best budget cpu for non-gaming?

[diefree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by llmobll You do realize with older processors in this range that Athlons do more clock per clock right. It wasn't that anyone was doing fractions of a hz, it was that of the cpu architecture Athlons could do more. Plus i don't think the thread starter had OCing in mind. The 2.4 is a good chip, no doubt there, but you could get a $50 amd Xp chip and not notice any difference. as far as Non-gaming is concerned. edit: i think you were refering to the wierd naming scheme AMD has for CPU's 2100+ and the like. but they only did this cause ignorant people didn't know Athlons could do more than intels at the same clock.

I'm not going to split hairs with you here.

AMD processors do very well for certain people.

Intel processors do very well for others.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah 2 Samsung 160gb 8mb buffer IDE in RAID config. this woulc be $20 cheaper than a 300gb seagate, 20gb more space, faster specs, and RAID if i can get that to work.

i wouldn't recommend raid for your situation. the performance gains that a raid0 array would give you in terms of multitasking are negligible, and it really isn't worth the risk.. and even if you do backups constantly, it still isn't worth the hassle for general home computing.

i used to run my 120gb seagate sata 7200.7's in raid0, and the only things i gained were MAYBE a few seconds off of loading times in certain games, and a somewhat noticeable increase in speed with video encoding applications. i recently backed everything up, destroyed the raid array, and redid everything with the 2 hdd's on their own separate channels.. it just wasn't worth it for me.

so yeah, considering that your father won't be doing any gaming or video editing or anything like that, raid will be completely pointless. unless you want to do mirroring or something.

 

[diefree]

I agree with asmox... Your dad doesn't need a raid 0 configuration, nor does he need a couple of Western Digital Raptors (10,000 RPMs each)



[size=xx-small]listening to right now - American Badass, Kid Rock[/size]

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox i wouldn't recommend raid for your situation. the performance gains that a raid0 array would give you in terms of multitasking are negligible, and it really isn't worth the risk.. and even if you do backups constantly, it still isn't worth the hassle for general home computing. i used to run my 120gb seagate sata 7200.7's in raid0, and the only things i gained were MAYBE a few seconds off of loading times in certain games, and a somewhat noticeable increase in speed with video encoding applications. i recently backed everything up, destroyed the raid array, and redid everything with the 2 hdd's on their own separate channels.. it just wasn't worth it for me. so yeah, considering that your father won't be doing any gaming or video editing or anything like that, raid will be completely pointless. unless you want to do mirroring or something.

nah. ok, i just wanted to know. i won't consider raid.

would it be a simply master/slave drive setup then with one IDE cable?

is the "risk" of raid that if one hd dies, then you don't have any complete information??

the 2 160gb IDE samsung drives with 8mb buffer would be cheaper and faster than one 300gb seagate 8mb buffer drive. about $25 cheaper, and 20gb more, along with samsung's slightly faster specs. wondering if this would be considerably noisier than one 300gb seagate?? otherwise, this seems certainly to be a more economical option

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah would it be a simply master/slave drive setup then with one IDE cable?

yeah, or you can put each drive as a master on its own channel.. and then slave the optical drives (this is preferred).

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah is the "risk" of raid that if one hd dies, then you don't have any complete information??

basically. a raid0 array works by breaking a file down into blocks (the size of which you can specify when making the array), and each block is written to a different hard drive. then, when you access the file, it's read from both hard drives simultaneously.. essentially speeding up the whole process. hence the risk.. each file actually has pieces that exist on separate drives, so if one of the drives goes down, you lose everything on both drives.

 

[breadnbutter]

uzziah: Indeed a socket 939 solution is probably overkill for your father. I just wanted to point out that for 50$ more this is an excellent setup with sweet future options (socket 939 is not expensive any more).

About the HD's: Have you thought about backup options? With two harddrives you could configure the system partition as raid 0 (or put the swap file on the second drive) and the rest as seperate drives. Once you are done with ripping you copy all the content to the second drive as a backup.
If the thought of reripping the entire collection makes you nervous you should consider this - HD failure is a very real danger (it happened to me). Or you use DVD's for backup, LOTS of em.

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breadnbutter uzziah: Indeed a socket 939 solution is probably overkill for your father. I just wanted to point out that for 50$ more this is an excellent setup with sweet future options (socket 939 is not expensive any more). About the HD's: Have you thought about backup options? With two harddrives you could configure the system partition as raid 0 (or put the swap file on the second drive) and the rest as seperate drives. Once you are done with ripping you copy all the content to the second drive as a backup. If the thought of reripping the entire collection makes you nervous you should consider this - HD failure is a very real danger (it happened to me). Or you use DVD's for backup, LOTS of em.

i need close to 200gb of space just to contain the music collection on flac. i dont' have space or $ to back everything up on a seperate hd.

 

[J@ck]

In my experience the motherboard plays a much more important role than the CPU in a Music Server/HT PC.
I would suggest to get the best motherboard you can find and the lowest heat generated CPU.

 

[maarek99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by diefree AMD processors do very well for certain people. Intel processors do very well for others.

Not really. AMD is on top of their game and Intel is losing ground. The a64 is really giving Intel a run for its money. On some 3d-applications Intel still has the lead but in gaming and general stuff its AMD all the way. And that stuff about "fraction of megahertz" is complete BS.

Besides, A64's has lower power consumption and heating. Compare them to Intels Prescotts.

 

[Talonz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by maarek99 Not really. AMD is on top of their game and Intel is losing ground. The a64 is really giving Intel a run for its money. On some 3d-applications Intel still has the lead but in gaming and general stuff its AMD all the way. And that stuff about "fraction of megahertz" is complete BS. Besides, A64's has lower power consumption and heating. Compare them to Intels Prescotts.

IMO Intel's only redeeming quality right now is Hyperthreading. Their lead in encoding is very slight now, and pricewise, they are not the best. However, for a desktop PC, it is what I like to recommend, simply because of HT. I can vouch for the fact that everything is a little smoother.