Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[Stan Zaske]

I'm currently running Corsair DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) 4-4-4-12 in my email 
box, 6 gigs (2,2,1,1 all 4 memory slots filled) Corsair DDR2 1066 (PC2 
8500) 5-5-5-18 in my game box and my older Epox socket 939 mobo is 
running Mushkin DDR 400 (PC 3200) 2-2-2-7. How bout we price 6 gigs of 
low latency DDR3 2000 and compare that to 6 gigs normal latency DDR3 
1333 and think about cost/performance value compared to DDR2.


You know, that 2 gigs of Mushkin memory cost me $230 back in the day 
because it had such a low latency. What a waste of money that was but 
heck I was still a hardware whore with more cash than sense. It felt 
cool buying it but I doubt it made any real world performance difference 
but live and learn is what I always say. Cheers!



James Boswell wrote:


On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:12:030, Stan Zaske wrote:
DDR3 is currently too slow and has too high a latency to demonstrate 
a clear performance advantage over DDR2 and it was the same exact 
situation during the transition from DDR to DDR2 several years ago as 
I'm sure you must remember. It was severely hyped and when the 
benchmarking began it was a huge disappointment to hardware 
enthusiasts hoping for something great. I know I was disappointed 
after all the BS.


are you sure on the latency front? since the real world latency of 
8-8-8 timing DDR3-1600 is the effectively the same as DDR2-800 
4-4-4... and there's even 7-8-7 timing DDR2-2000 available right at 
the top end, thats real world latencies lower than DDR2 has _ever_ had 
unless I'm very much mistaken ?



-JB

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[James Boswell]

On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:12:030, Stan Zaske wrote:
DDR3 is currently too slow and has too high a latency to demonstrate  
a clear performance advantage over DDR2 and it was the same exact  
situation during the transition from DDR to DDR2 several years ago  
as I'm sure you must remember. It was severely hyped and when the  
benchmarking began it was a huge disappointment to hardware  
enthusiasts hoping for something great. I know I was disappointed  
after all the BS.


are you sure on the latency front? since the real world latency of  
8-8-8 timing DDR3-1600 is the effectively the same as DDR2-800  
4-4-4... and there's even 7-8-7 timing DDR2-2000 available right at  
the top end, thats real world latencies lower than DDR2 has _ever_ had  
unless I'm very much mistaken ?



-JB

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[Stan Zaske]

To be perfectly frank Duncan, I've been bummed about the situation for 
years now because every time they come out with a new memory standard 
the hype machine goes into high gear and we are made to believe a load 
of bat guano. DDR3 as it now stands is faintly superior to DDR2 just as 
DDR2 is mildly superior to DDR. IMHO, it would be more appropriate to 
compare DDR to DDR3 (if the chipset/mobo dual standard existed) and even 
then I suspect the difference would be minor.


The only memory hardware reviews that I've read where one memory 
standard is substantially superior to another is to compare 256 bit wide 
GDDR3 to 128 bit wide GDDR5. Both have the same bandwidth and yet the 
GDDR5 has half the interface which of course is cheaper to implement 
hence the new Radeon 4770's great bang for the buck.


Nothing personal to anyone but I want to cut through the hype because it 
irks me that the manufacturers think people are stupid. The benchmarks 
don't lie and we are not stupid!



DHSinclair wrote:

Stan,
I always love your replies. I may often NOT comprehend them, and, 
reply badly, but I do read them and continue to think about the subject.


I never meant to start a "skirmish" over RAM.
Yes, I did buy/own DDR3 RAM for my 3 P5Q3 m/b's. As I read the notes, 
it was a required upgrade. OK. I am an early adopter. So far, so good. 
I have no complaints yet about my "not much more expensive that DDR2" 
RAM.
Here, it is all good ATM. But then, I do NOT exercise my RAM to the 
limits I think both you and James are sharing.

I am mostly pedestrian in the RAM-speed department now.
Best,
Duncan


Stan Zaske wrote:
I understand that i7 has no DDR2 option as that has been widely 
reported for many months. I thought that I was pretty clear in saying 
there is little to no performance difference in going from one memory 
standard to the next and therefore if you choose to buy into any 
other mainstream (non-i7) platform there is no practical reason to 
buy DDR3 over DDR2 until there is no other choice.


i7 of course is a fine platform and the fastest there is currently 
(as everyone agrees) but thats not because of DDR3 thats because of 
the i7's architecture. In fact, there have been several reviews 
comparing i7 dual channel vs. triple channel and there isn't any 
difference again even though the synthetic benches say there is.


DDR3 is currently too slow and has too high a latency to demonstrate 
a clear performance advantage over DDR2 and it was the same exact 
situation during the transition from DDR to DDR2 several years ago as 
I'm sure you must remember. It was severely hyped and when the 
benchmarking began it was a huge disappointment to hardware 
enthusiasts hoping for something great. I know I was disappointed 
after all the BS.



James Boswell wrote:

Well, the issue there is that I can't benchmark an i7 with DDR2

and as I've said already, due to the FSB bottleneck, it really is 
completely useless on a Core 2


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:30, Stan Zaske wrote:

Can you get me a link to a good hardware review that show these 
real world performance improvements that you're talking about? As I 
said, I've been reading hardware reviews for many years on this 
subject and see no hard evidence to back what you're saying. 
Synthetic benchmarks always show an improvement in bandwidth but 
when you use practical software applications and do comparisons 
there is minimal if any difference in speed. Certainly nothing that 
a human beings perception could detect.



James Boswell wrote:


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower 
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds 
of hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world 
performance improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another 
solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get 
well above DDR3 2500 will there be significant and noticeable 
speed improvement.


DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the 
issue is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the 
other side of the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic 
bandwidth from DDR3



The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes 
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 
2 generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7


One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge 
performance kick)



-JB

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[DHSinclair]

Stan,
I always love your replies. I may often NOT comprehend them, and, reply 
badly, but I do read them and continue to think about the subject.


I never meant to start a "skirmish" over RAM.
Yes, I did buy/own DDR3 RAM for my 3 P5Q3 m/b's. As I read the notes, it 
was a required upgrade. OK. I am an early adopter. So far, so good. I 
have no complaints yet about my "not much more expensive that DDR2" RAM.
Here, it is all good ATM. But then, I do NOT exercise my RAM to the 
limits I think both you and James are sharing.

I am mostly pedestrian in the RAM-speed department now.
Best,
Duncan


Stan Zaske wrote:
I understand that i7 has no DDR2 option as that has been widely reported 
for many months. I thought that I was pretty clear in saying there is 
little to no performance difference in going from one memory standard to 
the next and therefore if you choose to buy into any other mainstream 
(non-i7) platform there is no practical reason to buy DDR3 over DDR2 
until there is no other choice.


i7 of course is a fine platform and the fastest there is currently (as 
everyone agrees) but thats not because of DDR3 thats because of the i7's 
architecture. In fact, there have been several reviews comparing i7 dual 
channel vs. triple channel and there isn't any difference again even 
though the synthetic benches say there is.


DDR3 is currently too slow and has too high a latency to demonstrate a 
clear performance advantage over DDR2 and it was the same exact 
situation during the transition from DDR to DDR2 several years ago as 
I'm sure you must remember. It was severely hyped and when the 
benchmarking began it was a huge disappointment to hardware enthusiasts 
hoping for something great. I know I was disappointed after all the BS.



James Boswell wrote:

Well, the issue there is that I can't benchmark an i7 with DDR2

and as I've said already, due to the FSB bottleneck, it really is 
completely useless on a Core 2


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:30, Stan Zaske wrote:

Can you get me a link to a good hardware review that show these real 
world performance improvements that you're talking about? As I said, 
I've been reading hardware reviews for many years on this subject and 
see no hard evidence to back what you're saying. Synthetic benchmarks 
always show an improvement in bandwidth but when you use practical 
software applications and do comparisons there is minimal if any 
difference in speed. Certainly nothing that a human beings perception 
could detect.



James Boswell wrote:


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower 
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds 
of hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world performance 
improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a 
problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3 
2500 will there be significant and noticeable speed improvement.


DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the 
issue is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the other 
side of the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic bandwidth 
from DDR3



The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes 
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 2 
generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7


One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge 
performance kick)



-JB

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[Stan Zaske]

I understand that i7 has no DDR2 option as that has been widely reported 
for many months. I thought that I was pretty clear in saying there is 
little to no performance difference in going from one memory standard to 
the next and therefore if you choose to buy into any other mainstream 
(non-i7) platform there is no practical reason to buy DDR3 over DDR2 
until there is no other choice.


i7 of course is a fine platform and the fastest there is currently (as 
everyone agrees) but thats not because of DDR3 thats because of the i7's 
architecture. In fact, there have been several reviews comparing i7 dual 
channel vs. triple channel and there isn't any difference again even 
though the synthetic benches say there is.


DDR3 is currently too slow and has too high a latency to demonstrate a 
clear performance advantage over DDR2 and it was the same exact 
situation during the transition from DDR to DDR2 several years ago as 
I'm sure you must remember. It was severely hyped and when the 
benchmarking began it was a huge disappointment to hardware enthusiasts 
hoping for something great. I know I was disappointed after all the BS.



James Boswell wrote:

Well, the issue there is that I can't benchmark an i7 with DDR2

and as I've said already, due to the FSB bottleneck, it really is 
completely useless on a Core 2


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:30, Stan Zaske wrote:

Can you get me a link to a good hardware review that show these real 
world performance improvements that you're talking about? As I said, 
I've been reading hardware reviews for many years on this subject and 
see no hard evidence to back what you're saying. Synthetic benchmarks 
always show an improvement in bandwidth but when you use practical 
software applications and do comparisons there is minimal if any 
difference in speed. Certainly nothing that a human beings perception 
could detect.



James Boswell wrote:


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower 
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds 
of hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world performance 
improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a 
problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3 
2500 will there be significant and noticeable speed improvement.


DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the 
issue is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the other 
side of the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic bandwidth 
from DDR3



The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes 
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 2 
generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7


One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge 
performance kick)



-JB

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Brian Weeden]

Well maybe its worth a shot then.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

> I've read that there are significant differences in how Win7 handles video
> over Vista. At least on the 2D desktop.
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>> I've got Windows 7 on my laptop and I love it.  The problem is that this
>> video bug with XBMC is with Vista.  And I'm pretty sure that Windows 7 is
>> going to have the same problems since it is basically Vista polished up.
>>
>> The bug is really annoying.  Any 24 fps HD files have this jerky playback
>> that's just noticeable enough to be annoying.  There's a smoothvideo
>> feature
>> that was incorporated into the latest release of XBMC but for some reason
>> Vista doesn't like it.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe a dumb question, but have you tried Windows 7? Seems to work pretty
>>> good for me after I got rid of the crappy Microsoft WHQL Radeon drivers
>>> and
>>> went with Catalyst 9.5.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Weeden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Ugh.  Fraking Microsoft.

 Guess I'll have to go with XP64 as the Vista video bug was the whole
 reason
 I downgraded in the first place.

 ---
 Brian Weeden
 Technical Advisor
 Secure World Foundation 
 +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
 +1 (202) 683-8534 US


 On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:





> 32-bit XP doesn't support GPT disks, which is required for >2TB volume
> support. You'll have to use Vista (x86 or x64) or XP x64, or break the
> array
> into <2TB virtual disks (in Areca terminology, make several <2TB volume
> sets
> residing on the same RAID set).
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:28 PM
>> To: hwg
>> Subject: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition
>>
>> I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue
>> with
>> 24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
>> NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista
>> 32-bit
>> and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers
>> for
>> the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.
>>
>> I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger
>> than
>> 2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot
>> drive
>> is a 80 GB SATA).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[James Boswell]

Well, the issue there is that I can't benchmark an i7 with DDR2

and as I've said already, due to the FSB bottleneck, it really is  
completely useless on a Core 2


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:30, Stan Zaske wrote:

Can you get me a link to a good hardware review that show these real  
world performance improvements that you're talking about? As I said,  
I've been reading hardware reviews for many years on this subject  
and see no hard evidence to back what you're saying. Synthetic  
benchmarks always show an improvement in bandwidth but when you use  
practical software applications and do comparisons there is minimal  
if any difference in speed. Certainly nothing that a human beings  
perception could detect.



James Boswell wrote:


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower  
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds  
of hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world performance  
improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a  
problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3  
2500 will there be significant and noticeable speed improvement.


DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the  
issue is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the  
other side of the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic  
bandwidth from DDR3



The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes  
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 2  
generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7


One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge  
performance kick)



-JB

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Stan Zaske]

I've read that there are significant differences in how Win7 handles 
video over Vista. At least on the 2D desktop.


Brian Weeden wrote:

I've got Windows 7 on my laptop and I love it.  The problem is that this
video bug with XBMC is with Vista.  And I'm pretty sure that Windows 7 is
going to have the same problems since it is basically Vista polished up.

The bug is really annoying.  Any 24 fps HD files have this jerky playback
that's just noticeable enough to be annoying.  There's a smoothvideo feature
that was incorporated into the latest release of XBMC but for some reason
Vista doesn't like it.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

  

Maybe a dumb question, but have you tried Windows 7? Seems to work pretty
good for me after I got rid of the crappy Microsoft WHQL Radeon drivers and
went with Catalyst 9.5.


Brian Weeden wrote:



Ugh.  Fraking Microsoft.

Guess I'll have to go with XP64 as the Vista video bug was the whole
reason
I downgraded in the first place.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:



  

32-bit XP doesn't support GPT disks, which is required for >2TB volume
support. You'll have to use Vista (x86 or x64) or XP x64, or break the
array
into <2TB virtual disks (in Areca terminology, make several <2TB volume
sets
residing on the same RAID set).

Greg







-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:28 PM
To: hwg
Subject: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue
with
24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista
32-bit
and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers
for
the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.

I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger
than
2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot
drive
is a 80 GB SATA).

Thoughts?

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


  





  


  

Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: x48 v p45 ?

[Stan Zaske]

Can you get me a link to a good hardware review that show these real 
world performance improvements that you're talking about? As I said, 
I've been reading hardware reviews for many years on this subject and 
see no hard evidence to back what you're saying. Synthetic benchmarks 
always show an improvement in bandwidth but when you use practical 
software applications and do comparisons there is minimal if any 
difference in speed. Certainly nothing that a human beings perception 
could detect.



James Boswell wrote:


On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower 
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds of 
hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world performance 
improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a 
problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3 2500 
will there be significant and noticeable speed improvement.


DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the issue 
is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the other side of 
the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic bandwidth from DDR3



The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes 
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 2 
generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7


One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge 
performance kick)



-JB

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[Winterlight]

At 04:13 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
Don't understand the question. Currently I have 2 monitors running, 
each can be a different resolution, each can be a clone OR part of 
the extended desktop. For that matter one can be full screen 
playback on the fly.


Are you saying that in non-crossfire mode with 3+ monitors there's an issue?


no I am saying if you run multiple monitors, I am running a Gateway 
3000 on one Asus EAH4970 and two DELL 2407s on another EAH4970, each 
at it's native resolution. If I enable Crossfire I loose the DELLs 2D 
or 3D. I only see the 30 inch monitor. Asus says this is how 
crossfire works. So when you wrote that you were able to use multiple 
monitors with crossfire enabled I assumed you were spanning the 
monitors across one resolution which can be done with some drivers.


When I enable Crossfire in Vista 64, say to play a game, the desktop 
gets messed up when I restore normal mode. So I boot into XP64 with 
crossfire enabled if I want to play a gameand I only see the 30 
inch monitor.




 That may be different, it was my understanding that my card has 4 
heads to do 4 monitors though I think to do so CrossfireX has to be 
disabled 1st. Currently I can't get CFX to disable & don't have 
time tonight to fiddle with it as I am flying out in the morning.


Winterlight wrote:

At 01:20 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
I run a 3870x2 and no matter crossfire or not I have 4 DVI heads 
that work in 2D mode.
but in one big spread across the monitors view ? Not with separate 
resolutions on each monitor.

Re: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Brian Weeden]

I've got Windows 7 on my laptop and I love it.  The problem is that this
video bug with XBMC is with Vista.  And I'm pretty sure that Windows 7 is
going to have the same problems since it is basically Vista polished up.

The bug is really annoying.  Any 24 fps HD files have this jerky playback
that's just noticeable enough to be annoying.  There's a smoothvideo feature
that was incorporated into the latest release of XBMC but for some reason
Vista doesn't like it.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

> Maybe a dumb question, but have you tried Windows 7? Seems to work pretty
> good for me after I got rid of the crappy Microsoft WHQL Radeon drivers and
> went with Catalyst 9.5.
>
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>> Ugh.  Fraking Microsoft.
>>
>> Guess I'll have to go with XP64 as the Vista video bug was the whole
>> reason
>> I downgraded in the first place.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 32-bit XP doesn't support GPT disks, which is required for >2TB volume
>>> support. You'll have to use Vista (x86 or x64) or XP x64, or break the
>>> array
>>> into <2TB virtual disks (in Areca terminology, make several <2TB volume
>>> sets
>>> residing on the same RAID set).
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 -Original Message-
 From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
 boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
 Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:28 PM
 To: hwg
 Subject: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

 I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue
 with
 24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
 NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista
 32-bit
 and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers
 for
 the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.

 I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger
 than
 2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot
 drive
 is a 80 GB SATA).

 Thoughts?

 ---
 Brian Weeden
 Technical Advisor
 Secure World Foundation 
 +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
 +1 (202) 683-8534 US


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[James Boswell]

On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower  
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds of  
hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world performance  
improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a  
problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3  
2500 will there be significant and noticeable speed improvement.


DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the issue  
is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the other side of  
the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic bandwidth from DDR3



The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes  
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 2  
generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7


One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge  
performance kick)



-JB

Re: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Stan Zaske]

Maybe a dumb question, but have you tried Windows 7? Seems to work 
pretty good for me after I got rid of the crappy Microsoft WHQL Radeon 
drivers and went with Catalyst 9.5.



Brian Weeden wrote:

Ugh.  Fraking Microsoft.

Guess I'll have to go with XP64 as the Vista video bug was the whole reason
I downgraded in the first place.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:

  

32-bit XP doesn't support GPT disks, which is required for >2TB volume
support. You'll have to use Vista (x86 or x64) or XP x64, or break the
array
into <2TB virtual disks (in Areca terminology, make several <2TB volume
sets
residing on the same RAID set).

Greg





-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:28 PM
To: hwg
Subject: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue
with
24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista
32-bit
and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers
for
the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.

I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger
than
2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot
drive
is a 80 GB SATA).

Thoughts?

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US
  





  

Re: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Brian Weeden]

Ugh.  Fraking Microsoft.

Guess I'll have to go with XP64 as the Vista video bug was the whole reason
I downgraded in the first place.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:

> 32-bit XP doesn't support GPT disks, which is required for >2TB volume
> support. You'll have to use Vista (x86 or x64) or XP x64, or break the
> array
> into <2TB virtual disks (in Areca terminology, make several <2TB volume
> sets
> residing on the same RAID set).
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:28 PM
> > To: hwg
> > Subject: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition
> >
> > I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue
> > with
> > 24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
> > NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista
> > 32-bit
> > and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers
> > for
> > the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.
> >
> > I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger
> > than
> > 2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot
> > drive
> > is a 80 GB SATA).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > ---
> > Brian Weeden
> > Technical Advisor
> > Secure World Foundation 
> > +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
> > +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>
>
>

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[Stan Zaske]

SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower voltage 
and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds of hardware 
reviews that show minimal to no real world performance improvements 
(synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a problem that doesn't 
exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3 2500 will there be 
significant and noticeable speed improvement.


Then you get into the problem of memory controller support and no 
current CPU from either camp can reach these speeds without serious 
overclocking. And AMD's first gen DDR3 controllers are duds by 
comparison to Intel as far as memory OC'ing. I expect that we won't see 
any DDR3 2500 supporting CPU's until 2012 at the earliest and perhaps 
not even then. Of course by that time they will be well into the 
transition to DDR4 once again trying to convince us that its the 
greatest thing since sliced bread.


So as long as there are good DDR2 mobo's and cheap DDR2 memory what 
point is there in upgrading except if you have to have the latest and 
greatest. And in AMD's case I'd wait until the transition to 32 nm 
before we can expect the second gen memory controllers. Just my 2 cents.



tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:

I don't know. 6gb of ddr3 is down to $100 or so. Yes more then ddr2, but still 
not a high cost item
Sent via BlackBerry 


-Original Message-
From: maccrawj 

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:17:26 
To: 

Subject: Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?


DDR3 is insanely expensive vs. DDR2 for little benefit. It's all or nothing with 
current boards and the choice of DDR2 vs 3 with DDR3 RAM being 2-3X the price of DDR2 
last time I checked.


I was saying having X48 chipset w/ 16X lanes for whatever use makes sense if mobo is 
same price as P45 (x48 lite IMHO), nothing more.


DHSinclair wrote:
  

j.,
A bit confused? I now run DDR3 on my 3 P5Q3 m/b's. And it seems to work 
well; as best I can check. If this is a $$ comment, I understand. If not 
a $$ comment, I do NOT understand.

I was told DDR3 is where we will all have to go in the end.
I went there 5-6 months ago.
Best,
Duncan


maccrawj wrote:

DDR3 would be the "extreme" models of Maximus, Rampage, & Maximus II. 
When I checked Newegg the MII & Rampage for DDR2 were same price. Just 
seems a waste to not have the  xtra lanes "in case" given same price 
for both, but certainly both are great mobos.


  

Re: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Greg Sevart]

32-bit XP doesn't support GPT disks, which is required for >2TB volume
support. You'll have to use Vista (x86 or x64) or XP x64, or break the array
into <2TB virtual disks (in Areca terminology, make several <2TB volume sets
residing on the same RAID set).

Greg



> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:28 PM
> To: hwg
> Subject: [H] Windows XP and 4TB partition
> 
> I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue
> with
> 24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
> NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista
> 32-bit
> and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers
> for
> the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.
> 
> I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger
> than
> 2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot
> drive
> is a 80 GB SATA).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ---
> Brian Weeden
> Technical Advisor
> Secure World Foundation 
> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
> +1 (202) 683-8534 US

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[tmservo]

I don't know. 6gb of ddr3 is down to $100 or so. Yes more then ddr2, but still 
not a high cost item
Sent via BlackBerry 

-Original Message-
From: maccrawj 

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:17:26 
To: 
Subject: Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?


DDR3 is insanely expensive vs. DDR2 for little benefit. It's all or nothing 
with 
current boards and the choice of DDR2 vs 3 with DDR3 RAM being 2-3X the price 
of DDR2 
last time I checked.

I was saying having X48 chipset w/ 16X lanes for whatever use makes sense if 
mobo is 
same price as P45 (x48 lite IMHO), nothing more.

DHSinclair wrote:
> j.,
> A bit confused? I now run DDR3 on my 3 P5Q3 m/b's. And it seems to work 
> well; as best I can check. If this is a $$ comment, I understand. If not 
> a $$ comment, I do NOT understand.
> I was told DDR3 is where we will all have to go in the end.
> I went there 5-6 months ago.
> Best,
> Duncan
> 
> 
> maccrawj wrote:
>> DDR3 would be the "extreme" models of Maximus, Rampage, & Maximus II. 
>> When I checked Newegg the MII & Rampage for DDR2 were same price. Just 
>> seems a waste to not have the  xtra lanes "in case" given same price 
>> for both, but certainly both are great mobos.
>>

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[maccrawj]

DDR3 is insanely expensive vs. DDR2 for little benefit. It's all or nothing with 
current boards and the choice of DDR2 vs 3 with DDR3 RAM being 2-3X the price of DDR2 
last time I checked.


I was saying having X48 chipset w/ 16X lanes for whatever use makes sense if mobo is 
same price as P45 (x48 lite IMHO), nothing more.


DHSinclair wrote:

j.,
A bit confused? I now run DDR3 on my 3 P5Q3 m/b's. And it seems to work 
well; as best I can check. If this is a $$ comment, I understand. If not 
a $$ comment, I do NOT understand.

I was told DDR3 is where we will all have to go in the end.
I went there 5-6 months ago.
Best,
Duncan


maccrawj wrote:
DDR3 would be the "extreme" models of Maximus, Rampage, & Maximus II. 
When I checked Newegg the MII & Rampage for DDR2 were same price. Just 
seems a waste to not have the  xtra lanes "in case" given same price 
for both, but certainly both are great mobos.

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[maccrawj]

Don't understand the question. Currently I have 2 monitors running, each can be a 
different resolution, each can be a clone OR part of the extended desktop. For that 
matter one can be full screen playback on the fly.


Are you saying that in non-crossfire mode with 3+ monitors there's an issue? That may 
be different, it was my understanding that my card has 4 heads to do 4 monitors 
though I think to do so CrossfireX has to be disabled 1st. Currently I can't get CFX 
to disable & don't have time tonight to fiddle with it as I am flying out in the morning.


Winterlight wrote:

At 01:20 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
I run a 3870x2 and no matter crossfire or not I have 4 DVI heads that 
work in 2D mode.


but in one big spread across the monitors view ? Not with separate 
resolutions on each monitor.

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[DHSinclair]

j.,
A bit confused? I now run DDR3 on my 3 P5Q3 m/b's. And it seems to work 
well; as best I can check. If this is a $$ comment, I understand. If not 
a $$ comment, I do NOT understand.

I was told DDR3 is where we will all have to go in the end.
I went there 5-6 months ago.
Best,
Duncan


maccrawj wrote:
DDR3 would be the "extreme" models of Maximus, Rampage, & Maximus II. 
When I checked Newegg the MII & Rampage for DDR2 were same price. Just 
seems a waste to not have the  xtra lanes "in case" given same price for 
both, but certainly both are great mobos.


FORC5 wrote:
looks very nice also, but the one I looked at was ddr3 and I did not 
need to go there but with the $50 rebate. ouch. :'(


I'll be good I think
fp

At 12:32 AM 6/1/2009, maccrawj Poked the stick with:


Bah, same cost? I'd of ordered the Rampage w/ X48.

FORC5 wrote:
thanks, never would do crossfire. Do not game as much as I used to 
but my son is up and coming. :-[
wound up ordering  a Asus Maximums II and a e8600. Love the pin fin 
cooling on that MB. way overkill but WTF.
my existing mb has leaking caps and little weird bugs that have been 
bugging me. Bad caps was the LAST thing I would of thought of on a 
fairly new mb. ( less then 2 years)
major  jump for me, AMD to intel. AMD will probably now come out 
with something better, figure they been watching me :'( could not 
see no reason to go i7 or quad core. ( to much heat )

thanks
fp
At 11:50 AM 5/31/2009, Stan Zaske Poked the stick with:
The main difference is that X48 is X16/X16 crossfire capable but 
P45 is X8/X8. Are you a hardcore gamer with a 1920x1200 or above 
monitor? P45 is newer and much less expensive.

--
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Shill: Guy who loses $2000 at a table, & leaves smiling.

Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

[DHSinclair]

Greg,
I do like to read your comments. Can we please define "class" as either 
[consumer] or [prosumer] and leave it at that?
Your use of "enthusiast class" really does muddy up the discussion 
waters for me.

Or, have I missed something along the current discussion?
Thanks.
Best,
Duncan


Greg Sevart wrote:

While i5 is inferior to i7, it is nowhere near a "budget computing"
solution. The i5 line is designed to be their for-the-masses mainstream
product, whereas i7 was always designed to be high-end workstation and
enthusiast class. The cheapest i5 is slated to be the 2.66GHz variant that
should debut at $196 for 1000-order batches. It's still a very fast chip,
and overall seems to compare favorably to the more-expensive 3.2GHz AMD
Phenom II. 


Several reviewers have commented that if you were in the category that
bought a Q6600 or Q9300 or the like, i5 is probably the Nehalem for you. If
you bought higher-end SKUs, i7 is probably for you. Intel is just doing a
"better" job of segmenting their market strategies that have, in fact,
always been there.

With the sub $5-600 i7's disappearing, I expect that we will see the cheaper
X58 boards start to disappear as well, as manufacturers focus on P55
solutions.

Greg


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of James Maki
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:44 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer


-Original Message-
From: jason.to...@cliffordchance.com
With the recent announcement on i7 and i5, I wouldn't even consider

an

i7 anymore.

Not good news either for those of us who jumped on the i7 bandwagon
early :(

I'm a bit confused by this comment. My understanding is that the i5 is
inferior to the i7 and aimed at budget computing. Am I missing
something?

Jim Maki
jwm_maill...@comcast.net

[H] Windows XP and 4TB partition

[Brian Weeden]

I just reformatted my HTPC from Vista back to XPSP3 due to an issue with
24fps playback in XBMC.  The problem is XP isn't recognizing my
NTFS-formatted 4 TB RAID array.  It was working just fine under Vista 32-bit
and the RAID management software shows that it is just fine.  Drivers for
the RAID card (Areca 1220) are properly installed and working.

I know there are issues with XP 32-bit and booting from drives larger than
2TB  but I didn't think that also applied to non-boot arrays (my boot drive
is a 80 GB SATA).

Thoughts?

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[FORC5]

can not even imagine this
fp

At 02:51 PM 6/1/2009, Winterlight Poked the stick with:
>At 01:20 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
>>I run a 3870x2 and no matter crossfire or not I have 4 DVI heads that work in 
>>2D mode.
>
>but in one big spread across the monitors view ? Not with separate resolutions 
>on each monitor.
>
>

-- 
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Does anyone really read these stupid taglines?

Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

[z00100]

Check out the Lynnfield review out on www.anandtech.com to get an idea of what 
kind of performance figures are to be expected. 




Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from Aljawal

-Original Message-
From: "Greg Sevart" 

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:15:21 
To: 
Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer


While i5 is inferior to i7, it is nowhere near a "budget computing"
solution. The i5 line is designed to be their for-the-masses mainstream
product, whereas i7 was always designed to be high-end workstation and
enthusiast class. The cheapest i5 is slated to be the 2.66GHz variant that
should debut at $196 for 1000-order batches. It's still a very fast chip,
and overall seems to compare favorably to the more-expensive 3.2GHz AMD
Phenom II. 

Several reviewers have commented that if you were in the category that
bought a Q6600 or Q9300 or the like, i5 is probably the Nehalem for you. If
you bought higher-end SKUs, i7 is probably for you. Intel is just doing a
"better" job of segmenting their market strategies that have, in fact,
always been there.

With the sub $5-600 i7's disappearing, I expect that we will see the cheaper
X58 boards start to disappear as well, as manufacturers focus on P55
solutions.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of James Maki
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: jason.to...@cliffordchance.com
> 
> > With the recent announcement on i7 and i5, I wouldn't even consider
> an
> > i7 anymore.
> >
> > Not good news either for those of us who jumped on the i7 bandwagon
> > early :(
> 
> I'm a bit confused by this comment. My understanding is that the i5 is
> inferior to the i7 and aimed at budget computing. Am I missing
> something?
> 
> Jim Maki
> jwm_maill...@comcast.net

Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

[Greg Sevart]

While i5 is inferior to i7, it is nowhere near a "budget computing"
solution. The i5 line is designed to be their for-the-masses mainstream
product, whereas i7 was always designed to be high-end workstation and
enthusiast class. The cheapest i5 is slated to be the 2.66GHz variant that
should debut at $196 for 1000-order batches. It's still a very fast chip,
and overall seems to compare favorably to the more-expensive 3.2GHz AMD
Phenom II. 

Several reviewers have commented that if you were in the category that
bought a Q6600 or Q9300 or the like, i5 is probably the Nehalem for you. If
you bought higher-end SKUs, i7 is probably for you. Intel is just doing a
"better" job of segmenting their market strategies that have, in fact,
always been there.

With the sub $5-600 i7's disappearing, I expect that we will see the cheaper
X58 boards start to disappear as well, as manufacturers focus on P55
solutions.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of James Maki
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: jason.to...@cliffordchance.com
> 
> > With the recent announcement on i7 and i5, I wouldn't even consider
> an
> > i7 anymore.
> >
> > Not good news either for those of us who jumped on the i7 bandwagon
> > early :(
> 
> I'm a bit confused by this comment. My understanding is that the i5 is
> inferior to the i7 and aimed at budget computing. Am I missing
> something?
> 
> Jim Maki
> jwm_maill...@comcast.net

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[Winterlight]

At 01:20 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
I run a 3870x2 and no matter crossfire or not I have 4 DVI heads 
that work in 2D mode.


but in one big spread across the monitors view ? Not with separate 
resolutions on each monitor.

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[maccrawj]

DDR3 would be the "extreme" models of Maximus, Rampage, & Maximus II. When I checked 
Newegg the MII & Rampage for DDR2 were same price. Just seems a waste to not have the 
 xtra lanes "in case" given same price for both, but certainly both are great mobos.


FORC5 wrote:

looks very nice also, but the one I looked at was ddr3 and I did not need to go 
there but with the $50 rebate. ouch. :'(

I'll be good I think
fp

At 12:32 AM 6/1/2009, maccrawj Poked the stick with:


Bah, same cost? I'd of ordered the Rampage w/ X48.

FORC5 wrote:

thanks, never would do crossfire. Do not game as much as I used to but my son 
is up and coming. :-[
wound up ordering  a Asus Maximums II and a e8600. Love the pin fin cooling on 
that MB. way overkill but WTF.
my existing mb has leaking caps and little weird bugs that have been bugging 
me. Bad caps was the LAST thing I would of thought of on a fairly new mb. ( 
less then 2 years)
major  jump for me, AMD to intel. AMD will probably now come out with something 
better, figure they been watching me :'( could not see no reason to go i7 or 
quad core. ( to much heat )
thanks
fp
At 11:50 AM 5/31/2009, Stan Zaske Poked the stick with:

The main difference is that X48 is X16/X16 crossfire capable but P45 is X8/X8. 
Are you a hardcore gamer with a 1920x1200 or above monitor? P45 is newer and 
much less expensive.

--
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Shill: Guy who loses $2000 at a table, & leaves smiling.

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[maccrawj]

I run a 3870x2 and no matter crossfire or not I have 4 DVI heads that work in 
2D mode.

Winterlight wrote:


>>thanks, never would do crossfire. Do not game as much as I used to 
but my son is up and coming. :-[

>>wound up ordering  a Asus Maximums II and a e8600.


I am running one of these with a Q9650 and 8GB of Cosair a  great 
board, very feature rich, very stable. Maximum PC Kick Ass award last 
September read the review... got 9 our of 10.  But don't use cable 
select on PATA drives with this board... doesn't play nice. The little 
external LCD screen that comes with it is pretty cool.


I am also running three monitors so I use two ASUS 4870s video cards. I 
am not a gamer but tried Crossfire you loose everything but one 
monitor once enabled and didn't notice any real change probably 
because I don't play any game that would push both cards.

Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

[James Maki]

> -Original Message-
> From: jason.to...@cliffordchance.com
 
> With the recent announcement on i7 and i5, I wouldn't even consider an
> i7 anymore.
> 
> Not good news either for those of us who jumped on the i7 bandwagon
> early :(

I'm a bit confused by this comment. My understanding is that the i5 is
inferior to the i7 and aimed at budget computing. Am I missing something? 

Jim Maki
jwm_maill...@comcast.net

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[Winterlight]

>>thanks, never would do crossfire. Do not game as much as I used 
to but my son is up and coming. :-[

>>wound up ordering  a Asus Maximums II and a e8600.


I am running one of these with a Q9650 and 8GB of Cosair a  great 
board, very feature rich, very stable. Maximum PC Kick Ass award last 
September read the review... got 9 our of 10.  But don't use 
cable select on PATA drives with this board... doesn't play nice. The 
little external LCD screen that comes with it is pretty cool.


I am also running three monitors so I use two ASUS 4870s video cards. 
I am not a gamer but tried Crossfire you loose everything but one 
monitor once enabled and didn't notice any real change probably 
because I don't play any game that would push both cards.

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[FORC5]

looks very nice also, but the one I looked at was ddr3 and I did not need to go 
there but with the $50 rebate. ouch. :'(

I'll be good I think
fp

At 12:32 AM 6/1/2009, maccrawj Poked the stick with:

>Bah, same cost? I'd of ordered the Rampage w/ X48.
>
>FORC5 wrote:
>>thanks, never would do crossfire. Do not game as much as I used to but my son 
>>is up and coming. :-[
>>wound up ordering  a Asus Maximums II and a e8600. Love the pin fin cooling 
>>on that MB. way overkill but WTF.
>>my existing mb has leaking caps and little weird bugs that have been bugging 
>>me. Bad caps was the LAST thing I would of thought of on a fairly new mb. ( 
>>less then 2 years)
>>major  jump for me, AMD to intel. AMD will probably now come out with 
>>something better, figure they been watching me :'( could not see no reason to 
>>go i7 or quad core. ( to much heat )
>>thanks
>>fp
>>At 11:50 AM 5/31/2009, Stan Zaske Poked the stick with:
>>>The main difference is that X48 is X16/X16 crossfire capable but P45 is 
>>>X8/X8. Are you a hardcore gamer with a 1920x1200 or above monitor? P45 is 
>>>newer and much less expensive.
>>
>>-- 
>>Tallyho ! ]:8)
>>Taglines below !
>>--
>>Shill: Guy who loses $2000 at a table, & leaves smiling.

Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

[Jason.Tozer]

With the recent announcement on i7 and i5, I wouldn't even consider an
i7 anymore.

Not good news either for those of us who jumped on the i7 bandwagon
early :(

-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
Sent: 01 June 2009 15:07
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

I'm wanting to go i7 as well, but also can't justify the need. I haven't
been doing any H.264 encoding lately, so with a Q6600 at 3.6GHz and 8GB
of
RAM, I just don't have a need.

I'm sure I'll do it anyway eventually. Maybe when W7 goes RTM.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:45 AM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer
> 
> Agreed,
> 
> However, right now I'm seriously considering an i7 920 with 6GB DDR3
> and
> a semi-basic mobo.  All that would cost me around 500(ish) and would
be
> a good upgrade from my C2Q 6600.  But problem is that I just got the
> Q6600 recently (less than a year ago) and I can't justify the expense
> right now.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer
> 
> Yeah, and it looks like shortly after i5 is released, Intel plans to
> discontinue most if not all of the lower-cost i7's. I expect i7 SKUs
to
> start at $500+ post i5. The good news is that i5 still appears to be
> very
> fast. Couple that with i5 P55-based boards that look to be much less
> expensive than their X58 i7 counterparts, and i5/P55 could make a very
> nice
> platform.
> 
> Greg
> 




This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or 
otherwise protected from disclosure.  
If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and 
delete this message and any 
attachment from your system.  If you are not the intended recipient you must 
not copy this message or attachment 
or disclose the contents to any other person.

Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & 
Wales under number OC323571. 
The firm's registered office and principal place of business is at 10 Upper 
Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ. 
For further details, including a list of members and their professional 
qualifications, see our website 
at www.cliffordchance.com. The firm uses the word 'partner' to refer to a 
member of Clifford Chance LLP or 
an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. The firm 
is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Authority's rules can 
be accessed by clicking on the following link: 
http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page

Clifford Chance as a global firm regularly shares client and/or matter-related 
data among its different
offices and support entities in strict compliance with internal control 
policies and statutory requirements.
Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by Clifford Chance, 
as permitted by applicable law and regulations.

For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at 
http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer 
to any Clifford Chance office.

Re: [H] Core i7 new computer

[Greg Sevart]

I'm wanting to go i7 as well, but also can't justify the need. I haven't
been doing any H.264 encoding lately, so with a Q6600 at 3.6GHz and 8GB of
RAM, I just don't have a need.

I'm sure I'll do it anyway eventually. Maybe when W7 goes RTM.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:45 AM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer
> 
> Agreed,
> 
> However, right now I'm seriously considering an i7 920 with 6GB DDR3
> and
> a semi-basic mobo.  All that would cost me around 500(ish) and would be
> a good upgrade from my C2Q 6600.  But problem is that I just got the
> Q6600 recently (less than a year ago) and I can't justify the expense
> right now.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] Core i7 new computer
> 
> Yeah, and it looks like shortly after i5 is released, Intel plans to
> discontinue most if not all of the lower-cost i7's. I expect i7 SKUs to
> start at $500+ post i5. The good news is that i5 still appears to be
> very
> fast. Couple that with i5 P55-based boards that look to be much less
> expensive than their X58 i7 counterparts, and i5/P55 could make a very
> nice
> platform.
> 
> Greg
> 

Re: [H] ATI 4650

[maccrawj]

An outdated 6600GT couldn't even best a X850 much less anything newer. Is that a 
mis-type?


Meanwhile the 4770 looks to bench about the speed of the old 3870X2.

4870X2 par with GTX295
3870X2 par with GTX280


mark.dodge wrote:

I guess another question I have not been able to answer looking around the
net...
Will the 6600GT or the 4650 be better for SIMS 3
My wife's computer's vid is PCI E so I'm wondering about the horses needed
to play Sims 3. If I get a 4770 for mine which should I put in hers

-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of John R Steinbruner
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:58
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] ATI 4650

 From what I have seen and read, the 4770 is the Cat's Meow in low  
cost video cards for now.


That new 40 micron process is really really really good.  :)





On May 27, 2009, at 9:47 PM, mark.dodge wrote:

Well I was bummed to find that a 4650 w/ 1GB will not beat a 6600GT  
with 512

in Doom3.

I thought that I would get quite a bit of performance, 77 FPS versus  
71 FPS

@1024X768 High Quality

I guess I'm now looking for something a bit better for around 100  
bucks or

so.

Will a 4770 be a lot better??



Mark

MD Computers, Houston, TX

Re: [H] x48 v p45 ?

[maccrawj]

Bah, same cost? I'd of ordered the Rampage w/ X48.

FORC5 wrote:

thanks, never would do crossfire. Do not game as much as I used to but my son 
is up and coming. :-[

wound up ordering  a Asus Maximums II and a e8600. Love the pin fin cooling on 
that MB. way overkill but WTF.

my existing mb has leaking caps and little weird bugs that have been bugging 
me. Bad caps was the LAST thing I would of thought of on a fairly new mb. ( 
less then 2 years)

major  jump for me, AMD to intel. AMD will probably now come out with something 
better, figure they been watching me :'( could not see no reason to go i7 or 
quad core. ( to much heat )

thanks
fp

At 11:50 AM 5/31/2009, Stan Zaske Poked the stick with:

The main difference is that X48 is X16/X16 crossfire capable but P45 is X8/X8. 
Are you a hardcore gamer with a 1920x1200 or above monitor? P45 is newer and 
much less expensive.


FORC5 wrote:

what is better, newer ?
fp


 

--
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
A yawn is a silent shout.