with an accesstime of 4.7sec and the cheetah as your enzo ferarri at 3.6 sec. Anyway, somewhere in PC knowlegde...better yet if you search through my profile and find "all posts by merovingian" I think it might be my first thread where you find a link to anandtech under the "raid 2xraptors". Anyway, your load times will increase by 30% but I wouldn't bother using raid 0. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyberwiz97    0

Yeah. You're right about the Seagate cheetah's, but the reason I had to go with the on-board SATA is cuz I don't have slots available for a SCSI adapter. So, the Raptors will have to do. Oh, well. I guess I just have to settle for Windoze loading in 10.5 seconds after POST, instead of 9.5. :)

As you can see, the case is pretty full....

XM_inside_notfinished.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this