Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Townsend

Members
  • Content count

    549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Townsend

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

492 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by Townsend

  1. After a few months of waiting I finally got it finished today, unfortunately I don't have any pictures to show of it but here are its final specs

    4.2GHz AMD FX4170 quad core CPU with 16mb cache
    16GB DDR3 RAM (I think it was Dual Channel RAM)
    1GB Gigabyte GT610 graphics card
    2TB Seagate Barracuda HDD
    120GB SSD

    And the mother board was an Asus can't remember which one though

    I'll post pictures sometime next week

    1. Show previous comments  22 more
    2. printz

      printz

      Mr. T said:

      Sounds weird but you only have 2GB of memory so u don't need 64bit Wind0ze anyway...

      I'm planning to have 8GiB or however much the motherboard lets me, since it's falling behind my laptop in performance :o

    3. Maes

      Maes

      I've seen my share of unbalanced builds, where they cheapened out on some (core) components but shelled out good cash on secondary frills or on stuff of dubious performance, and pretending putting together a "server", a "hi end" and a "power user" system *rolleyes*

      DISCLAIMER: I didn't "design" these systems. Just put them together as ordered.

      In 2008 I was asked to build 3 identical boxen. Can't remember all of the specs, but they were an oddball build: cheapo generic boxes, relatively expensive PSUS (600W, >120 Eur each with detachable leads), crappy motherboards (low-cost LGA775 with integrated graphics and nasty JMicron onboard SATA, <50 Eur each), but a TOTL (for the time) quad-core CPU.

      Even though the machines weren't meant for gaming work, they bought some nVidia 7200 or 7300 video card for each of them (not really TOTL, but still overkill in this context), while the integrated one would have sufficed.

      The really wasteful part IMO were the twin 150 GB, 10000 RPM Velociraptor HDs to go with each of them: at Eur. 150 each, they represented a significant part of the machines' cost (nearly 50%).

      I always considered a 25% increase spindle speed not really worth a 300% price premium, let alone the heat, space and reliability issues, but the requirement to have them in RAID 1 using nothing more than the shitty SATA controllers of the cheapo mobo using a SOFTWARE RAID really defeated any benefits in speed or reliability.

      The OS to use was the final nail in the coffin: Windows Server 2003. FUN FACT: the drivers for the Galaxy Nvidia cards didn't work well (16 colors, anyone?) and so all machines were reverted to integrated.

      At the end of the day, we had three mixed bags with expensive CPUs, PSUs and overpriced HDs, "housed" in the most shitty cases ever and on the cheapest possible motherboard that would still function with all that crap on it, plus three unusable video cards still in their boxes.

    4. Mr. T

      Mr. T

      printz said:

      I'm planning to have 8GiB or however much the motherboard lets me, since it's falling behind my laptop in performance :o


      My gut says your issue is graphics drivers or HDD trouble. Your config doesn't look exotic, to say the least.

      Win7 x64 "just worked" on system which was hot shit in 2006 with it's DUAL CPU POWER and funky expensive RAM of dubious value...

×