Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-05-28 02:01:28
JaMrulezass
Member
+47|6936|Hong Kong
Save some money and dont get the X-Fi Extreme Gamer Fataliaty Pro. It is nothing but the Extreme Gamer with 64mb of X-RAM which is unutilizable by more than 90% of the games on the market. Just get the normal Extreme Gamer. Another thing is to not get the overclocked version of the GTX. Get the non-Oc'd version, save your self some money and then use either coolbits or the ATI driver to slide the bars. I really ahve no idea why people pay so much more money for something thye can do within 2 seconds, free.

Last edited by JaMrulezass (2007-05-28 02:02:57)

2007-05-28 04:41:18
Echo
WOoKie
+383|7191|The Netherlands

JaMrulezass wrote:

Save some money and dont get the X-Fi Extreme Gamer Fataliaty Pro. It is nothing but the Extreme Gamer with 64mb of X-RAM which is unutilizable by more than 90% of the games on the market. Just get the normal Extreme Gamer. Another thing is to not get the overclocked version of the GTX. Get the non-Oc'd version, save your self some money and then use either coolbits or the ATI driver to slide the bars. I really ahve no idea why people pay so much more money for something thye can do within 2 seconds, free.
Thats some good advise, thanks mate.

Should i get a normal 19" or go for a 19" widescreen? I want to spent about 250/300 euro on a tft monitor.

Btw can anyone tell me what the difference in loading time for a map will be with 2 wd raptors in raid 0 compared to a single raptor?
2007-05-28 04:46:47
r'Eeee
That's how I roll, BITCH!
+311|6919

Echo wrote:

JaMrulezass wrote:

Save some money and dont get the X-Fi Extreme Gamer Fataliaty Pro. It is nothing but the Extreme Gamer with 64mb of X-RAM which is unutilizable by more than 90% of the games on the market. Just get the normal Extreme Gamer. Another thing is to not get the overclocked version of the GTX. Get the non-Oc'd version, save your self some money and then use either coolbits or the ATI driver to slide the bars. I really ahve no idea why people pay so much more money for something thye can do within 2 seconds, free.
Thats some good advise, thanks mate.

Should i get a normal 19" or go for a 19" widescreen? I want to spent about 250/300 euro on a tft monitor.

Btw can anyone tell me what the difference in loading time for a map will be with 2 wd raptors in raid 0 compared to a single raptor?
Go with a widescreen....

I believe the loading will be faster, but when you verify the client data, it will be the same.... I think!
2007-05-28 05:05:45
Echo
WOoKie
+383|7191|The Netherlands

rabee2789b wrote:

Go with a widescreen....

I believe the loading will be faster, but when you verify the client data, it will be the same.... I think!
Yea 2 x 10.000rpm with 16 mb in raid 0 should be faster then 1 x 10.000 rpm 16mb but i wonder how efficient a set up like that will be compared to having a single raptor. It doesnt make load a map 2 x faster right?
2007-05-28 05:17:46
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6885|Finland

I think you really don't notice any difference between two raptors in raid0 and a single raptor. so you can save a lot money by getting a bigger raptor. if you want to make sure it's as fast as it's possible, get a 150gb raptor and use the money you save to 4gb ram. ram is faster than raptor so that's the way to go.

edit: except in very few benchmarks....

Last edited by [69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN (2007-05-28 05:18:59)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
2007-05-28 07:39:44
JaMrulezass
Member
+47|6936|Hong Kong

[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

I think you really don't notice any difference between two raptors in raid0 and a single raptor. so you can save a lot money by getting a bigger raptor. if you want to make sure it's as fast as it's possible, get a 150gb raptor and use the money you save to 4gb ram. ram is faster than raptor so that's the way to go.

edit: except in very few benchmarks....
Very true.  From what I've researched, sometimes 10k RPM Drives can actually be slower 7200RPM Drives. COnfusing, but thats what I've read. I've also read some really good reviews on the Seagate 7200.10 Barracuda 750GB HDD, with performance increase over its little bro', the 7200.9 500GB. And GC_PanzerFin is correct, 4GB is going to be a nesscecity within half year or so and you better stack up with DDR2 cause when DDR3 become mainstream, DDR2 will be really expensive :p
2007-05-28 10:46:31
Echo
WOoKie
+383|7191|The Netherlands
So i m probably better of getting a single 150 gb raptor and maybe go from 2 to 4 gb ram. Interesting...
2007-05-28 11:19:31
r'Eeee
That's how I roll, BITCH!
+311|6919

Echo wrote:

So i m probably better of getting a single 150 gb raptor and maybe go from 2 to 4 gb ram. Interesting...
Yea, I would...

EDIT: what RAM are you getting?

Last edited by rabee2789b (2007-05-28 11:20:28)

2007-05-29 13:04:34
Echo
WOoKie
+383|7191|The Netherlands
I have no idea really, any advise is welcome. What kind of ram should i get guys?
2007-05-29 13:19:09
De Grote Boze Wolf
Member
+2|6793|Belgium
I would advise against the widescreen, especially for BF games. What I get on my widescreen is a stretched view. It is not that bad to look at but it serves no use.
What you do need imho is a resolution of 1600 x 1200, found in most 20" screens.
For other games or for actual work widescreen can be nice, but dual and triple screens are even better.
2007-05-29 15:00:39
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

Echo wrote:

rabee2789b wrote:

Go with a widescreen....

I believe the loading will be faster, but when you verify the client data, it will be the same.... I think!
Yea 2 x 10.000rpm with 16 mb in raid 0 should be faster then 1 x 10.000 rpm 16mb but i wonder how efficient a set up like that will be compared to having a single raptor. It doesnt make load a map 2 x faster right?
It makes it much, much faster. Maps load much faster on 7200 drives in RAID than on a single Raptor.

RAID0 massively increases data transfer rates, but does nothing to help access times. It is on access times that the Raptors are very good, but smaller Raptors, due to having lower density platters, have worse access times than big ones.

For map loading, windows booting etc. RAID0 will give a much bigger boost than having a Raptor. Personally I think Raptors are a complete waste of money, unless you really do need extremely good access speeds (which is always nice, makes the computer far more responsive). For real world usage it is much better to have higher capacity drives, you'd be much better off running 3x320GB drives with a 640GB RAID0 system disk for performance and a 320GB disk (or larger) for storage. That works out much cheaper than 2x74GB Raptors and would be a much more practical solution. Difference in block data transfer rates between the two will be minimal. Low capacity drives get filled up quickly, filled up drives run slow.

A single 150GB Raptor would be (almost) the worst decision you could make if you want maps to load quickly in BF2. Drives in RAID0 are by far best for that sort of thing.
2007-05-29 15:25:18
topal63
. . .
+533|7189
(IMO) The 150GB single raptor is a good choice; it's one of the fastest low cost single HD solutions; therefore the fastest map load times; for a single non-Raid-0 configuration (at cost vs performance vs risk). And then if you want get a second high capacity drive for storage: mp3's, movies, pic.s, etc...

Don't use the Raid 0 configuration unless you understand the associated risk.
Raid 0 - (dual raptors in raid 0 config) is the fastest (but a disk error in one - can mean all data is lost).

Also Raid 0 - will not make the game run faster; it only decreases mesh, texture, etc - load times.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-29 15:25:58)

2007-05-29 16:04:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

topal63 wrote:

Don't use the Raid 0 configuration unless you understand the associated risk.
Have you ever had a RAID0 config fail on you?
In any case, for the same price as a 150GB Raptor you could run 3x320GBs in RAID0+1 and have the best of both worlds. A 640GB drive that loads MUCH faster than a single 150GB Raptor and redundancy to eliminate any element of risk.

For fast map load times RAID0 ftw. Raptors do not represent value for money, much like many performance components. If you want it really fast, get a 15K SCSI drive, or even better get a nice little RAMdisk, that'd be quick.

topal63 wrote:

Also Raid 0 - will not make the game run faster; it only decreases mesh, texture, etc - load times.
In game you should not be loading from the hard drive, provided you have enough RAM (2GB is plenty for BF2), this means you won't need to use virtual memory (on the hard drive, which is lowest of the low on the memory hierarchy and so is very slow, even Raptors 4.5ms access time seems a bit crap compared to access times measured in ns). Therefore your hard drive should not affect the speed of the game, since all the neccesary data should be loaded into memory. Loading the data into the memory is much faster on a RAID0 config, therefore that is best for playing BF2.

For raw data throughput, RAID0 is absolutely unbeatable, despite the Raptors good alround performance, on read transfers (which is what you are doing when loading games, reading from the HDD and writing to memory) it doesn't come close to a RAID0 array.

https://images.tomshardware.com/2006/02/06/wd1500ad_raptor_xtends_performance_lead/image005.png

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-29 16:25:34)

2007-05-29 16:35:48
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6674

Bertster7 wrote:

For raw data throughput, RAID0 is absolutely unbeatable, despite the Raptors good alround performance, on read transfers (which is what you are doing when loading games, reading from the HDD and writing to memory) it doesn't come close to a RAID0 array.

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/02/ … age005.png
I have to disagree.

Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-29 16:36:07)

2007-05-29 16:57:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

For raw data throughput, RAID0 is absolutely unbeatable, despite the Raptors good alround performance, on read transfers (which is what you are doing when loading games, reading from the HDD and writing to memory) it doesn't come close to a RAID0 array.

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/02/ … age005.png
I have to disagree.

Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101
Well then you'd be wrong. Performance on most tasks, a Raptor will outperform a RAID0 array, pure read data transfers, RAID0 is unbeatable. The OP was wanting a drive that would load BF2 quicker, RAID0 is the best way to do that - no question about it. For general usage in windows, the Raptor will be faster (as I've said already). Also, since 150GB is virtually no space whatsoever, the Raptor will get full quickly. As the amount of free space decreases so does the performance. Would you really rather have 150GB over about 1TB, that's the sort of equivalent space you'll get for the money - and since it is always advisable to have multiple drives (storage and performance), the Raptor is poor value.
2007-05-29 21:25:56
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6885|Finland

bertster7 is right. raptor wins performance, and load times definately better than with normal drives. RAID0 wins at datatransfer but I don't consider it as a single drive. I'm planning to buy 150GB Raptor for OS and other software and 500GB normal Seagate as a back-up disk just in case if one of my drives decides to fail.

Last edited by [69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN (2007-05-29 21:26:21)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
2007-05-30 06:34:47
_j5689_
Dreads & Bergers
+364|7188|Riva, MD

FredFLQ wrote:

I have a 7200 HD, no RAID, and when a map loads, I have to wait for the countdown to finish until I can spawn. Last night I took off with a J10 in Dragon valley and had the time to fly to the Farmhouse until someone else spawned.

Just get 4 gigs of ram, that's the key to fast loadings.
I heard somewhere that 4 gigs makes Windows really unstable.  Did you enable PAE?

Last edited by _j5689_ (2007-05-30 06:35:02)

2007-05-30 06:43:40
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

_j5689_ wrote:

FredFLQ wrote:

I have a 7200 HD, no RAID, and when a map loads, I have to wait for the countdown to finish until I can spawn. Last night I took off with a J10 in Dragon valley and had the time to fly to the Farmhouse until someone else spawned.

Just get 4 gigs of ram, that's the key to fast loadings.
I heard somewhere that 4 gigs makes Windows really unstable.  Did you enable PAE?
4GBs of RAM should not improve load times in the slightest. I would've thought it could even slow down load times, due to more memory needing to be addressed, but that would probably make so little difference as to be unnoticeable. If you have enough memory to fit all the level data into, which you can do fine with 2GB, then any memory on top of that will not increase performance. Having lots of RAM only helps with big tasks that would otherwise require the use of virtual memory.
2007-05-30 07:07:12
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7312|Cologne, Germany

I agree with Bertster. With a RAID 0 setup, the actual data volume transfered is probably higher than with a single raptor. Combine that with 4 Gigs of RAM, and you'll be fine. And you'll get a lot more disk space for your money.

I have never had a HD fail me and I have built three systems so far. Sure, HD's can fail, but it is very rare indeed. For true redundancy purposes, you'd need a different RAID setup, but since you don't require data redundancy, RAID 0 will be sufficient.

4 Gigs of RAM will be big though, because it will make running all those apps next to BF2 / BF2142 so much easier. Remember, CC, TS, Xfire, all of those will be running from the RAM. One can never have enough RAM.

All in all, I think you'll benefit more from the additional RAM, than from various HD configurations, be it a single Raptor or a RAID 0.
2007-05-30 07:43:02
RiceKrispie
Member
+27|6859|Ottawa, ON
I'm running 2x Seagate 7200.10 320GB drives in Raid 0 with 2 gigs RAM. First to load in every time. Trust me, you don't need to Raid 0 Raptors, just go with the larger model if you're set on getting a Raptor that way you don't have to worry about the raid array failing. I've been running my systems for 4 years with Raid 0, never once had a problem but I have heard enough people complain about failures that if you're the type of person who is not knowlegable enough about computers to fix something when it breaks, you may want to just take the safer route and go with the 150GB Raptor.

Last edited by RiceKrispie (2007-05-30 07:48:01)

2007-05-30 11:48:47
Echo
WOoKie
+383|7191|The Netherlands

Bertster7 wrote:

Well then you'd be wrong. Performance on most tasks, a Raptor will outperform a RAID0 array, pure read data transfers, RAID0 is unbeatable. The OP was wanting a drive that would load BF2 quicker, RAID0 is the best way to do that - no question about it. For general usage in windows, the Raptor will be faster (as I've said already). Also, since 150GB is virtually no space whatsoever, the Raptor will get full quickly. As the amount of free space decreases so does the performance. Would you really rather have 150GB over about 1TB, that's the sort of equivalent space you'll get for the money - and since it is always advisable to have multiple drives (storage and performance), the Raptor is poor value.
Meh i dont need any storage space, this rig's gonna be gaming only. I want performance and i dont mind paying for it so i think i ll go for 2 74gb raptors in raid 0. I can always put in a 3rd slower hd later if i ever need storage space.

I understand 2 gb ram is enough for bf2. I want to build a rig thats bf3 proof so i guess i should get 4 gb ram.

My wishlist so far.

-geforce 8800gtx
-Dual core 6600
-4 gb ram
-2x wd raptors 74 gb.

What kind of motherboard should i get btw?

So far all the help has been great. Karma for everyone.
2007-05-30 12:07:12
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6885|Finland

Echo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Well then you'd be wrong. Performance on most tasks, a Raptor will outperform a RAID0 array, pure read data transfers, RAID0 is unbeatable. The OP was wanting a drive that would load BF2 quicker, RAID0 is the best way to do that - no question about it. For general usage in windows, the Raptor will be faster (as I've said already). Also, since 150GB is virtually no space whatsoever, the Raptor will get full quickly. As the amount of free space decreases so does the performance. Would you really rather have 150GB over about 1TB, that's the sort of equivalent space you'll get for the money - and since it is always advisable to have multiple drives (storage and performance), the Raptor is poor value.
Meh i dont need any storage space, this rig's gonna be gaming only. I want performance and i dont mind paying for it so i think i ll go for 2 74gb raptors in raid 0. I can always put in a 3rd slower hd later if i ever need storage space.

I understand 2 gb ram is enough for bf2. I want to build a rig thats bf3 proof so i guess i should get 4 gb ram.

My wishlist so far.

-geforce 8800gtx
-Dual core 6600
-4 gb ram
-2x wd raptors 74 gb.

What kind of motherboard should i get btw?

So far all the help has been great. Karma for everyone.
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R   http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4966  that should do it.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
2007-05-31 00:01:24
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7312|Cologne, Germany

Well, I really don't think that's necessary, putting two raptors in a RAID 0 array, but it's your choice, and it'll be quite fast, I guess.... What kind of RAID controller will you be using ?

are you going to build the system yourself ? If yes, remember to check CPU/motherboard/RAM compatibilities.

But I guess you are going to use one of these services that build your system with the components you chose ?
2007-05-31 01:59:50
xRBLx
I've got lovely bunch of coconuts!!
+27|6826|England - Kent
www.pcspecialist.co.uk is a good site that i came across the other day and nicely priced!
I belive they do have site outside of the UK. I im going to build one and order it from the next month
2007-05-31 10:04:34
Echo
WOoKie
+383|7191|The Netherlands

B.Schuss wrote:

Well, I really don't think that's necessary, putting two raptors in a RAID 0 array, but it's your choice, and it'll be quite fast, I guess.... What kind of RAID controller will you be using ?

are you going to build the system yourself ? If yes, remember to check CPU/motherboard/RAM compatibilities.

But I guess you are going to use one of these services that build your system with the components you chose ?
I want a fast rig and its only 300 euro's for 2 raptors. I m not gonna build it myself btw.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard