hey4

A social media website that allows you to create, view and share high-quality user generated content.

Welcome guest


Join today, it's fun!
Create account or Log in

home > computing > topic

My new beast


Views: 358
toby
64 days ago+2

I got my new computer
It scores 5.9 on every Vista performance test, except for the CPU test which fails at 5.6

But from turning the system on, to the time it finishes loading, it takes <12 seconds, 2 seconds of them is loading the user account, in which I have Sidebar and everything running...
As a side note, >870MB ram usage...third computer I own that uses >800MB ram for Vista, but I don't care, cause im getting another 2GB and 250GB HDD next thursday, then the week after is the LCD so YAY!

8800GT
E8400 8MB 3.0GHZ C2D
EX38 - DS4 c/ 2Gbit Lan
2GB Kingston 800MHZ DDR2 Dual Channel




 
fezel
64 days ago0
cool, good scores

my 78gtx got 5.9 aswell

how much you getting those hdd's for?
 
weesals
64 days ago0
sif the CPU is only 5.6... that cant be right
how big's your HD? 5.9 seems pretty high for a non RAID setup
also, wait for about 10 mins (leave the computer on with only task man open), then your ram should drop to 600mb

nice setup tho hows it run crysis?
 
toby
63 days ago0

Havn't tried crysis yet, computer was on for a few hours before i took that screenshot cause i went to watch ben *jamies bro* play footy it was his b-day.

HDD are 79 for 250GB Seagate.
And they are SATAII which is why I get the 5.9.

I only have Sup Com on here atm so im gonna test that later...

Ram as of now is on >700MB and looks like its been sittin there for a while and the system has been on all night downloading 1.5GB> updates heh...no SP1 either cause its not forced yet *Granted its been standby most of the night*

 
BlahBleh
63 days ago0
Yikes, that boots up twice as fast as the EEE! Incredible!
 
toby
63 days ago0

Sup Com, brads next to me now, Loaded highest GFX in <6 seconds as in, a level load...

 
weesals
62 days ago0
Suppreme commander doesnt seem like the best to test load speeds tho (Download SupComLoading.zip), but it runs crysis nicely (i think he had everything very high except shaders and object detail?) and when we restarted before, my tweaked XP loaded faster, but with a little tweaking, im sure vista's boot time could easily be halved (have you turned off indexing/security center/defender/wifi and everything else you dont need?)

lol @ 8800GT being crap.. im pretty sure you thought that cos it was being bottlenecked in your old computer

I still recon you should overclock your CPU just long enough to get perfect score in vista
 
franko
62 days ago0


quote: weesals

lol @ 8800GT being crap.. im pretty sure you thought that cos it was being bottlenecked in your old computer

lol don't start that argument again!
 
jtmiller
62 days ago0
I dont get how your ram got so much better than mine i have 4gb of 800mhz and get a 5.6, my lowest score,
 
tasman
61 days ago+2
VISTA ratings don't mean anything. they really are crap...
 
toby
61 days ago0
quote: jtmiller
I dont get how your ram got so much better than mine i have 4gb of 800mhz and get a 5.6, my lowest score,
Is yours in Dual Channel? I took it out of dual channel and did notice a difference in performance
quote: tasman
VISTA ratings don't mean anything. they really are crap...
I agree, cause the 8800GT scores the same as fez's 78XX, if the scores went higher they might mean more, but atm, every hardware is the same as other hardware
quote: weesals
Suppreme commander doesnt seem like the best to test load speeds tho (Download SupComLoading.zip), but it runs crysis nicely (i think he had everything very high except shaders and object detail?) and when we restarted before, my tweaked XP loaded faster, but with a little tweaking, im sure vista's boot time could easily be halved (have you turned off indexing/security center/defender/wifi and everything else you dont need?)

lol @ 8800GT being crap.. im pretty sure you thought that cos it was being bottlenecked in your old computer

I still recon you should overclock your CPU just long enough to get perfect score in vista
Very High for all, Textures High, Object Detail Medium, Shaders high, Shadows Low
IM pretty sure you have no idea what the 8800GT should/could have been like
And nah, im not overclocking, I'll proly end up replacing the cpu in a year or more

Using 759MB ram atm too....an no I don't have anything turned off other then sidebar
 
jtmiller
61 days ago0

Nope all 4 are in a dual channell config (as in two lots of dual channels, we need quad channel damn it!)

the vista score is meant to have been made higher, they said it was gonna increase in sp1 (some people even claimed up to 9.9 to accomadate future growth)

 
toby
61 days ago0
Real?
Havn't noticed it yet, Im still bitching with the computer to install SP1, keeps erroring out at the last %age
 
jtmiller
61 days ago0
i dono if they ended up implementing it, they said they were gonna but its not like they keep to their word often
 
toby
60 days ago0
MS Help says it'll be increased as hardware improves, but Vista was out after the 8 series which scored 5.9, and the 7 series, which can score 5.9, so it like, should have been increased before Vista was released XD
 
weesals
60 days ago0
There arent too many apps that need a score of 5.9 (none if you dont include video editing and gaming), maybe they dont think its so important for the average user who will probably be like "what vista score do i need to run this version of office?"

But yeah, they need to go upto like 15 or so, i recon current hardware could get to 8, and its only gona get higher
 
fezel
60 days ago0
250gig hdds are a waste imo, unless very fast rpm
 
toby
59 days ago0
RPM doesn't bother me much, size, and transfer rate does.
So a 250GB SataII, is fine IMO
 
tasman
59 days ago0
500GB's are only $99 now... i'd go with that cos you're sure to use that extra space sometime... probably within the next six months if you;re anything like me
 
fezel
59 days ago0
rpm meaning transfer rate generally.

and 250GB are a waste of money unless you are getting them at a very very discounted rate, 500 and 750gigs are the ones that are good value atm
 
tasman
59 days ago0

it's not a waste if you're never gonna fill it up lol. but seeing toby claims to be a gamer and all i think he'll fill it up within not too long...

 
fezel
59 days ago0
considering its only an extra $28 to go rom 250gig to a 500gig hdd it would be good value for most people, especially if they lan etc.
 
tasman
59 days ago0
buy a 500gb tobE!!
 
franko
59 days ago0

quote: tasman
buy a 500gb tobE!!

ok
 
jtmiller
59 days ago0

when i did a cost per gig analysis of all of msy around a month ago the 750gb WD had the best bang for your buck,

 
tasman
59 days ago0
buy a 750gb tobE!!
 
franko
59 days ago-1
quote: tasman
buy a 750gb tobE!!

ok
 
weesals
59 days ago0
quote: toby
RPM doesn't bother me much, size, and transfer rate does.
So a 250GB SataII, is fine IMO
I have never heard of a HDD that can actualy perform faster than the SATA 1 1.5gbps limit... you will get a tiny performance gain from stuff thats cached, but RPM means alot more for gaming

also, i dunno how true this is, but im pretty sure the larger the hd, the faster it works (I have no source, its just from thinking logicaly that RPM means rate of rotation, so having more data on each ring should mean faster sustained read/writes for the same RPM)
 
toby
59 days ago+2
quote: fezel
rpm meaning transfer rate generally.

and 250GB are a waste of money unless you are getting them at a very very discounted rate, 500 and 750gigs are the ones that are good value atm
Actually, not always, So I found out today...
Some cad designing dude had a beasty server, he said he had a 10,000RPM HDD for his App's and Windows, and other 12,000RPM ones for his Cad files, all mirror raid.
Anyways, apparently when he replaced the 10,000RPM drive for a 7200RPM of higher capacity, the performance of the system particuarly boot time improved, even though he went DOWN from Sata II to Sata I....

I myself don't get it, but this is just what the dude said.
quote: tasman
500GB's are only $99 now... i'd go with that cos you're sure to use that extra space sometime... probably within the next six months if you;re anything like me
Nah, not buying a 500, the higher capacity you buy, YES the cheaper they are, but the more space you loose due to addressing, 250GB is actualy around 230 and so on, 500 is actually around 440, or two 250's is more usable space of around 460.
Not much more, and the money you save you could proly put towards another, but I rather buy a lot of smaller drives, then one chunky ass drive, to me, the smaller drives seems 'more for your money' kinda thing

quote: fezel
rpm meaning transfer rate generally.
~_^ Not really, The cable transfer method deals with transfer from HDD to HDD
quote: tasman

it's not a waste if you're never gonna fill it up lol. but seeing toby claims to be a gamer and all i think he'll fill it up within not too long...

I would, I have around 1TB of shit I wanna get off like 4 computers and put onto this one lol, and thats fair not an exageration
quote: weesals
quote: toby
RPM doesn't bother me much, size, and transfer rate does.
So a 250GB SataII, is fine IMO
I have never heard of a HDD that can actualy perform faster than the SATA 1 1.5gbps limit... you will get a tiny performance gain from stuff thats cached, but RPM means alot more for gaming
Any Sata II capable drive lol, when goin HDD to HDD if both are Sata II you double the pissy Sata I *Sata I is fair old now really*
 
jtmiller
59 days ago0
bradly nice thinking but these days instead of loading more data into the same ring they actualy add more platters, so say a 200gb drive has a single disk inside it but the 1tb i bought has 5x200gb ones in it which is why alot of new smaller sized hard drives have smaller height profiles as they have less platters,
 
franko
59 days ago0

tobE, lets say you buy a 250GB @ $70 and then another one in six months at say $60... from that would would (apparently) get around 460GB at a price of $130. this is equal to 3.54GB per dollar.

but if you buy a 500GB harddrive tomorrow @ $99, which will have 465GB (both of my WD hard drives have this much). this is equal to 4.70GB per dollar - significantly more than if you opt for 2X $250.

not to mention the fact that you'll only have to do one transaction... also that in a year or so 500GB will be considered small and 250GB will be considered really small

but yeah... up to yoo of course, if your short of money or whatevss

 
toby
59 days ago0
~_^ Excactly, cheaper to buy two 250GB's lol, bout 100% sure thats what I said...
But I havn't come across many 500GB's with 465gb! So congrats!! Thats mad!
 
franko
59 days ago0

that's not what i just said.

you get more GB per dollar and you pay less overall when you buy a 500GB

 
weesals
59 days ago0
quote: jtmiller
bradly nice thinking but these days instead of loading more data into the same ring they actualy add more platters, so say a 200gb drive has a single disk inside it but the 1tb i bought has 5x200gb ones in it which is why alot of new smaller sized hard drives have smaller height profiles as they have less platters,
Cant HD's read simultaneously from each platter? i read something about that how they space out data across each platter so they can read it faster

It would make sense, since toby has a 250gb hd and scores 5.9, i have a 160 and score 5.7
 
jtmiller
59 days ago0

500*0.93=465 which means there are 465gb USABLE cmon toby thats a simple computer equation you should know that!

and weesals your correct kinda, each head has to read at the exact same place or so i was lead to believe, so it only matters if the hdd has been made to store data in the right way (not all are)

 
fezel
59 days ago+1
my 500 gig hdd has 465total space, my 250 has 231.

so thats pretty much exactly the same ratio.
 
weesals
59 days ago0
you can just make the *random word* bigger, i think default is 4kb, so it has like an index every 4kb, I had my externals at 16gb and it took off the tinyest bit for formatting (except then all files are limited to 16kb, and NTFS wont do compression.. so you kinda lose out in the end, but its less prone to fragmenting which is good)
 
franko
59 days ago0
tasmnas been posting as me so if he said something crap im not noob
 
jtmiller
59 days ago-2

Fezel it is a universal ratio, you times the manufacturers size by 0.93, aka what ever size drive you get only 93% of what they say it is is usable

Manu Real
80 74.4
160 148.8
250 232.5
400 372
500 465
750 697.5
1000 930

 
BlahBleh
59 days ago0
quote: jtmiller

when i did a cost per gig analysis of all of msy around a month ago the 750gb WD had the best bang for your buck,


Ha, I did exactly the same thing! I made a lovely Excel spreadsheet (well, actually OpenOffice, but same diff...), mainly to see which USB flash disk to get.

Because, personally, my the space needs for my actual OS and apps are minimal; I don't tend to have huge games or anything like that. So, because most of the stuff I use can be fitted onto a 16GB USB or even possibly an 8GB, that seems like it's be faster for me. Seek times of 1/30 of my PATA HD would, I'd imagine, give a real boost to things not involving large amounts of data (eg: starting the OS, running an office suite, browser, MSN client etc)

$4.50 per gig though, and half the data transfer rate...

But to the topic at hand... 500GB at $99 is totally awesome! The best i found when I made the MSY spreadsheet thingy was 3.29GB/$ (for the 500GB Seagate at $152)
 
weesals
59 days ago0
Post up here how that goes (running an OS off your flash drive), i'd be interested in seeing what kinda performance gains you get
 
tasman
58 days ago0
quote: franko
tasmnas been posting as me so if he said something crap im not noob

nah i made you look less n00b
 
toby
58 days ago0
quote: jtmiller

500*0.93=465 which means there are 465gb USABLE cmon toby thats a simple computer equation you should know that!

Doesn't always work like that, the cheaper brands actually have less usable
 
weesals
58 days ago0
how does a brand make a difference to the characteristics of a file system?
 
toby
58 days ago0
Go by el cheapo, you'll see
 
tasman
58 days ago0
WD is the cheapest i can find...
 
toby
58 days ago0
Maxtor is usuall cheper, but superflower make HDD's, and tend to lack usuable space worse then others, goin from experiance that is, experiance may be wrong
 
tasman
58 days ago0

okay, that's fair enough.

are you still gonna go with th 250GB

 
jtmiller
58 days ago0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive#Capacity_measurements

"The disk manufacturer used the SI definition of "giga", 109 to arrive at 30 GB; however, because the utilities provided by Windows, Mac and some Linux distributions define a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes (230 bytes, often referred to as a gibibyte, or GiB), the operating system reports capacity of the disk drive as (only) 28.0 GB."

so it should be universal, i guess superflower are ultra shit and dont label properly

 
toby
58 days ago-1
quote: tasman

okay, that's fair enough.

are you still gonna go with th 250GB

Yah, 69 compared to however much the msy 500 is= cheaper haha
quote: jtmiller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive#Capacity_measurements

"The disk manufacturer used the SI definition of "giga", 109 to arrive at 30 GB; however, because the utilities provided by Windows, Mac and some Linux distributions define a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes (230 bytes, often referred to as a gibibyte, or GiB), the operating system reports capacity of the disk drive as (only) 28.0 GB."

so it should be universal, i guess superflower are ultra shit and dont label properly

I know how it works, still doesn't change the fact that SOME brands vary slightly, superflower proly do label shittly, they are like the cheapest china brand ever!
 
tasman
58 days ago+1
quote: toby
quote: tasman

okay, that's fair enough.

are you still gonna go with th 250GB

Yah, 69 compared to however much the msy 500 is= cheaper haha


but we established that $69 as compared to $99 is not cheaper per GB...

 
weesals
58 days ago0

But how toby?

Formatting doesnt format differently based on brands, look at how file common file systems work.. from how i understand it they have a header with MBR and i think some index thingy, then split the rest up into clusters which each have their own part of wasted space that describe whats in the cluster

hence why you can format with larger cluster sizes and not loose much space, but brand names dont make a difference (unless they are like that dodge manufacturer JT posted about and lie about the capacity)

 
toby
58 days ago0
quote: tasman
quote: toby
quote: tasman

okay, that's fair enough.

are you still gonna go with th 250GB

Yah, 69 compared to however much the msy 500 is= cheaper haha


but we established that $69 as compared to $99 is not cheaper per GB...

Its still cheaper outright
 
tasman
58 days ago0
quote: toby
quote: tasman
quote: toby
quote: tasman

okay, that's fair enough.

are you still gonna go with th 250GB

Yah, 69 compared to however much the msy 500 is= cheaper haha


but we established that $69 as compared to $99 is not cheaper per GB...

Its still cheaper outright

fair enough
 
toby
58 days ago-1
Besides, Its only 20 dollars I save from buying two 250GBs, while obtaining the same usable space *Using JT's usable space examples* *Based on MSY Prices for Seagate Sata's*
And 20 bucks doesn't even quater fill my petrol tank, and can't even pay for my parking fines I get monthly, so its not gonna be missed money

Anyways, Upgraded my PC today again, it now has a TV Tuner Card, so I can throw out my TV, DVD Player, Xbox and the thousands of cables used for them all, as my Computer is now my game console, TV, Dvd Player and Computer all in one!
Like a PS3, but a thousand times faster, and more usable...And cheaper!
 
tasman
58 days ago0
monthly parking fines? n0000b

and twennie buks is a fair amount! but yeah, i guess not much when u have lots of cash coming in while still getting your living expenses paid for,

but you cant accuse brad of beeing wasteful with that attitude!

 
weesals
58 days ago0
... Cheaper?
LCD - $250
CPU - $250
GFX - $330
MOBO - $200?
Case - $100?
DVD - $30
PSU - $80
TV Tuner - $50
KB - $150?
Mouse - $100
HD - 2 * $69
9900GT preorder - $1000
 Total= $2600

PS3 - $1000

EDIT: oops, i forgot RAM, meh.. that can make up for if i overpriced something
 
toby
58 days ago0
lol lol and lol.
This ENTIRE system cost me no more then 900 bucks, cheaper because its HDD is way bigger then PS3's 60GB HDD *The PS3 that costs 1k has the 60gb*
KB I don't have, I only have 1 HD, 9900GT I don't have, mouse was cheaper then 100.
Besides, its 900 for the PS3 + TV Cost so like 1300, and thats for a shitty TV, then you need the games which is 100 each so 2 games is 1500, more then this system in its current state! Which wtf pwns the PS3!

 
BlahBleh
58 days ago0
But it uses 7 cores. Cain't say no to 7 cores. (the eighth is purely so that if one core is dodgy, Sony/Toshiba/IBM can be cheap and still ship the processor)

On the other hand, what sane person pays $100 for a mouse, or $150 for a keyboard? For that price... I'd expect both of them to be able to fancy stuff, like crazy lights and a hand-warmer and running linux.
 
weesals
58 days ago0
The keyboard is like one of the most awesome keyboards ive ever seen
It has an LCD!! i mean c'mon!!!

and you said you've already put down $500 for the 9900GT, and without a KB, your computer wouldnt work
 
toby
58 days ago0
KB was free, you know that, you saw my KB!
My mouse was only 60 and is like the most awesomes mice 3ver!
 
weesals
58 days ago0
I would much rather pay for a PS3 controler than be stuck with that keyboard..
and it was only free cos you already had it, if PS3's were used in place of computers, they too would have controlers lying around

when comparing the cost of a computer to a console, you have to quote all the costs involved
 
jtmiller
58 days ago0
quote: BlahBleh
But it uses 7 cores. Cain't say no to 7 cores. (the eighth is purely so that if one core is dodgy, Sony/Toshiba/IBM can be cheap and still ship the processor)

On the other hand, what sane person pays $100 for a mouse, or $150 for a keyboard? For that price... I'd expect both of them to be able to fancy stuff, like crazy lights and a hand-warmer and running linux.


My keyboard RRP is 180 and mouse RRP is 150,

both are fancy

 
lambda
55 days ago+1
quote: jtmiller
quote: BlahBleh
But it uses 7 cores. Cain't say no to 7 cores. (the eighth is purely so that if one core is dodgy, Sony/Toshiba/IBM can be cheap and still ship the processor)

On the other hand, what sane person pays $100 for a mouse, or $150 for a keyboard? For that price... I'd expect both of them to be able to fancy stuff, like crazy lights and a hand-warmer and running linux.


My keyboard RRP is 180 and mouse RRP is 150,

both are fancy

A keyboard isn't fancy unless it has a microprocessor that can detect more than 5 simultaneous keypresses,
those are the good ones.
 
fezel
55 days ago0