Laptop and an expansion box questions??????
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Is this cable fake?
Next: odd problem with new build
From: PeoplesChoice on 10 Jul 2010 19:54 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:45:57 -0400, Paul <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote: >PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: >> Please see my response below: >> >> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:41:08 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE(a)ster.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: >>> >>>> Comments please! (from anyone). >>> In the beginning, you started this thread with questions about a LT >>> laptop to have the same computer on both ends between RI and TX. >>> >>> Some of us were saying it was easier to have a modest DT computer on >>> both ends and something 'light' to travel with - or even just travel >>> with a portable hdd or I have preferred a removable hdd (tray/caddy) in >>> the past. >>> >>> Nowadays you can have an external/portable SATA at SATA speeds instead >>> of USB bottleneck/chokepoint. >>> >>> But now you are describing some pretty elaborate functions for the >>> computer you may build. Does that mean that you want all of this >>> functionality on both ends of RI and TX, or that you only want some of >>> the functions on both ends and other functions at one end? >> >> The short answer is 'yes.' But the two desktops might not be exactly the >> same - depending on the house. But my plan, as of right now, IS to make >> them exactly the same. >> >> I'm sorry to confuse you - and I wasn't really aware that there is a >> GROUP of you that are following this thread. The fact that there is a >> group makes me feel more comfortable in embarking on building a desktop >> (I still don't understand the difference between a desktop and a >> workstation). The more (educated) opinions, the better. >> >> Now, I spend most of the time in RI because my mother-in-law has dementia >> and lives in an assisted living home. At some point, she will go into a >> nursing home. My wife is her "guardian". We are legally residents of >> Texas and own a home there - but spend the majority of time in RI where >> my MIL lives. Every few months, we go there for three weeks. In the >> future, it may extend to four weeks - depends on my MIL's condition. When >> the inevitable happens, we will move to Texas permanently. I don't like >> living in two places - but circumstances dictate it. Whichever home I'm >> in, I want to have the same (more or less) capabilities with the >> computer. Unfortunately, that means having duplicates of many >> components. I'd like to keep this to a minimum, but haven't completely >> thought it through. I need help!! >> >> My wife and I have a laptop now (a simple HP Pavilion) and it suffices >> for Internet and email. By traveling, I meant just going back and forth >> between Texas and RI - not on the road. But I am a computer enthusiast >> and want what I want - in both places. I hope this explanation describes >> my situation. I don't really need a laptop of my own if I'm going to >> build two computers. At the time, I was just thinking I could get away >> with a super laptop and plug in all my (duplicate) peripherals where ever >> I was at the time. You (the group) have convinced me that I should >> consider the removeable hard drive path - and that's where my head is at >> now. It seems to me that having my duplicate Desktop in both places >> would be a lot less expensive than a super laptop (which would never >> serve my needs completely anyway). Also, replacing a super laptop every >> few years is something I don't really want to do either. Besides, I've >> always wanted to be able to build a desktop and it seems like this would >> be that opportunity (with the help of 'the group'. I'm assuming I could >> keep up with technology for a longer period of time with destops that I >> build myself by changing components. I know I need good advice, though, >> as I'm proceeding. >> >> If you need anything more to clarify my position, please ask so we get >> off in the right direction. Thanks for your interest............ >> >> Bob > >The nice thing about the desktop computer, is it has room for expansion. > >You need to put a little planning into the purchase of the motherboard. >Some expansion slot patterns are more useful than others. > >For each "project" you hope to do with the "flexible computer", you >still need to learn what interfaces are convenient or high quality, >before you can carry out the project. > >For example, say you want to drive a TV set, with a video card. >These might be some interface choices - > > HDMI > YPrPb component, VGA > S-video > Composite > >In years past, a person might have connected a computer to a TV via a >composite (round RCA) jack. But that is a low quality connection. In the >list of interfaces in the preceding line, something like HDMI might >be a way to interface to a modern TV set. It is a digital connection, >so there should be no picture degradation via the cabling. Component output >is not popular on modern video cards now (probably something to do with >preventing movie copying), and only old video cards still come with >component cables. Some TV sets have a VGA connector, which has >separate analog signal for R,G,B, so that is another method that >will work. > >For each hardware project you plan to try, there will be interfaces you'll >need. If you really wanted to plan for all these projects in advance, >it'll take you a couple months to do all the planning. > >This is your project list: > >1) handle my music system > > Some higher end motherboards, have S/PDIF optical or coax digital sound > outputs, for connecting stereo digital or 5.1 compressed AC3 to an AV > receiver. In addition, there may be six or eight channel analog audio > on the back connectors. > > You can also purchase a PCI or PCI Express sound card, like a SoundBlaster > brand product of some sort. Sometimes the results are a little better. > My motherboard sound is a bit flat and lifeless (bad drivers). I want good sound but I'm not an audiofile. These options are open for now. I'm NOT into games and probably never will be. > >2) 3D flat screen television system > > A flat screen TV (without the 3D in the title), can be driven by > the video card, if the video card has the right connectors on it. > > I don't know how a "3D flat screen" works. Shutter glasses ? Nvidia > had some scheme to do that, but it's a bit on the obscure side > (you may have trouble finding people who got it working, and > understand the requirements). It might involve double frame rate > output for example. You'll need to find an example of someone > doing such a setup, to understand the hardware requirements for it. I'll have to do some research. What advantage is there to have a PC control a TV? > >3) TIVO type digital recorder > > For broadcast TV, you might want a TV tuner card. For some kind of > cable digital TV, there might be a set top box, and it will have some > interface like perhaps Firewire on it. Again, you start by looking > at how you get TV in your area, to begin to understand what to buy. > Some cable content may attempt to be exclusionary, using the need > for a cable card to decrypt content, as a means to convince you > to buy their "real TIVO". So recording *all* content, might not > be that easy. > > You could browse here, for some ideas. > > http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/prods.html Will do. > > For the OS, you might also want a version of Windows that bundles > Media Center (Windows 7 comes in several SKUs, some of which include > Media Center.) Some hardware devices are designed to work with > Media Center, which takes some of the pain out of setting them up. Can you tell me, basically, what Media Center does? I have iy on my laptop but don't yet understand it. > >4) videoconferencing (Skype) > > You could use a USB webcam. The rest of it would be software. > The specs on USB webcams tend to be a lie, in that you can get > 640x480 @ 30FPS from them, but trying to get 1280x1024 ends up > running at 5FPS, which is just damned annoying. And that is a > hardware limit. The USB webcam specs don't go into details, > to hide issues like this until it is too late. The webcam and Skype I now have is adequate. I understand the limitations. The same holds true for Magic Jack. > >5) Home security > > Depending on whether you use an IP camera (more expensive), or > regular composite camera, you may need a capture card. You can > get cards based on BT878 or the like, which may plug into a PCI slot. > But you'd be better off with PCI Express for that, if you can find it. > > Part of the deception of home security, is that the picture quality > will be easy to get. If you're protecting wide open spaces, it can be > hard to get enough resolution, for the results to be useful. If > a teenager vandalizes your car, and the picture of the face of the > teenager is three pixels high, the policeman isn't going to be > able to catch him. Thanks for the hint. > >6) ham radio > > RS232 for control of some sort ? Some projects still require RS232, > whereas it won't be common as a built-in on the motherboard. I'm > using a couple USB to RS232 external adapters, but I don't really > like them. A cabling mess... Do you have any experience with Ham Radio using computers? > >7) home conveniences > > Like switching lights on remotely ? There will likely be an interface > module that plugs into one of your outlets. And some standard like USB, > for connecting the box to your computer. I will probably consider this because I live in two locations and I think it would benefit me if I could check in on the 'other' location from time to time. > >You can scale down your video card a bit. What do you mean by 'scale down?' This card is thin, taking >a single slot width. It uses 39W of electricity flat out, less while >idling. It has DVI (for an LCD monitor), VGA (potentially for TV or >to an older monitor, and HDMI (for the HDTV set). There are zero additional >power connectors, so all the power comes from the PCI Express slot power >pins. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102874 > >http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/14-102-874-Z01?$S640W$ > >The DVI output on that family, is dual link, meaning you can drive >an Apple 30" high res monitor with it. I'm planning on getting the largest and best monitor I can get when I'm ready. > >http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-radeon-hd-5000/hd-5570/Pages/hd-5570-specifications.aspx > >Who knows, you might even be able to get away with stuffing that >video card, in the white slot on the right. That might cause >less loss of other expansion connectors. > >P6X58D Premium > >http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/13-131-614-Z03?$S640W$ > >http://images.highspeedbackbone.net/SKUimages/enhanced/A455-2869-call07-or.jpg > >Since that video card is shorter in length, it isn't likely to >bump into anything. It would likely come up to the center of the >CMOS coin cell battery, in terms of length. > >With a lower power video card, you can move down a bit in terms >of power supply capacity. I picked this example, because it shows >"modular cabling". Since you're going to be inside the computer >case a lot, No doubt!!! a modular cabling supply allows unused cables to be >unplugged at the power supply end. The main 20+4 and ATX12V 2x2 >or 2x4 splittable connectors, are permanently affixed to the supply >(as you'll always need them). The peripheral cabling, whether PCI Express, >SATA power for hard drive, or Molex power for hard drive, can be >unplugged when you aren't using them. Modular supplies are fine, >unless the connectors aren't properly keyed, and there is a >danger of plugging a cable into the wrong "hole". Some people >have had expensive kit burned, by stupid connector choices >by the manufacturer of the modular ATX supply. I won't use a power supply that is under powered. I think that extra capacity is a smart thing to do. What is your opinion? > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341022 > >More and more supplies are coming with schemes like "Active PFC", >which is power factor correction. One issue with that, is the >interaction with UPS (uninterruptable power supplies). Some of the >cheaper UPS don't have clean sine wave output, and the computer >ATX power supply will cause the UPS to trip out. In some cases, >this requires the purchase of a different UPS, or a different >ATX supply. Always read the power supply reviews, for any warnings >about issues with a UPS. I run my current computer on a UPS, >due to the number of "1 second outages" we get here. Our >"rural quality" power wiring, has some issues with "line slap". >My UPS is hardly ever called on, to run for long periods on >battery. It's usually a short "beeep" and then the AC comes >back. My current power supply is "UPS friendly", and won't fight >with my UPS. But some of the newer Active PFC supplies, would >cause me to have to buy another UPS. Should I assume that your opinion is that everyone should use a backup power supply? BTW, one of the better know manufacturers is about three miles from where I live and I used to work with the current president of the company. Doesn't mean a damn thin - just curiosity. I think the Company is APC. > > Paul
From: PeoplesChoice on 10 Jul 2010 21:54 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:58:44 -0400, Paul <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote: >PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: >> You guys have provided a LOT of information - but where do I START so I >> can plan my rig(s)? I need to understand what a tricked out rig is >> capable of - and still be upgradeable. >> >> Bob > >You start with the processor socket. Here we go - a SOLID clue where to start!!! > >******* > >Intel > >LGA1366 - three memory channels, memory connects direct to processor > - lots of PCI Express lanes, for fewest bandwidth compromises > (not that you'd notice or anything) > >LGA1156 - two memory channels, memory connects direct to processor > - several tiers of performance, with cheapest processors > actually coming closer to LGA775 architecture. > >LGA775 - memory connects to Northbridge. Northbridge choice makes some > difference to system performance (like the VIA chipset on my > previous motherboard, ran the memory pretty slow). > - uses Core2 family processors like the other sockets, but the > other sockets have the advantage of the memory being > connected directly to the processor. > >AMD (For those on a budget, or those who don't want to "waste money". > Entry level to midrange performance levels.) > >AM2 - two memory channels, memory connects direct to processor. DDR2 memory. > - single power plane used by the processor for powering. > >AM2+ - two memory channels, memory connects direct to processor. DDR2 memory. > - split plane power, separate power for processor core and memory interface. > >AM3 - two memory channels, memory connects direct to processor. DDR2 or DDR3 memory. > The motherboard design will fix the memory choice to one of the two types. > I.e. You can buy an AM3 processor, and use it with DDR2 memory motherboard. > These days, with the memory prices, you'd just go DDR3. > - split plane power, separate power for processor core and memory interface I will probaly go with Intel - and the fastest one that will hold the most memory. I like to have a lot of apps open at the same time. Do you agree with my choice? > >******* > >Any processor socket, will have a limited life. The trend now, of connecting >memory directly to the processor, plays a part. The memory industry needs the >memory type to change every two years, to make money. S--T!!! I'm looking for upgradability. > >It may not be apparent, but the AMD approach above, has more socket >compatibility between generations. If a new memory type were to come out, >it might well share most of the characteristics of AM3, with just a new >memory type supported on the processor pins. > >If you buy the right processor to start with, chances are you're not >going to need to upgrade it anyway. Good news! > >The processor can have 1,2,3,4, or 6 cores, depending on socket and >manufacturer. You check the motherboard web site, for the "CPU compatibility" list, >to make sure the processor you want to use, is supported. I also >like to check the list, to see if high power demanding processors >are supported, like 140W processors on AMD motherboards. Intel >ones might go to 130W. > >A top end AMD CPU, might be like this one. Some Intel processors, will be >faster than this one. $295. You'd use an AM3 motherboard and some >DDR3 memory. At this time, can you tell me (within a ballpark) approximately what this baby will cost me? > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849 > >A top end Intel, might be like this one. $965. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115223 > >But many people would settle for an entry level LGA1366 like this. $295. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202 > >The "clock rates" aren't equally powerful. Clock for clock, Intel is >faster. You'd check a benchmark page, for more details. > >(Here, you can see the i7-920 quad core 2.66GHz, is slightly faster >than the AMD six core 2.8GHz.) By the time I get going, this will have changed. > >http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Fritz-11,1406.html > >And here, you can see the i7-920 is a pretty good, compromise choice. >Check all the benchmarks, because each benchmark shows different results. >It's like horse races. A different winner every day. Where do I go to check benchmarks? > >http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/WinRAR-3.9-x64-Beta1,1399.html > >******* > >Anyway, once you've selected a socket (with its impact on system price), >you look for a motherboard. You look to see what connectors are on the back. > >Two PS/2 ports (keyboard and mouse) ? I like those, because they behave themselves. > >It'll always have USB2 ports, but may have a couple USB3 ports now. USB3 is a must. I'd use it for backup. Is USB3 or SATA faster? > >It'll always have at least one Ethernet port, for your Internet connection, >but may possibly have two on it (good for Internet Connection Sharing, if >anyone still cares about that - most people just buy a router). I'd buy another router. > >Could have S/PDIF optical or coax, for digital connection to an AV receiver (stereo). Still don't understand what part the computer plays in this. Could you explain please? > >Could have ESATA for external hard drive. See above............ > >May have a Firewire (IEEE 1394) port, good for camcorder connection, or for >connection to some of the older set top boxes. > >RS232 serial port and printer parallel port, are "old school". If you insist >on them, it'll limit your motherboard choices. Don't need those. > >(On the motherboard surface, there will be SATA II disk connectors (3Gbit/sec), >while a few motherboards have SATA III at 6Gbit/sec. The latter will be >good some day, for SSD flash drives. SATA III wouldn't really help you with >ordinary hard drives.) Don't understand why not. What's an SSD flash drive? > >After you're happy with the rear connector choices, you look at the expansion slots. > >1) PCI Express x16 for video. You need at least one of those. > >2) PCI slots (32 bit, parallel, 133MB/sec max, old school). Mainly > preferred by old farts like me, who have cards we already bought and > paid for. That allows me to use my old TV tuner card. I have to look into TV tuner cards - don't know anything about them. > >3) PCI Express x8,x4,x1 slots. These are smaller PCI Express slots. Quite > a few functions might use x1. An x1 card can fit in an x4, x8, x16 slot > as well. So the larger PCI Express slots, can take cards with smaller > length connectors. > >4) AGP is no longer used. You can still buy video cards with the interface, > for replacement tasks on older systems. > >5) PCI-X is a faster/wider version of (2), typically used on older RAID server > cards. Such a slot is valued by someone who wasted $500 on a RAID card, > and still wants to use it. Otherwise, there might not be that much > incentive to have one of those. Matrox made a few video cards with > that interface, as another obscure example. > >You look at the slots, and imagine how you're going to fill them. Look at >your "project list". Do you need a TV tuner ? What slot type(s) does it come >in. How many slots can you fill on the motherboard, before the cards bump >into one another. High end video cards take a slot for the connector, plus >two slots next to them for the heatsink area. Low end video cards might fit >within a single slot, leaving more expansion slots for other usage. Only >a 3D gamer, needs those big video cards. Just a NOTE: I do plan to use photoshop - and I'm considering a 64bit processor (for speed). > >In this picture, I can look at the slots. > >http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/13-157-184-Z03?$S640W$ > >I can put my single-slot video card, in the left-most slot. That >leaves three PCI slots (133MB/sec) and three PCI Express full sized >slots (a lot faster). I could put a couple dual TV tuners in two >PCI Express slots, and a high end RAID in the third slot and so on. >I could use a PCI slot for my favorite sound card. (The motherboard >has built-in sound - if you don't like it, you plug in an add-on >sound card.) > >If you're connecting HDMI from your video card, to an HDTV, they >actually can carry sound over HDMI, to drive the tinny speakers >on the side of the HDTV. So that is yet another sound option. >It was intended for people with expensive home entertainment >setups, so that one cable (HDMI), could carry both video and >audio to the entertainment center. > >If the expansion slots are bunched up in certain ways, then you don't get >as good usage from them. On my current motherboard, due to cables in >the way and the like, I only get to use three slots practically. My video >card is wasting two slots. You should be able to do better than that. > >That's how you start. Pick a processor socket, based on price range >and performance. Look at LGA1366, LGA1156, AM3. LGA775 is just about >gone now (that's what I've got). Then, check each prospective motherboard, >for rear connectors (USB2, USB3, Firewire, ESATA, Ethernet, S/PDIF etc) >as well as the expansion slot pattern. > >And don't forget to read the customer reviews for the motherboard. If >a board has a bad BIOS design, is picky about memory or the like, >previous customers will take note of that. Some customers will be >complete idiots, so not every comment is valid. If a motherboard >is really bad, you'll see a recurrent theme in the reviews. > >On my previous Asrock brand motherboard, the hardware was fine, but >the BIOS sucked. So it happens. There are various reasons for >a bad BIOS design, but too many to go into now. > >Pick a processor socket, a processor whose price and performance >are what you're interested in, pick a motherboard, and then post >back that info for comments. > > Paul Thanks again..... Bob
From: Paul on 10 Jul 2010 22:58 PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: >> >> You can also purchase a PCI or PCI Express sound card, like a SoundBlaster >> brand product of some sort. Sometimes the results are a little better. >> My motherboard sound is a bit flat and lifeless (bad drivers). > > I want good sound but I'm not an audiofile. These options are open for > now. I'm NOT into games and probably never will be. The plugin card may have a better noise floor for recording, but that might only be apparent if you're working with classical music (with quiet passages). I like my PCI sound card, a cheapie, because it's driver is slightly better than the driver for the onboard sound. I've had onboard sound before, with an "echo" added by the software for ambiance. Even though the sound control panel specifies "no special effect", the echo was still there. It's not necessarily that the hardware is superior - a plugin card might be only marginally better than the onboard sound. But sometimes, it's a driver issue, an issue that never gets fixed. You can swap cards, until you get something that works. > >> 2) 3D flat screen television system >> >> A flat screen TV (without the 3D in the title), can be driven by >> the video card, if the video card has the right connectors on it. >> >> I don't know how a "3D flat screen" works. Shutter glasses ? Nvidia >> had some scheme to do that, but it's a bit on the obscure side >> (you may have trouble finding people who got it working, and >> understand the requirements). It might involve double frame rate >> output for example. You'll need to find an example of someone >> doing such a setup, to understand the hardware requirements for it. > > I'll have to do some research. What advantage is there to have a PC > control a TV? Mixed media, allowing the computer to be the "mixer" or control center, and allow the source to be a TV tuner live, TIVO style pre-recorded, DVD playback from the optical drive on the computer, or perhaps playing Flash movie content from YouTube. You can also get boxes which sit remote from your computer, and they can load files from the computer over some kind of network connection. In some cases, they even accept a USB flash stick with content on it. So it is also possible for a specialized box to sit next to the TV set, complete with a handheld remote to control it. > >> For the OS, you might also want a version of Windows that bundles >> Media Center (Windows 7 comes in several SKUs, some of which include >> Media Center.) Some hardware devices are designed to work with >> Media Center, which takes some of the pain out of setting them up. > > Can you tell me, basically, what Media Center does? I have iy on my > laptop but don't yet understand it. You could start with an article like this, but these articles aren't always the most linearly written. I've never played with Media Center, so I can't give any details there. Basically, one of those kinds of software, put a thing on the computer screen that looks like a TV On Screen Display. You navigate the menu, to get various TV functions. If you are holding a Media Center remote control in your hand, the up and down channel buttons can be forwarded to a TV tuner, and cause the TV tuner to change channels. (Media Center can even send channel change commands to a set top box.) This gives the impression you're using a regular TV remote, with some degree of confirmation on the screen. But additional functions, such as scheduling TV tuner recordings, are also supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_center I've played with MythTV a couple times (a Linux freebie), but found the experience a colossal PITA. The first time, it took me a week, to figure out how to configure the thing (front ends and back ends), such that my single TV tuner would be declared non-busy and I could actually use it. The second time I set it up (after erasing the original hard drive with the environment on it), I couldn't figure out the recipe needed. Suffice to say, the same thing isn't going to happen with Media Center. You might get stumped, if you mix too many TV tuner type devices together. There are a large number of recording devices out there, and mixing all sorts of that stuff together doesn't always work right. They even make tuners that sit on your home network, and connect via TCP/IP. "SiliconDust HDHomeRun Network-based Dual Digital HDTV Tuner Ethernet Interface" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815327005 > >> 6) ham radio >> >> RS232 for control of some sort ? Some projects still require RS232, >> whereas it won't be common as a built-in on the motherboard. I'm >> using a couple USB to RS232 external adapters, but I don't really >> like them. A cabling mess... > > Do you have any experience with Ham Radio using computers? None. > >> 7) home conveniences >> >> Like switching lights on remotely ? There will likely be an interface >> module that plugs into one of your outlets. And some standard like USB, >> for connecting the box to your computer. > > I will probably consider this because I live in two locations and I think > it would benefit me if I could check in on the 'other' location from time > to time. This is fine, as long as you ISP allows it. It depends on what their definition of "you're running a server, sir" happens to be. The home with the camera, fits the loose definition of a "server" device. Client computers, connect to the server, to view the content. Your ISP would definitely complain if you set up a home web server (HTTP on port 80). If you pay for a business account, the rules change, along with the price. For other services, it's less clear to me whether they police that or not. And the fun part is, the ISP Acceptable Usage policy, doesn't always spell out what ports you can and cannot use, or what constitutes a server. So, try it and see... :-) If it works for a minute and then stops, you have your answer. > >> You can scale down your video card a bit. > > What do you mean by 'scale down?' I initially picked out a "3D gamer" card for you. Once you indicated you did not play 3D games, then it was no longer necessary to be using a 262 watt video card. A lower performance card, with the right set of connectors on the faceplate, should be plenty to drive a TV set, a 30" LCD monitor (the hi-res kind), and so on. The card provides video playback acceleration, but that isn't needed if you already have a powerful processor. Video cards are also capable of general purpose computing (terms: GPGPU, CUDA, OpenCL), and there are a couple software packages that attempt to offload part of the task to the video card. But so far, the level of acceleration that results, isn't worth spending more money on. "Demo programs" written by the video card companies, have got 25x speedup on some tasks, but other things you might want to do, are only 5x faster. In some cases, the "video card method", actually ends up running slower than if done by your main processor. It isn't a convincing reason, for everyone to have a 262 watt video card. If, at some point, a piece of software is written, which does something useful, and gets a decent scaleup using a video card, then it might be worth upgrading the video card. But at this point, that would be speculative. Stick with the thin, low power card for now. The main justification for the 262 watt cards, is for gaming on hi-res monitors. For example, the current generation of cards, are playing with the idea of driving anywhere from three to six monitors with the same card. (They need gimmicks like this, to justify faster and faster cards.) > > I'm planning on getting the largest and best monitor I can get when I'm > ready. A 30" computer monitor, with 2560 x 1600 resolution, is about the sweet spot in terms of resolution. You can get bigger TV sets, but the resolution might only be 1920 x 1080. The 30" computer monitors have the most pixels. >> With a lower power video card, you can move down a bit in terms >> of power supply capacity. I picked this example, because it shows >> "modular cabling". Since you're going to be inside the computer >> case a lot, > > No doubt!!! > > a modular cabling supply allows unused cables to be >> unplugged at the power supply end. The main 20+4 and ATX12V 2x2 >> or 2x4 splittable connectors, are permanently affixed to the supply >> (as you'll always need them). The peripheral cabling, whether PCI Express, >> SATA power for hard drive, or Molex power for hard drive, can be >> unplugged when you aren't using them. Modular supplies are fine, >> unless the connectors aren't properly keyed, and there is a >> danger of plugging a cable into the wrong "hole". Some people >> have had expensive kit burned, by stupid connector choices >> by the manufacturer of the modular ATX supply. > > I won't use a power supply that is under powered. I think that extra > capacity is a smart thing to do. What is your opinion? There is no problem there. You can bump up the capacity if you want. You can probably find a modular supply with higher power numbers. At one time, power supplies had a "minimum load" spec, which made bumping up the supply too much, a problem. But I'm not aware of them having minimum load specs now, so go crazy if you like. I probably wouldn't go over 1200 watts, just to avoid problems with the wall outlet :-) >> My current power supply is "UPS friendly", and won't fight >> with my UPS. But some of the newer Active PFC supplies, would >> cause me to have to buy another UPS. > > Should I assume that your opinion is that everyone should use a backup > power supply? BTW, one of the better know manufacturers is about three > miles from where I live and I used to work with the current president of > the company. Doesn't mean a damn thin - just curiosity. I think the > Company is APC. Whether you need a UPS, depends purely on how well your electrical supply works. Years ago, my house was "serially connected" to some transmission lines running through the city. There was no redundancy, and between thunder storms, switching transients (when the power company is reconfiguring stuff), I was getting two outages a day. My work office was on the same power system, and the company bought everyone in the office a UPS, because of the downtime the one second outages was causing. Servers were taking 10 or 15 minutes to come back up, and all the home directories were on them. So the boss decided, just put UPSes on everything. I'd already come to that conclusion, before working there. Our power company sucks, in terms of "doing it right". Paul
From: Paul on 11 Jul 2010 01:03 PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: > > I will probaly go with Intel - and the fastest one that will hold the > most memory. I like to have a lot of apps open at the same time. Do you > agree with my choice? Well, you compare the performance (using a benchmark web page) and the price. And then decide which one is right. >> Any processor socket, will have a limited life. The trend now, of connecting >> memory directly to the processor, plays a part. The memory industry needs the >> memory type to change every two years, to make money. > > S--T!!! I'm looking for upgradability. I can't predict how Intel will do things. It might depend on the economy, as to how fast things change. Obviously, they make more money from you, if you have to change everything. The Intel platform now, has a lot of Intel parts on it, like an Intel chipset. So they're getting money from the processor purchase, and from the motherboard purchase. What happens to memory, is the price drops with time. By the time two years has passed, the memory manufacturers are losing money. By introducing new memory, it means a premium price for the new memory, to help them stay afloat. Due to the vast amount of production capacity they have, it is easy for supply to outstrip demand. Only price-fixing can help them, and if they get caught, they get big fines. >> If you buy the right processor to start with, chances are you're not >> going to need to upgrade it anyway. > > Good news! I think this is the right approach. Decide what you want this year's solution to look like, and live with that decision for a while. >> The processor can have 1,2,3,4, or 6 cores, depending on socket and >> manufacturer. You check the motherboard web site, for the "CPU compatibility" list, >> to make sure the processor you want to use, is supported. I also >> like to check the list, to see if high power demanding processors >> are supported, like 140W processors on AMD motherboards. Intel >> ones might go to 130W. >> >> A top end AMD CPU, might be like this one. Some Intel processors, will be >> faster than this one. $295. You'd use an AM3 motherboard and some >> DDR3 memory. > > At this time, can you tell me (within a ballpark) approximately what this > baby will cost me? You can use the Newegg site to get approximate prices. And look at other retailers, Frys or Tigerdirect, and comparison shop. The only reason I cite Newegg in answers, is it is easier for me to look stuff up there. You can buy the kit, wherever you want. $300 will buy you a nice processor. $150 to $300 for a nice motherboard. If you have money to burn, they always have a processor at the $1000 price point. > Where do I go to check benchmarks? Try the http://www.tomshardware.com/charts , as they have different types. > > USB3 is a must. I'd use it for backup. Is USB3 or SATA faster? http://www.nordichardware.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=112&lang=en&view=article&id=20792 According to the table there, a properly connected USB3 storage device, can manage 336MB/sec. A disk fast enough to handle that, would need a SATA III interface. There are currently hard drives with SATA III interfaces, but the head to media speed is still in the 125MB/sec range. In other words, the platter is still the limiting factor on a regular hard drive. So if you connect any regular hard drive, via USB3, you get 125MB/sec roughly. Now, if you look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb3#USB_3.0 "A SuperSpeed (USB 3.0) rate of 4800 Mbit/s (~572 MB/s)" The 572 MB/sec is the cabling rate, the pnysical layer. The user won't see that rate, due to the protocol overheads, and the way that the protocol works. The same issue caused 60MB/sec USB2 to only deliver 30MB/sec. In this case, the best estimate for USB3 is 336MB/sec out of 572MB/sec on the cable. It may take a while, before devices achieve those rates. It might even take an updated driver or two. Only time will tell. SATA III (and one supposes ESATA III) would be 600MB/sec theoretical, with the practical being perhaps 500MB/sec+. Again, being new technology, there is room for improvement in what you can buy today. >> Could have S/PDIF optical or coax, for digital connection to an AV receiver (stereo). > > Still don't understand what part the computer plays in this. Could you > explain please? A sound card has a couple of output types on it. Analog audio you already understand. You connect 1/8" stereo miniplugs, from one audio device to another. Each plug has two channels on it. Three plugs carry 5.1 for say, your movie theater (Dolby) speaker system. S/PDIF is a digital transmission method. It carries audio in digital format. Either a coax cable or an optical fiber, carry the signal. The method is practically limited to uncompressed stereo. But a second method called AC3 also exists. it is a compressed/encoded format. A DVD movie for example, can have an AC3 encoded sound track. When you watch a movie, the AC3 sound track can be sent to the S/PDIF cable directly. You can't even change the volume level of the signal, as it leaves the computer. You use the volume knob on your stereo (AV receiver) to set the volume. That provides a way to get the signal from the movie, over to the speakers, without changes to the signal. A third way to get audio (for computer sounds, music playback, movie playback), is via an HDMI cable. HDMI still doesn't have a lot of options on it, that work. There is some kind of multichannel, unencoded method used, that should be plenty for driving a theater speaker setup. So HDMI should be able to pass more audio channels, with less loss, than S/PDIF could. HDMI carries two signals. It can carry video to your HDTV, but it can also carry the audio for your movie playback. I think the format of the digital signals is LPCM, which isn't compressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lpcm "Linear pulse code modulation is used by HDMI (defined in 2002), a single-cable digital audio/video connector interface for transmitting uncompressed digital data." The only person who would be interested in S/PDIF, is someone who already owns an AV receiver with S/PDIF jacks on it. I don't have any gear like that here, and I've never, ever, used the S/PDIF outputs on my computers. If you don't have audio gear like that today, then perhaps your fancy TV set with HDMI jack, is how you'll be doing it. But if the computer isn't connected to a TV set, you can always run 1/8" audio plugs to regular amplified computer speakers. 500W boom box :-) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16836121120 (three 1/8" jacks on the back of the console for 5.1 channel analog audio) http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/36-121-120-Z05?$S640W$ >> Could have ESATA for external hard drive. > > See above............ ESATA is plenty fast for any existing hard drive. USB3 will also meet that criterion, once there are more USB3 hard drive enclosures available. If you buy this year, you'll be an "early adopter", meaning they may have whatever limitations the designers couldn't fix in time. >> (On the motherboard surface, there will be SATA II disk connectors (3Gbit/sec), >> while a few motherboards have SATA III at 6Gbit/sec. The latter will be >> good some day, for SSD flash drives. SATA III wouldn't really help you with >> ordinary hard drives.) > > Don't understand why not. What's an SSD flash drive? It's the replacement for the hard drive, once the price comes down :-) This one has a SATA III interface, and can read at 355MB/sec. That is faster than USB3 flat out. And faster ones than this will come out soon. I suspect they might make it to 500MB/sec. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349 It is a "hard drive", with a SATA connector, but instead of a rotating magnetic platter, it uses NAND Flash memory chips. You might find chips on either side of the PCB. There is a controller chip, which controls reading and writing to the chips, and it has multiple channels for parallel operation. That is how it gets its speed. Access time is 0.1 milliseconds, and you can do thousands of operations per second. These are a possible choice for your boot drive :-) Windows 7 supports TRIM, and has some level of support for using these well. They also work with other OSes, if you pamper them. If you have buckets of money, you use one of these for your boot drive, and use a regular 1TB or larger hard drive, for storing data files (like your movie collection). SSDs are too expensive to use for archival storage. Your movies would be pretty expensive to store on only these, and there'd be no point to doing so. http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/CES/2010/Micron-RealSSD-C300/PCB.jpg In fact, it pays to do regular backups, of the SSD type drive, to a magnetic drive. Just in case... > > Just a NOTE: I do plan to use photoshop - and I'm considering a 64bit > processor (for speed). Photoshop appears to be available for 32 bit and 64 bit systems, because the system requirements page for CS5 claims it will run on a "P4". I'd heard something about it being 64 bit only, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I would much prefer the marketing people to be more precise about whether it is a 32 bit or a 64 bit product. It's unclear to me at least, how the 64 bit version would be faster. Instructions to speed up operations, would involve things like SSE, and the feature set of SSE is separate from the rest of the architecture. I don't see 32 bit versus 64 bit integer operations making much difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE4 In the case of the Intel architecture, 64 bit instructions are possibly 10% slower than 32 bit instructions, due to there being no "microfusion" of instructions. On AMD, the 32 bit and 64 bit instructions are handled the same way, so there is no difference. (And in all the examples I describe of this nature, Intel still comes out ahead in the end. So a slight inefficiency here and there, isn't an issue.) Have fun, Paul
From: PeoplesChoice on 11 Jul 2010 12:56
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:03:06 -0400, Paul <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote: >PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: > >> >> I will probaly go with Intel - and the fastest one that will hold the >> most memory. I like to have a lot of apps open at the same time. Do you >> agree with my choice? > >Well, you compare the performance (using a benchmark web page) and the price. >And then decide which one is right. What is a benchmarking web page? I'm REALLY NEW at this. > >>> Any processor socket, will have a limited life. The trend now, of connecting >>> memory directly to the processor, plays a part. The memory industry needs the >>> memory type to change every two years, to make money. >> >> S--T!!! I'm looking for upgradability. > >I can't predict how Intel will do things. It might depend on the economy, as >to how fast things change. Obviously, they make more money from you, if you >have to change everything. The Intel platform now, has a lot of Intel parts >on it, like an Intel chipset. So they're getting money from the processor >purchase, and from the motherboard purchase. > >What happens to memory, is the price drops with time. By the time two >years has passed, the memory manufacturers are losing money. By introducing >new memory, it means a premium price for the new memory, to help them stay >afloat. Due to the vast amount of production capacity they have, it is >easy for supply to outstrip demand. Only price-fixing can help them, >and if they get caught, they get big fines. OK, if these components become obsolete, do you think I can count on being able to upgrade the rig (especially the processor)? > >>> If you buy the right processor to start with, chances are you're not >>> going to need to upgrade it anyway. >> >> Good news! > >I think this is the right approach. Decide what you want this year's solution >to look like, and live with that decision for a while. Sounds logical. > >>> The processor can have 1,2,3,4, or 6 cores, depending on socket and >>> manufacturer. You check the motherboard web site, for the "CPU compatibility" list, >>> to make sure the processor you want to use, is supported. I also >>> like to check the list, to see if high power demanding processors >>> are supported, like 140W processors on AMD motherboards. Intel >>> ones might go to 130W. >>> >>> A top end AMD CPU, might be like this one. Some Intel processors, will be >>> faster than this one. $295. You'd use an AM3 motherboard and some >>> DDR3 memory. >> >> At this time, can you tell me (within a ballpark) approximately what this >> baby will cost me? > >You can use the Newegg site to get approximate prices. And look at >other retailers, Frys or Tigerdirect, and comparison shop. The only >reason I cite Newegg in answers, is it is easier for me to look >stuff up there. You can buy the kit, wherever you want. $300 will buy >you a nice processor. $150 to $300 for a nice motherboard. If you have >money to burn, they always have a processor at the $1000 price point. I don't have money to burn, but I'm retired (because of the head pain) and my wife knows that computers are my 'hobby.' It's about all I can do. So, at least for this first time, I think I can get away with the 'best'. After that, we'll see. ;) > >> Where do I go to check benchmarks? > >Try the http://www.tomshardware.com/charts , as they have different types. > >> >> USB3 is a must. I'd use it for backup. Is USB3 or SATA faster? > >http://www.nordichardware.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=112&lang=en&view=article&id=20792 > >According to the table there, a properly connected USB3 storage device, >can manage 336MB/sec. A disk fast enough to handle that, would need a >SATA III interface. There are currently hard drives with SATA III interfaces, >but the head to media speed is still in the 125MB/sec range. In other words, >the platter is still the limiting factor on a regular hard drive. So if you >connect any regular hard drive, via USB3, you get 125MB/sec roughly. > >Now, if you look here... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb3#USB_3.0 > > "A SuperSpeed (USB 3.0) rate of 4800 Mbit/s (~572 MB/s)" > >The 572 MB/sec is the cabling rate, the pnysical layer. The user won't see >that rate, due to the protocol overheads, and the way that the protocol >works. The same issue caused 60MB/sec USB2 to only deliver 30MB/sec. >In this case, the best estimate for USB3 is 336MB/sec out of 572MB/sec >on the cable. It may take a while, before devices achieve those rates. >It might even take an updated driver or two. Only time will tell. > >SATA III (and one supposes ESATA III) would be 600MB/sec theoretical, with the >practical being perhaps 500MB/sec+. Again, being new technology, there is room >for improvement in what you can buy today. What's the difference between SATA and ESATA? (NOTE: I may not understand everything you're telling me - but I'm learning a lot. Your style of writing for the purposes of teaching is EXCELLENT). > >>> Could have S/PDIF optical or coax, for digital connection to an AV receiver (stereo). >> >> Still don't understand what part the computer plays in this. Could you >> explain please? > >A sound card has a couple of output types on it. Analog audio you already understand. You >connect 1/8" stereo miniplugs, from one audio device to another. Each plug has >two channels on it. Three plugs carry 5.1 for say, your movie theater (Dolby) speaker >system. > >S/PDIF is a digital transmission method. It carries audio in digital format. Either >a coax cable or an optical fiber, carry the signal. The method is practically >limited to uncompressed stereo. But a second method called AC3 also exists. it >is a compressed/encoded format. A DVD movie for example, can have an AC3 encoded >sound track. When you watch a movie, the AC3 sound track can be sent to the S/PDIF >cable directly. You can't even change the volume level of the signal, as it leaves >the computer. You use the volume knob on your stereo (AV receiver) to set the volume. >That provides a way to get the signal from the movie, over to the speakers, without >changes to the signal. > >A third way to get audio (for computer sounds, music playback, movie playback), >is via an HDMI cable. HDMI still doesn't have a lot of options on it, that work. >There is some kind of multichannel, unencoded method used, that should be plenty >for driving a theater speaker setup. So HDMI should be able to pass more audio channels, >with less loss, than S/PDIF could. HDMI carries two signals. It can carry video to >your HDTV, but it can also carry the audio for your movie playback. I think the >format of the digital signals is LPCM, which isn't compressed. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lpcm > > "Linear pulse code modulation is used by HDMI (defined in 2002), a single-cable > digital audio/video connector interface for transmitting uncompressed digital data." > >The only person who would be interested in S/PDIF, is someone who already owns >an AV receiver with S/PDIF jacks on it. I don't have any gear like that here, >and I've never, ever, used the S/PDIF outputs on my computers. If you don't >have audio gear like that today, then perhaps your fancy TV set with HDMI >jack, is how you'll be doing it. But if the computer isn't connected to a TV >set, you can always run 1/8" audio plugs to regular amplified computer speakers. > >500W boom box :-) But why do I need a computer at all? The AV Receiver can do what's necessary, won't it? > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16836121120 > >(three 1/8" jacks on the back of the console for 5.1 channel analog audio) > >http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/36-121-120-Z05?$S640W$ > >>> Could have ESATA for external hard drive. >> >> See above............ > >ESATA is plenty fast for any existing hard drive. USB3 will also meet that >criterion, once there are more USB3 hard drive enclosures available. If you >buy this year, you'll be an "early adopter", meaning they may have whatever >limitations the designers couldn't fix in time. > >>> (On the motherboard surface, there will be SATA II disk connectors (3Gbit/sec), >>> while a few motherboards have SATA III at 6Gbit/sec. The latter will be >>> good some day, for SSD flash drives. SATA III wouldn't really help you with >>> ordinary hard drives.) >> >> Don't understand why not. What's an SSD flash drive? > >It's the replacement for the hard drive, once the price comes down :-) >This one has a SATA III interface, and can read at 355MB/sec. That is >faster than USB3 flat out. And faster ones than this will come out soon. >I suspect they might make it to 500MB/sec. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349 > >It is a "hard drive", with a SATA connector, but instead of a rotating >magnetic platter, it uses NAND Flash memory chips. You might find >chips on either side of the PCB. There is a controller chip, which >controls reading and writing to the chips, and it has multiple channels >for parallel operation. That is how it gets its speed. Access time is >0.1 milliseconds, and you can do thousands of operations per second. >These are a possible choice for your boot drive :-) Windows 7 supports >TRIM, and has some level of support for using these well. They also >work with other OSes, if you pamper them. If you have buckets of money, >you use one of these for your boot drive, and use a regular 1TB or larger >hard drive, for storing data files (like your movie collection). >SSDs are too expensive to use for archival storage. Your movies would be >pretty expensive to store on only these, and there'd be no point to >doing so. > >http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/CES/2010/Micron-RealSSD-C300/PCB.jpg > >In fact, it pays to do regular backups, of the SSD type drive, to a magnetic >drive. Just in case... In case I haven't mentioned it yet, I do regular incremental backups on a LaCie USB2 external drive. Unfortunately, I can't remember which RAID configuration it has - but if one drive goes bad, the other will carry on. As you can tell. I'm not really into RAID yet. Don't understand the positives and negatives of each RAID type yet. > >> >> Just a NOTE: I do plan to use photoshop - and I'm considering a 64bit >> processor (for speed). > >Photoshop appears to be available for 32 bit and 64 bit systems, because >the system requirements page for CS5 claims it will run on a "P4". I'd heard >something about it being 64 bit only, but that doesn't seem to be the case. >I would much prefer the marketing people to be more precise about >whether it is a 32 bit or a 64 bit product. It runs on either 32 bit or 64 bit. > >It's unclear to me at least, how the 64 bit version would be faster. >Instructions to speed up operations, would involve things like SSE, and >the feature set of SSE is separate from the rest of the architecture. >I don't see 32 bit versus 64 bit integer operations making much difference. I'll check this out on the Photoshop groups to see if anyone out there has any measureable experience on this matter. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE4 > >In the case of the Intel architecture, 64 bit instructions are possibly 10% >slower than 32 bit instructions, due to there being no "microfusion" of >instructions. On AMD, the 32 bit and 64 bit instructions are handled >the same way, so there is no difference. (And in all the examples I >describe of this nature, Intel still comes out ahead in the end. So >a slight inefficiency here and there, isn't an issue.) Gotcha!! BTW, do the other guys in this group (and you) communicate offline about threads such as mine? Just curious. No disrespect to the others who are attempting to help me - but again, your responses are very clear, complete and in logical order. Thank you!! > >Have fun, > Paul |