Laptop and an expansion box questions??????
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Is this cable fake?
Next: odd problem with new build
From: Cousin Stanley on 11 Jul 2010 14:04 > .... > What is a benchmarking web page? > .... > What's the difference between SATA and ESATA? > .... Often answers to these types of questions can be found via the Wikipedia site .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA Using the search box at the top of the Wikipedia page should help to find things or lead you to other search terms .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona
From: Paul on 11 Jul 2010 15:56 PeoplesChoice(a)Chicago.net wrote: > > OK, if these components become obsolete, do you think I can count on > being able to upgrade the rig (especially the processor)? > Well, with LGA1366 or LGA1156, you'll be in a better position than I am with LGA775. > > 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. ;) > > What's the difference between SATA and ESATA? To start with, we'll talk about SATA. That is the standard for inside the computer case. Hard drives have moved from the old IDE ribbon cable, to a thinner data cable. It runs serially, but at extremely high speeds. Standard rates 150MB/sec, 300MB/sec, 600MB/sec. The fastest regular hard drive is around 125MB/sec because of the head to platter interface, so none of those cabling rates are a limitation for sustained transfers. The Solid State Drive (SSD) with flash memory chips inside, can go at up to 355MB/sec currently, making better usage of the fastest cable rates. This is a lot faster than the old ribbon cable, which ran at 100MB/sec or 133MB/sec. The SATA internal data connector, is only rated for a small number of plug-in attempts. (I'd have to look up the number, to get it right, but it might be 50 or less insertions.) They also decided it would be nice, if the same cabling and interface standards could be used for external disks. It would allow the same performance, as if the disk was inside the computer. You provide an enclosure with its own power supply, then run an ESATA cable between the enclosure and the back of the computer. If your computer has an ESATA connector in the I/O plate area, then you're all set. When they designed the ESATA connector, they added metal to it, such that it can stand 5000 insertions without failure. It's a more rugged connector. In terms of electrical differences, there is a slight difference in cable signal voltages. The purpose of that, is to allow an ESATA cable to be two meters long (six feet). If your computer were to use a regular SATA electrical interface (some cheap expansion cards do that), then you may still be able to get an external connection to work with one meter of cable. If your ESATA didn't seem to work smooth, you might change to a shorter ESATA cable, with less high frequency attenuation. > > But why do I need a computer at all? The AV Receiver can do what's > necessary, won't it? Many devices can be a "control center" for you. Many stand alone devices can provide entertainment functions (i.e. rent your TIVO). There are always multiple ways to organize your "toys" and your content. A computer allows a "computer centric" way to do it. Some people, for example, may connect the computer to their HDTV, to play back movie content (sending the movie audio to their HDTV or home theater setup), and then later decide to play a 3D game on the same screen. Some people own console gaming platforms, and have other "toys" plugged into the HDTV, like their XBOX. Years ago, when I got started with computers, the joke was, computers were for "organizing recipe cards". Those 3" x 5" cards your wife would keep in a box, with tasty recipes recorded on them. A cynic would say, nothing has changed, and that is still all a computer is good for. You can probably find equivalent functions for a lot of things the computer does, in standalone boxes, like your TIVO example. A computer allows you to do email, web browsing and the like, and that is a communications function. But other platforms are also doing some of those things, witness the iPad, smart phones, netbooks and the like. So a desktop computer isn't essential for that either. I suppose video editing would be an example of a unique function that can't be done well otherwise. Or perhaps desktop publishing. I like the computer, because I can plug things in and add functionality to it. It I did it "TIVO style", it might cost me more money, because each box would have its own enclosure, power supply, cabling and so on. I might not be able to upgrade my "black box" style solution, without completely replacing it. If you can handle plug-in cards, and do the research to figure out what is needed, the computer is like a "LEGO set", and allows you to "build solutions". That isn't a very strong endorsement of the computer. I guess it's all a matter of what you're used to. > > 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. The positives of certain RAID types, such as RAID 1 or RAID 5, is as you noted, redundancy. RAID allows maintenance on your storage subsystem, to be delayed to a more convenient time. RAID does not remove the need for backups. RAID is also complicated, and many times people will show up here saying "what should I do - how do I fix this ?" with their RAID. To be a competent RAID owner, you need to practice fixing the RAID array, when there are no important files on it. You "break" the RAID on purpose, and try to "fix" it. Once you've learned how to use the interfaces (BIOS level or RAID management OS level), and see what functions erase data, then you'll be more prepared when a drive fails. But having backups on a separate drive is still necessary, because *all* the drives can fail at the same time. If your power supply puts out +15V on the +12V rail (overvoltage), all four drives in your RAID could be ruined at the same instant. That is why external USB drives, with their own power supply, are of value. A backup copy, on a disconnected drive stored away from the computer, reduces the risk of losing the data. Then the question would be, "how is RAID getting me further ahead ?". In a work environment, RAID allows the storage server to continue working, even when it is "partially broken". So there is no downtime during the 8AM-4PM shift. For a home user, a RAID is a "more immediate backup", so might result in less data loss, for the single drive failure case. A person might not be religiously making backups every day, and a RAID 1 is making identical copies all the time. So there may be less data loss or disruption, than if you were putting backups on an external disk. But that is also balanced by the complexity. Like, which drive do I change out on my RAID 5 ? What do I do to rebuild the array and not lose any data ? RAID requires more of an investment in time, to train yourself and become familiar with how to use the controls. >> 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. I'd like to see some runs of PSBench, to see how Photoshop has changed for better or worse. It's pretty hard to find good benchmark results like that, all on one website (Tomshardware doesn't use PSBench). On the one hand, when Adobe writes that software, they place a priority on "filter quality", so they don't necessarily take shortcuts to make things faster. With a decent processor, the only time you're going to see a delay in Photoshop, is if you're doing batch processing of yards-wide posters. (You used to be able to script Photoshop, and have it do the same ops to a set of photos. I used that, when scanning documents and post-processing them.) > > 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!! You'll notice my email address is bogus. I think one person on USENET has my real email address, and I've changed ISPs since then (to save a few bucks). I can't say how much email others are doing. (I do so little email, that my email setup is on another computer, and I only boot that machine once every couple months.) I think I got tired of email, after thousands and thousands of useless messages at work. (Like the president of my company, telling all the employees what a hero he was :-) ) Email was only a source of stress for me. A never ending tap, you couldn't shut off. If you join an enthusiast forum on some web site, they have a "PM" function for private conversations. So there are better ways than USENET, in that regard. Paul
From: peter on 11 Jul 2010 17:23 Look ...no offense intended but this tread could go one for months and by that time everything discussed would be obsolete. My suggestion would be to go to a Dell/Compaq website look for one of their "upscale" models and buy 2 or have Paul visit NewEgg put one together for you and send you the link peter If you find a posting or message from me offensive,inappropriate or disruptive,please ignore it. If you dont know how to ignore a posting complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate :-) wrote in message news:60sj3693o1rrss7kr6c98po2jvv4063rip(a)4ax.com... 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
From: PeoplesChoice on 11 Jul 2010 21:44 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:23:21 -0600, "peter" <peter(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >Look ...no offense intended but this tread could go one for months >and by that time everything discussed would be obsolete. >My suggestion would be to go to a Dell/Compaq website >look for one of their "upscale" models and buy 2 >or have Paul visit NewEgg put one together for you and send you the link >peter > >Don't understand. You don't have to read it or even bother with it. What upsets you? > >If you find a posting or message from me offensive,inappropriate or >disruptive,please ignore it. If you dont know how to ignore a posting >complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate :-) >wrote in message news:60sj3693o1rrss7kr6c98po2jvv4063rip(a)4ax.com... > >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
From: peter on 11 Jul 2010 23:12
I am not upset This industry moves so fast that by the time Paul finishes explaining it all half of what he said would be obsolete.You need to decide what your going to actually use the system for 80% of the time and build accordingly. A nice 1156 mobo with Sata3 and USB 3 ASUS P7P55D-E Pro LGA1156 P55 DDR3 2PCI-E16 3PCI-E1 2PCI SLI CrossFireX USB3.0 SATA 6GB Motherboard a nice CPU Intel Core i7 860 Quad Core Processor Lynnfield LGA1156 2.8GHZ Hyperthreading 8MB Cache Retail Box Some decent RAM G.SKILL F3-12800CL7D-4GBECO Eco PC3-12800 4GB 2X2GB DDR3-1600 CL7-8-7-24 1.35V Memory Kit power Seasonic M12 700W ATX12V V2.2 20/24PIN Active PFC Power Supply Retail Box Case Antec Dark Fleet DF-85 Full Tower Gaming Case ATX 12 Drive Bay No PS Top USB3.0 USB Audio Video MSI GeForce GTX 470 Fermi 607MHZ 1280MB 3348MHZ GDDR5 PCI-E 2XDVI HDMI Video Card Hard Drive Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA3 6GB/S 7200RPM 64MB Cache 3.5IN Dual Proc Hard Drive OEM LCD Monitor Acer S243HL Bmii 24IN Ultraslim Widescreen LCD Monitor 1920X1080 LED Backlit 8000000:1 2MS VGA 2HDMI now add a DVD or Blu-ray of your choice as well as set of decent 5.1 speakers if you wish add an Audio Card and then the specific toys that you only play with the other 20% of the time. peter If you find a posting or message from me offensive,inappropriate or disruptive,please ignore it. If you dont know how to ignore a posting complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate :-) wrote in message news:iqsk36dbl5anleubots5f9dlhpjt4lo3hi(a)4ax.com... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:23:21 -0600, "peter" <peter(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >Look ...no offense intended but this tread could go one for months >and by that time everything discussed would be obsolete. >My suggestion would be to go to a Dell/Compaq website >look for one of their "upscale" models and buy 2 >or have Paul visit NewEgg put one together for you and send you the link >peter > >Don't understand. You don't have to read it or even bother with it. What >upsets you? > >If you find a posting or message from me offensive,inappropriate or >disruptive,please ignore it. If you dont know how to ignore a posting >complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate :-) >wrote in message news:60sj3693o1rrss7kr6c98po2jvv4063rip(a)4ax.com... > >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 |