I need to get a new home system, but unfortunately, I haven't kept much up
to date on the hardware, so I'm doing a crash study now. We get Dell
workstations at work, and while they are quiet, stable and fast enough, a
similarly spec'd system would be way out of budget at home.

It will be used for CAD/CAM (the gamer card is not a problem for me),
rendering (some POV, but mostly Brazil, V-Ray), development, and all the
usual home stuff (video, image editing... etc). About the only game I have
and play once in a blue moon is MSFS. Speed, relatively low noise and data
security (hence the redundant drives, some of which will go to external
enclosures) are priorities. It will run a dual monitor setup, and I like
multitasking. What do the hardware gurus think of the following system?

Cooler Master HAF X Tower
Corsair HX 1000W PS
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R MB
Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz CPU
Scythe Mugen 2 Rev. B CPU Cooler
Patriot Ext. Per. Viper II Sector 7 DDR3 12GB (3 x 4GB) PC3-12800
Asus ENGTX470 GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
Mushkin Enhanced Io Series SSD 128GB
WD 2TB Caviar Green 5400rpm SATA II w/ 64MB Cache (x4)
Samsung SH-S223B 22x SpeedPlus DVD-Writer
Windows 7 Professional x64

Post a reply to this message

Le 24/07/2010 21:40, somebody nous fit lire :
> I need to get a new home system, but unfortunately, I haven't kept much up
> to date on the hardware, so I'm doing a crash study now. We get Dell
> workstations at work, and while they are quiet, stable and fast enough, a
> similarly spec'd system would be way out of budget at home.
> 
> It will be used for CAD/CAM (the gamer card is not a problem for me),
> rendering (some POV, but mostly Brazil, V-Ray), development, and all the
> usual home stuff (video, image editing... etc). About the only game I have
> and play once in a blue moon is MSFS. Speed, relatively low noise and data
> security (hence the redundant drives, some of which will go to external
> enclosures) are priorities. It will run a dual monitor setup, and I like
> multitasking. What do the hardware gurus think of the following system?
> 
> Cooler Master HAF X Tower
> Corsair HX 1000W PS

A bit (by far) over need.

> Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R MB
> Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz CPU
> Scythe Mugen 2 Rev. B CPU Cooler
> Patriot Ext. Per. Viper II Sector 7 DDR3 12GB (3 x 4GB) PC3-12800
> Asus ENGTX470 GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
> Mushkin Enhanced Io Series SSD 128GB
> WD 2TB Caviar Green 5400rpm SATA II w/ 64MB Cache (x4)
> Samsung SH-S223B 22x SpeedPlus DVD-Writer
> Windows 7 Professional x64

Me, actually running in a Twelve Hundred (Antec), Asrock X58 extreme3,
Intel Core i7 980X (3.3GHz) (box, standard cooler), G.Skill memory
(6x4GB PC3-10666), GTX470 by Gainward (who cares ? same design board
everywhere), 2 x 2 TB HDD + 500+750 GB HDD, DVD writer (same as yours),
Ubuntu Linux amd_64.

A 650 W power supply might have been more than enough (but running a
Seasonic X-750 anyway), GTX470 recommands a 550W PSU, power-peak never
occurs at the same time as hard drive spin up)

Be aware: on dual monitor, GTX470 reach 72°C, whereas in single monitor,
it is far cooler (less than 50°C)

Regarding WD 2TB drives, have you checked the sector size/compatibility
(new 2TB from WD use 4KB sectors **, which might be problematic for
alignment/performance with traditional OS: first sector must NOT be at
63 anymore, utility must be used to align the partitions to right
boundary, utility not available for all OS, must be done right)

**: there is a difference between EARS & EADS, check the web.

Post a reply to this message

"Le_Forgeron" <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote in message
news:4c4b4ed6$1@news.povray.org...
> Le 24/07/2010 21:40, somebody nous fit lire :

> > I need to get a new home system, but unfortunately, I haven't kept much
up
> > to date on the hardware, so I'm doing a crash study now. We get Dell
> > workstations at work, and while they are quiet, stable and fast enough,
a
> > similarly spec'd system would be way out of budget at home.
> >
> > It will be used for CAD/CAM (the gamer card is not a problem for me),
> > rendering (some POV, but mostly Brazil, V-Ray), development, and all the
> > usual home stuff (video, image editing... etc). About the only game I
have
> > and play once in a blue moon is MSFS. Speed, relatively low noise and
data
> > security (hence the redundant drives, some of which will go to external
> > enclosures) are priorities. It will run a dual monitor setup, and I like
> > multitasking. What do the hardware gurus think of the following system?
> >
> > Cooler Master HAF X Tower

First, thank you for the very informative response.

I'm now having second thoughts with this. I was going for a relatively quiet
case (from reviews), but while the case may indeed be quiet, wouldn't the
liberal use of gratings allow more component noise to be audible outside? I
realize it's a catch 22...

> > Corsair HX 1000W PS

> A bit (by far) over need.

> > Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R MB
> > Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz CPU
> > Scythe Mugen 2 Rev. B CPU Cooler
> > Patriot Ext. Per. Viper II Sector 7 DDR3 12GB (3 x 4GB) PC3-12800
> > Asus ENGTX470 GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
> > Mushkin Enhanced Io Series SSD 128GB
> > WD 2TB Caviar Green 5400rpm SATA II w/ 64MB Cache (x4)
> > Samsung SH-S223B 22x SpeedPlus DVD-Writer
> > Windows 7 Professional x64

> Me, actually running in a Twelve Hundred (Antec), Asrock X58 extreme3,
> Intel Core i7 980X (3.3GHz) (box, standard cooler), G.Skill memory
> (6x4GB PC3-10666), GTX470 by Gainward (who cares ? same design board
> everywhere), 2 x 2 TB HDD + 500+750 GB HDD, DVD writer (same as yours),
> Ubuntu Linux amd_64.
>
> A 650 W power supply might have been more than enough (but running a
> Seasonic X-750 anyway), GTX470 recommands a 550W PSU, power-peak never
> occurs at the same time as hard drive spin up)

Yes. I was running with the assumption that bigger is better (and runs
quieter, cooler and longer) at 50%-60% capacity than a smaller one utilizing
70-80%. However, I'm not averse to saving a few bucks if this assumption is
not warranted.




Interesting (and disappointing). Is this true even if the second one is not
running anything needing 3D acceleration? If so, would you recommend messing
with an additional card (different, cheaper and quieter)? I've quickly
checked and Windows 7 seems to accomodate this...

> Regarding WD 2TB drives, have you checked the sector size/compatibility
> (new 2TB from WD use 4KB sectors **, which might be problematic for
> alignment/performance with traditional OS: first sector must NOT be at
> 63 anymore, utility must be used to align the partitions to right
> boundary, utility not available for all OS, must be done right)

I had read about this, but did not think much of it because the disks won't
be shared with any other (non Windows 7) system.

> **: there is a difference between EARS & EADS, check the web.

Many thanks again.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> WD 2TB Caviar Green 5400rpm SATA II w/ 64MB Cache (x4)

Dunno if things have changed, but if 5400 rpm is as slow as it used to
be, I'd get 7200rpm. I'm guessing they don't exist in their Green line.

Post a reply to this message

Le 25/07/2010 04:50, somebody nous fit lire :
> "Le_Forgeron" <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote in message

>> A 650 W power supply might have been more than enough (but running a
>> Seasonic X-750 anyway), GTX470 recommands a 550W PSU, power-peak never
>> occurs at the same time as hard drive spin up)
> 
> Yes. I was running with the assumption that bigger is better (and runs
> quieter, cooler and longer) at 50%-60% capacity than a smaller one utilizing
> 70-80%. However, I'm not averse to saving a few bucks if this assumption is
> not warranted.

The assumption is not that false, but there is more between
certification label than between full capacity.

Cooler, for the PSU, is a function of the efficiency.
For a load of 500W, a PSU 80+(basic label) would be at 50%, from 80+
program, it means that 80%=500W, so 100% is 625W, 125W of heat.

80+ label is flat whatever the load ratio, so using a 800W or 1200W
would get the same 80%, and for a load L, the same heat (125W here)

a 750W PSU 80+gold (have to dimension it because the standard provide a
curve for that label) would be between 87 and 92%, for the same load of
500W, at worst 575W and at best 544W : 45W to 75W of heat instead of 125W.
a 1000W PSU 80+gold would be at 90 or 92% (according to power supply
being 115 or 230V): in the 50W range of waste for 500W load.

The ratio is between 2 and 3, for the same service at the end.

It's not about saving a few buck on buy, it also about not spending an
extra on the monthly bill of electricity and less heat out of the case.
On the long term, the better 80+ label is somehow better.

For the quieter, check the review of your candidate PSU(s).
My PSU is a bit "abnormal" (from observed usual behaviour): at low load
(20% according to the manufacturer), the fan would stop. You cannot be
more quieter. (the fan is temperature controled by the PSU in fact)

> 
>> Be aware: on dual monitor, GTX470 reach 72°C, whereas in single monitor,
>> it is far cooler (less than 50°C)
> 
> Interesting (and disappointing). Is this true even if the second one is not
> running anything needing 3D acceleration? If so, would you recommend messing
> with an additional card (different, cheaper and quieter)? I've quickly
> checked and Windows 7 seems to accomodate this...

The factory limit for GTX serie is 105°C, as reported in their reviews.

At least for the value I provided (72°C), that's with a 1920x1200
+1600x1200 settings (both DVI), currently used with gnome desktop with
compiz (a webbrower, a newsreader, a desktop and some fancy applets on
bars). Compiz might use OpenGL (I do not really know).
All cpu core at lowest rate (1.6GHz). (so, not really doing anything)
There are options in the nvidia drivers which might influence, I did not
play with the options (Performance mode is Maximum Performance, at 72°C
the fan speed is reported as 42%).
My driver version is 195.36.24, a bit conservative, latest are 256.35 on
nvidia site now.

I wanted a nvidia because I get a very bad experience with ati & DRI on
linux in the past (more than a PITA, never get it working correctly) and
dual screen was also painfull to set (in contrast to the setting with a
nvidia card) also in linux. YMMV.
I wanted a single ship card because dual screen is better supported in
linux in that configuration (dual chips or cards seems troublesomes in
that domains: I had enough troubles in the past to just want a simple
solution: plug & play, no hack, no editing... I would say "Thanks ATI
for that learning".).

I wanted a powerfull card as I play some mmorpg which are a bit "heavy"
in the graphic zone (previous CPU was kind of ok, previous card was the
limiting factor).
A GTX480 was not considered worth the extra money.

Post a reply to this message

"Le_Forgeron" <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote in message
news:4c4bfc4b$1@news.povray.org...

> Cooler, for the PSU, is a function of the efficiency.
> For a load of 500W, a PSU 80+(basic label) would be at 50%, from 80+
> program, it means that 80%=500W, so 100% is 625W, 125W of heat.
>
> 80+ label is flat

OK, that explains it to some degree. My (dated, pre 80+ certification)
experience is with PSUs with more varied efficiency curves. I suppose 80+ is
a good thing, although I don't see the wisdom of requiring min 80% at 20%
load, but I digress.

> whatever the load ratio, so using a 800W or 1200W
> would get the same 80%, and for a load L, the same heat (125W here)

However, looking at a couple of efficiency charts like this:

http://www.corsair.com/products/hx850/hx850-efficiency-chart.gif

it seems the sweet spot is still somewhere around half load, although the
dropoff from 1/2 load to full is fairly small, and you are right, the
difference between brands/models will probably be more relevant than the
relative operating point on the curve.

Also, I'm guessing that the efficiency as well as peak deliverable go down
over time.

Considering all, I'll probably go with an 850W one.

> > Interesting (and disappointing). Is this true even if the second one is
not
> > running anything needing 3D acceleration? If so, would you recommend
messing
> > with an additional card (different, cheaper and quieter)? I've quickly
> > checked and Windows 7 seems to accomodate this...



While that's somewhat scary, my real concern is noise, not necessarily


unfortunately, OpenGL support on ATI gamer cards has left a bad impression
for me.

Post a reply to this message

Le 25/07/2010 11:53, somebody nous fit lire :
> "Le_Forgeron" <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote in message
>> The factory limit for GTX serie is 105°C, as reported in their reviews.
> 
> While that's somewhat scary, my real concern is noise, not necessarily
> heat/waste. I bet the difference in noise between it running at 50°C and
> 70°C is substantial. Some of tha ATI cards seem to fare better, but
> unfortunately, OpenGL support on ATI gamer cards has left a bad impression
> for me.

As I can go in single screen mode easily, here the difference (for me,
YMMV as usual):
 2 screens, 72°C, fan at 42% (performance level 2 & 3: NV clock 405 MHz
& 607 MHz, memory clock 1674 MHz)
 1 screen (keeping only the 1920x1200 @ 60 Hz, disabling the 1600x1200 @
85Hz (crt)), 49°C, fan at 40% (performance level 1: NV clock 405 MHz,
memory clock 324 MHz)

Moving from Adaptative Preferred Mode to Prefer Maximum Performance with
1 screen put performance level to 3, the NV clock at 607 MHz, memory
clock at 1674 MHz, and raise back the temperature 71°C, fan at 41%.
(until 70°C, the fan speed is 40%, even at 50°C)
(pushing the opengl load (removing sync on blank for max fps of 2
glxgears), at 76°C, the fan is at 48%)

No real noise difference from the card between both temperature.
(no vuuuussssshhhh)

Post a reply to this message

Planning on getting a new computer myself, one of these months, and what 
I'd had in mind is a bit underspecced compared to yours, lol.  I also 
didn't know anything about particular PSUs and such, and had only priced 
out 8 GB PC3-1333 RAM.

Of course, my current specs are under $1000...I'd originally planned a 
budget of $1500.

But this gives me a better idea of things.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespac.net

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:876### [at] festercom...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> > WD 2TB Caviar Green 5400rpm SATA II w/ 64MB Cache (x4)

> Dunno if things have changed, but if 5400 rpm is as slow as it used to
> be, I'd get 7200rpm. I'm guessing they don't exist in their Green line.

I guess you do get the performance somewhat in line with the rpm, but even
though I have amassed copious amounts of data due to my obsessive compulsive
habit of keeping all revisions of all code, models, images, renderings, and
documents, the amount of data I access on a daily basis is relatively small
and I'm not concerned with waiting a few extra seconds or minutes per day
for saving/loading. Plus the price difference between 5400 and 7200 drives
add up quickly for 4x 2TB ones.

The real time killer in the bad old days was disk trashing due to
insufficient RAM, which made disk speeds more relevant. Now RAM is more than
adequate, but OS's and applications are more bloated, so a fast system disk
(hence the SSD) is still a good idea, but I don't think the data disks need
to be lightning fast.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> I guess you do get the performance somewhat in line with the rpm, but even
> though I have amassed copious amounts of data due to my obsessive compulsive
> habit of keeping all revisions of all code, models, images, renderings, and
> documents, the amount of data I access on a daily basis is relatively small
> and I'm not concerned with waiting a few extra seconds or minutes per day
> for saving/loading. Plus the price difference between 5400 and 7200 drives

If it were a case of only when _I_ intentionally access data, then it
would not be a big deal. My experience when I switched (almost 10 years
ago) was that so many other things got a lot faster. It gave more or
less the illusion that the whole computer had gotten faster. Then I
realized how much a bottleneck disk I/O could be. The disk is accessed a
lot, apparently.

Post a reply to this message