Author Topic: SCSI and SATA simultaneous? (Read 14044 times)

EverythingIBM · « **on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 00:58:52 »

Okay, I went computer-dump-diving (to drop off some old scanners -- hey even I have limits when it comes to computer trash) and got a few things, one of them happened to be a windows 95 manual brand new (so I got 4 now), but that's not important.

I seen a HDD lying in a pile, turned out to be a 100 GB Maxtor SATA. So, I hooked it up to my old IBM-o-box ('cause that's what everyone does when they find a hard drive lying outside in a dump), and... it humorously booted into it; which is kind of funny (the guy had some weird anime picture; I don't watch anime so I wouldn't have known what it was from -- actually, I don't watch TV at all). I wiped it though, I'm pretty sure I can guess what is on it anyways crappy music and bad pictures.

SO, is there a way I can use both my SCSI and the SATA hard drive at the same time?

My SCSI is obviously faster, 10K RPM opposed to stock 7200 or 5000 RPM, however, it would be cool to use multiple hard drives. I should put another one in it (I got 5 bays; four are occupied already).

ch_123 · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 02:40:42 »

If you have a SCSI and SATA controller, then yeah, sure.

Depending on how old the SCSI drive is, it may be slower than the SATA disk... just because it runs at a higher RPM doesn't automatically mean that it can transfer data at a better speed. I've seen benchmarks of 7,200RPM hard drives matching and beating contemporary 10ks, let alone ones that are a few years old.

Rajagra · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 06:08:55 »

I often mix SCSI and PATA together. Haven't done SCSI and SATA, but it should be fine.
High RPM disks are good for small random accesses (less latency), slow RPM disks can still be fast if they have good sustained transfer rate - just keep them defragged and put the big files on them.

didjamatic · « **Reply #3 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 07:29:11 »

SCSI, SATA and IDE use completely different controllers and buses, no worries as long as you have enough power.

InSanCen · « **Reply #4 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 14:28:21 »

I do it, the rig I am typing on has SCSI (15K spindle, Program drive) and SATA. As said, the 2 have different controllers, they will not interfere with each other. The next plan is for a small (80GB), but fast SSD for the boot and commonly used programs drive.

hyperlinked · « **Reply #5 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 14:54:50 »

Speaking of high RPM disks, WD is releasing their 600Gb Velociraptor soon!

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #6 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 15:08:23 »

Quote from: ch_123;172654

If you have a SCSI and SATA controller, then yeah, sure.

Depending on how old the SCSI drive is, it may be slower than the SATA disk... just because it runs at a higher RPM doesn't automatically mean that it can transfer data at a better speed. I've seen benchmarks of 7,200RPM hard drives matching and beating contemporary 10ks, let alone ones that are a few years old.

I guess I was a little vague, I meant how to integrate them to be both used (i.e. one for the OS, and the other for storage)... I obviously did hook both of them up, but my compter seems to place the SCSI last in hierarchy when the SATA is plugged in. And I have IDE, SATA and SCSI ports on my computer; pretty much every port imaginable.

Just seeing how they both perform, my SCSI does a much better job (and higher RPM *is* always better).

Quote from: InSanCen;172758

I do it, the rig I am typing on has SCSI (15K spindle, Program drive) and SATA. As said, the 2 have different controllers, they will not interfere with each other. The next plan is for a small (80GB), but fast SSD for the boot and commonly used programs drive.

That's good to know. I never knew someone actually mixed the two; and nice 15K SCSI, I was going to get one, but, too expensive. There was a really nice seagate SCSI with special movement that didn't use bearings. Better than your standard bread and butter IDE or SATA which lacks ECC.

ch_123 · « **Reply #7 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 15:18:39 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;172767

I guess I was a little vague, I meant how to integrate them to be both used (i.e. one for the OS, and the other for storage)... I obviously did hook both of them up, but my compter seems to place the SCSI last in hierarchy when the SATA is plugged in. And I have IDE, SATA and SCSI ports on my computer; pretty much every port imaginable.

You can map the drives to different letters using the admin tools in W2K and greater. I think also that the hard drive priority option in the BIOS (not the boot priority) might help fix things. Then again, the best thing to do is to install Windows onto the drive with no other drives there, and then add the others.

Quote

(and higher RPM *is* always better).

Again, no it is not.

Quote

That's good to know. I never knew someone actually mixed the two; and nice 15K SCSI, I was going to get one, but, too expensive. There was a really nice seagate SCSI with special movement that didn't use bearings. Better than your standard bread and butter IDE or SATA which lacks ECC.

Well, if you run a data farm, then sure. For most people SCSI is unnecessary. Back in the day, there were tangible advantages of SCSI over IDE that applied to the average person, nowadays, modern SCSI is just SATA with some features that are irrelevant in non-server roles (for the most part anyway)

Quote

Speaking of high RPM disks, WD is releasing their 600Gb Velociraptor soon!

Those things are jokes. I remember about a year after they released the 300GB model, Samsung came out with their F1 drives which performed as well in benchmarks despite being cheaper, less noisy and having three times the capacity. And the people who splashed out €150 for them must have facepalmed rather hard indeed.

Either way, no point on spending that much on hard drives when SSD technology is reasonably mature for enthusiast use.

Rajagra · « **Reply #8 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 15:38:02 »

15k Ultra320 SCSI disks are dirt cheap in sizes appropriate for holding just the OS (36GB). If you already have a decent SCSI controller or can get one cheap it's well worth doing.

They can be hot and noisy, and you DO need to let them spin down for 15-20s after power off before moving the PC, but they kick ass.

didjamatic · « **Reply #9 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 15:58:20 »

Yep, just don't try finding a deal on Ultra320 300GB drives, they're incredibly expensive.

For a desktop with very little burden on disks, SATA is fine but I can't personally recommend SATA for servers or network storage if they will be really busy. Too high of failure rates, they get really hot and they are slow. SCSI/SAS/Fiber Channel are the way to go.

If money requires you to use SATA, then get lots of it with plenty of redundancy.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #10 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 16:20:37 »

Quote from: Rajagra;172779

15k Ultra320 SCSI disks are dirt cheap in sizes appropriate for holding just the OS (36GB). If you already have a decent SCSI controller or can get one cheap it's well worth doing.

They can be hot and noisy, and you DO need to let them spin down for 15-20s after power off before moving the PC, but they kick ass.

That explains why mine sounds so noisy (some silly people accused it of failing, but it has been working fine for five years now, and always was noisy): but it doesn't get hot, has good cooling.

yes they are cheap in smaller sizes, so, getting a small one is a good idea for the OS.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #11 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 17:01:30 »

Yep, the SATA is working great now, using my SCSI as the windows drive.

SUPER COOL.

trievalot · « **Reply #12 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 18:39:54 »

i have an ultra160 scsi gb 10k drive in my IBM intellistation, and 3 x 1.5TB SATA disks in RAID 5. The transfer speed on the SCSI is pretty much the same as the SATA raid, but i have it there because of the inherent reliability of SCSI, and its designed to run 24x7, where the SATA will most likely fail if i push them too hard. (OS and all progs on SCSI, data stor on RAID array)
My PC (Server) has onboard SCSI, so i needed to add a SATA raid card, no reason if you have onboard SATA you cant add a SCSI card.

InSanCen · « **Reply #13 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 18:43:54 »

Quote from: Rajagra;172779

They can be hot and noisy, and you DO need to let them spin down for 15-20s after power off before moving the PC, but they kick ass.

Someone who has worked as a sysadmin?

I try to tell people that when powering down high speed spindles to leave them (a minute or so). But no... "It will increase downtime" downtime from a shagged array will be a hell of a lot longer. The laws of physics still apply to your server.

This is just a small drive, but silly fast. Using an LSI and a Maxtor drive, boot is silly quick, but space is limited, hence wanting an 80GB-ish SSD sometime. I'll be waiting for the magic $1/GB pricepoint before I jump though.

kishy · « **Reply #14 on:** Fri, 16 April 2010, 19:48:23 »

When I was younger I found it neat to have a drive plugged in to power, cut the power, then pick it up and feel the...gyroscopic? force of it. Pretty significant force even on drives under 5000RPM. I can imagine severe damage could come from something slowing down from 15k being destabilized in the process...

InSanCen · « **Reply #15 on:** Sat, 17 April 2010, 03:17:36 »

Quote from: kishy;172864

When I was younger I found it neat to have a drive plugged in to power, cut the power, then pick it up and feel the...gyroscopic? force of it. Pretty significant force even on drives under 5000RPM. I can imagine severe damage could come from something slowing down from 15k being destabilized in the process...

Imagine an Insane Sysadmin pulling a whole 4U rack of them... The results were... well, I was laughing, but I wasn't on the pointy end of that particular stick. One run to the local shop for 24 SATA drives to get it back up while he ordered another set of 15K spindles. I have one of those drives, and the controller. The controller I use (The aforementioned LSI, he bluffed to management that it was a Controller failure), the Disk I spin up to show people why pulling drives straight away is a really bad idea.

ch_123 · « **Reply #16 on:** Sat, 17 April 2010, 05:29:18 »

The problem of course is that as it stands, SSDs have as much potential issues as mechanical ones. It just goes to show you that if you take a crazy idea, and pour billions into it over the space of half a century, it can be as good as a much better idea that has had less development.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #17 on:** Sat, 17 April 2010, 14:40:56 »

Quote from: webwit;172951

I kind of like the sound of SCSI drives, it makes me feel what's going on, like old modems.
But I can't wait for hard drives to die in favor of SSD. Hard drives will be considered a silly thing of the old world in a couple of years. I agree with that notion. Having a device that spins something thousands of times per minute is ludicrous. The kids will laugh: hey, did you know that they used mechanical, moving storage once? They had to spin those 5 to 15k per minute! Hahaha.. they broke all the time.

SSD drives can only be written to so many times; the downside of flash memory. SSD will NOT replace physical disks any time soon. That's like saying touch keyboards will replace model Ms, not happening.

I can't wait until the uneducated masses buy cheap nonreliable SSD and I'll be laughing with my SCSI still working.

And yeah, I do like the sound of the SCSI working; good thing it only makes noise when I'm loading windows or some huge app (otherwise it's really quiet). I'm actually browing the internet on my SATA so my SCSI doesn't make noise when I view everything.

ch_123 · « **Reply #18 on:** Sat, 17 April 2010, 14:59:52 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;173053

SSD drives can only be written to so many times; the downside of flash memory. SSD will NOT replace physical disks any time soon. That's like saying touch keyboards will replace model Ms, not happening.

Ah yes! Unlike the current hard drive technology which lasts forever, right? Right?

Zalusithix · « **Reply #19 on:** Sat, 17 April 2010, 15:20:19 »

Tape drives are still used to this day for backup purposes. Platter based hard drives will never become a true archival system. That said, the traditional hard drives will remain useful for high capacity media storage. SSDs wont pass hard drives any time soon capacity wise or cost efficiency wise. SSDs will, however, replace system drives, and high speed disk drives will go the way of the dodo.

hyperlinked · « **Reply #20 on:** Sat, 17 April 2010, 16:38:04 »

Quote from: webwit;172951

I kind of like the sound of SCSI drives, it makes me feel what's going on, like old modems.

When I was a teenager, I had a funky 1200 baud modem that was built into a regular telephone. Something in the modem died one day and it would no longer initialize properly.

I couldn't dial out and I thought it was dead. Then I did something really bizarre out of sheer frustration. I picked up the handset, hit the data switch to get it to attempt to couple, and I started making modem noises with my voice. To my surprise, the modem coupled and thought it was connected.

After I did this, it would continue working until I turned it off again. Everytime I wanted to use the modem, I had to do this weird trick of pretending to be a modem with it first before it would work.

There is indeed something cool about the sound of the old school acoustic modems. Of course, who amongst us who had one of these things didn't set the thing to redial some disliked person's phone number continuously.

hyperlinked · « **Reply #21 on:** Sun, 18 April 2010, 06:09:41 »

Quote from: webwit;173173

You should change your nickname to Captain Crunch

LOL. I wonder how many of the under 30 crowd got this reference.

ch_123 · « **Reply #22 on:** Sun, 18 April 2010, 06:22:37 »

Oh come on, everyone and their mother knows who Captain Crunch was.

didjamatic · « **Reply #23 on:** Sun, 18 April 2010, 08:40:45 »

I just threw out some old 2600 magazines a couple of months ago.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #24 on:** Sun, 18 April 2010, 21:50:36 »

Quote from: Rajagra;172779

15k Ultra320 SCSI disks are dirt cheap in sizes appropriate for holding just the OS (36GB). If you already have a decent SCSI controller or can get one cheap it's well worth doing.

They can be hot and noisy, and you DO need to let them spin down for 15-20s after power off before moving the PC, but they kick ass.

Well I just ran speedfan, apparently the SATA drive is much more hot than the ultra320 SCSI one:

HDD 0 is SCSI
HDD 1 is SATA

Ignore the other strange 127 C temperatures.

And I do have a second fan, it's attached directly to the power supply since the motherboard doesn't seem to want to send power through the second fan plug.

InSanCen · « **Reply #25 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 03:32:41 »

Just put more/better positioned fans in there kiddo. Even a slow quiet intake in the right place will get those temps down nicely. 68c is just not necessary, and though not immediately harmful to the CPU, it will have a definitive effect on the life of the rest of your components, notably the PSU being *far* less efficient. Depending on what VRM's you have on the board, this may have a nasty surprise waiting round the corner for you. Going retro is all well and good, but fans are not expensive, even if you find a spot to stand one on Blu-Tack if you lack dedicated mounts.

Just bloody cool it a bit better.

ch_123 · « **Reply #26 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 03:37:26 »

The CPU is 49 and the GPU is 68. Whilst somewhat high, those are not necessarily unusual figures, even for a relatively well cooled machine.

InSanCen · « **Reply #27 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 03:44:56 »

Quote from: ch_123;173400

The CPU is 49 and the GPU is 68. Whilst somewhat high, those are not necessarily unusual figures, even for a well cooled machine.

Gah... will teach me to skim. Ignore my above rant.

It's a pet peeve of mine. 50c is ok (though not to my personal liking), but 68 would have been bloody silly. For some reason, people seem to think that because a CPU has a max working temp, then you should run it near that, regardless. While going cooler and cooler produces diminishing returns (and below certain points, adds problems), there is an acceptable level that isn't hard to find.

kishy · « **Reply #28 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 04:43:20 »

I just about died inside when I saw that screenshot. Those numbers are insane.

InSanCen · « **Reply #29 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 05:28:09 »

It got me thinking about my temps, so I fired up OCCT.

After an hour, maxed out on 4 cores, large data set, my CPU was still below 40c. And yup, it's on Air at the moment. It's not even an expensive or uber-performing cooler (Akasa EVO Blue).

ch_123 · « **Reply #30 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 06:34:17 »

My 3.2GHz Phenom II X4 runs on mid-forties under load as far as I remember.

IIRC, EIBM has a Pentium 4... So there's the problem =P

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #31 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 07:08:49 »

probably lol, my opteron dual core is at 29°C at 1GHz

kishy · « **Reply #32 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 07:24:33 »

P4 is always the problem, regardless of what the problem is.

My laptop (Pentium M) is idling around 40ish, highest it's ever gone AFAIK is around 60, and it doesn't even have any TIM. Don't ask why, the answer will disappoint you.

InSanCen · « **Reply #33 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 09:11:49 »

Quote from: kishy;173431

P4 is always the problem, regardless of what the problem is.

My laptop (Pentium M) is idling around 40ish, highest it's ever gone AFAIK is around 60, and it doesn't even have any TIM. Don't ask why, the answer will disappoint you.

Toothpaste makes awesome TIM... for about a week.

Quote from: ch_123;173423

IIRC, EIBM has a Pentium 4... So there's the problem =P

Yup, called Preshotts for a good reason. I have a 3.x D variant lying round and it's still scary how much heat it kicks out.

ch_123 · « **Reply #34 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 10:45:28 »

Truth be told, today's latest and greatest chips are probably as hot as the Prescotts of old, but they are an awful lot faster and have four cores... So there...

InSanCen · « **Reply #35 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 11:15:51 »

Quote from: ch_123;173455

Truth be told, today's latest and greatest chips are probably as hot as the Prescotts of old, but they are an awful lot faster and have four cores... So there...

Oh they do. I suppose I should have phrased it better. The TDP's of both Prescott and Nehalem chips are similar (Though the 12 core Magny Cours from AMD are low in relation, when considering core count and throughput), but the IPC, core count etc has gone up dramatically.

ch_123 · « **Reply #36 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 11:25:05 »

I'm just waitng for someone to say that Pentium 4s have higher clockspeeds than current Intel chips =P

InSanCen · « **Reply #37 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 11:44:33 »

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. there has to be a member on here that will defend the virtues of raw clockspeed...:crazy:

ch_123 · « **Reply #38 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 11:51:41 »

Next they'll gauge the quality of the CPU by how many pins it has...

I'm pretty sure that 12-core Opteron would win... has something like 2,000 pins, ouch...

itlnstln · « **Reply #39 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 11:54:19 »

Thank goodness for the ZIF socket.

kishy · « **Reply #40 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 12:30:30 »

ZIF, LIF...

Wonder if there was a HIF?

I want that one...2000 pins? No problem!

InSanCen · « **Reply #41 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 14:18:35 »

IIRC, Socket G34 is LGA. 1974 pins.

ch_123 · « **Reply #42 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 14:46:46 »

I wish they moved their consumer chips to LGA. I had a pant-****ting-worthy experience where I went to replace some cheapo thermal goo with some high quality stuff on my then two-week old Phenom II. The old stuff stuck like glue, and I made the mistake of yanking up the heatsink, which pulled the CPU through the closed socket. Somehow nothing was damaged, but I remember sweating bullets for 20 minutes whilst straightening out 100 bent pins. Miraculously it worked afterwards, if only almost costing me my nerves...

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #43 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 19:43:10 »

Quote from: kishy;173412

I just about died inside when I saw that screenshot. Those numbers are insane.

The GPU is Nvidia Quadro FX 3400; would anyone be able to reccomend a good replacement that uses the same power or less providing better performance? My PSU is only 400 watts. The fan is annoying I must add, stupid delta electronics can't make proper fans (all of their PSUs sound the same).

I don't think the CPU temperature is THAT bad (better than the iMacs which I almost burned my hand on), but it could be better. Any suggestions for a better heatsink, fan, etc?

This is what mine basically looks like on the inside (except with more additions including a back fan, the pig fryer FX 3400, Audiophile 2496, SCSI daughter card in the bottom left corner with huge SCSI cables causing a mess, and another hard drive in the bay above the heatsink):

The big shiny metal thing that says "ibm.com" is the heatsink. It doesn't feel that sturdy.
EDIT: Oh yeah, the power cords ARE indeed that long.

PS: my thinkcentre S51 gets so hot it could fry an egg like a mac, is there any way I could fix the temperatures on that one? It's one of the thinkcentres with the dual "super red" tiny fans.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #44 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 20:06:23 »

Quote from: ch_123;173459

I'm just waitng for someone to say that Pentium 4s have higher clockspeeds than current Intel chips =P

That's the argument apple used for a long time during their PowerPC years "we have a faster rated clock speed, so OBVIOUSLY it's faster!".
You can have the fastest clock speed you want, but there are other factors such as FSB, L2 cache, and whatnot.

My 3.4 Ghz prescott does perform well in some cases (such as applications that only support one core), whereas my 2.16 Ghz dual core thinkpad can outperform it in other areas. My prescott is 64-bit, whereas my cheapo lenovo-branded-IBM T60p is only 32 bit. Thanks crapovo for using cheaper components!

I still like it though, and runs windows 7 perfectly fine; the only performance loss is with my audio equipment. And... it disabled hyper threading by itself recently, I do not know why.

hyperlinked · « **Reply #45 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 20:20:07 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;173601

That's the argument apple used for a long time during their PowerPC years "we have a faster rated clock speed, so OBVIOUSLY it's faster!".
You can have the fastest clock speed you want, but there are other factors such as FSB, L2 cache, and whatnot.

You need to do a search of some posts ch_123 made about a month ago and maybe actually read them this time. I think you got the historical accuracy of this and perceived quality of PPC chips backwards.

Zalusithix · « **Reply #46 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 20:29:49 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;173598

The GPU is Nvidia Quadro FX 3400; would anyone be able to reccomend a good replacement that uses the same power or less providing better performance? My PSU is only 400 watts.

Knowing a price range would be helpful... But off the top of my head, something like the ATI 5570 range would fit both categories with ease. It is like half the TDP, and twice the performance with conservative estimates. It doesn't take much to beat an old dinosaur like the 3400. If anything, the other components will be the bottleneck with a modern card.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #47 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 21:07:04 »

Quote from: Zalusithix;173606

Knowing a price range would be helpful... But off the top of my head, something like the ATI 5570 range would fit both categories with ease. It is like half the TDP, and twice the performance with conservative estimates. It doesn't take much to beat an old dinosaur like the 3400. If anything, the other components will be the bottleneck with a modern card.

Wow, the Radeon 5570 takes 45 watts, and the Quadro FX 3400 around 350 watts!!! No wonder why it runs so hot (and noisy too).
EDIT: that's wrong, but, no other stupid sites would tell me the exact power consumption of the FX 3400.
EDIT: it's 101 watts, thanks wikipedia.

That's one power hungry sucker. I think I may get a Radeon 5570; I've never been a big Nvidia fan anyways. Plus I could free up a lot of power for other things. Not to mention, the quadro fx 3400 is so long.

The Radeon 5570 doesn't seem too expensive, and it's an older card too.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #48 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 21:25:44 »

Quote from: Zalusithix;173606

Knowing a price range would be helpful... But off the top of my head, something like the ATI 5570 range would fit both categories with ease. It is like half the TDP, and twice the performance with conservative estimates. It doesn't take much to beat an old dinosaur like the 3400. If anything, the other components will be the bottleneck with a modern card.

I've been looking it over, and, it needs PCI-E x16 obviously, but version 2.1:
http://www.provantage.com/msi-r5570-md1g~7MSTI0AX.htm
Not sure if that would be compatible with my intellistation.

EDIT: I'm wondering if I could stuff it in a PCI-E x16 1.0 slot... I'm ASSUMING it has 1.0 since 2.0 and 2.1 came a little after 2005.

Zalusithix · « **Reply #49 on:** Mon, 19 April 2010, 23:42:05 »

PCIe was designed to be backwards / forwards compatible. PCIe 1.x devices should work in PCIe 2.x motherboards and vice versa. PCIe 2.0 doubled the signaling rate from the 1.x generation, and thus has twice the bandwidth, but can fall back to the 1.x rate if need be. Version 2.1 added some more features in, but nothing that should break the previous statement about compatibility. Just the same, I have heard of some PCIe 1.0 mobos not liking 2.0/2.1 cards. Supposedly some bios issues or some such.

And as for the age bit, the 5570 is a relatively new card (February) based on 40nm fabrication. It's not a high end card, but it is quite good for the money. I'm not sure what you plan on using it for though. If it's just for desktop work, then you could go even lower as the 5570 is overkill for just that.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #50 on:** Tue, 20 April 2010, 00:18:47 »

Quote from: Zalusithix;173643

PCIe was designed to be backwards / forwards compatible. PCIe 1.x devices should work in PCIe 2.x motherboards and vice versa. PCIe 2.0 doubled the signaling rate from the 1.x generation, and thus has twice the bandwidth, but can fall back to the 1.x rate if need be. Version 2.1 added some more features in, but nothing that should break the previous statement about compatibility. Just the same, I have heard of some PCIe 1.0 mobos not liking 2.0/2.1 cards. Supposedly some bios issues or some such.

And as for the age bit, the 5570 is a relatively new card (February) based on 40nm fabrication. It's not a high end card, but it is quite good for the money. I'm not sure what you plan on using it for though. If it's just for desktop work, then you could go even lower as the 5570 is overkill for just that.

No, I need it to be as powerful as I can get it. I do a lot of graphics design (anything LESS than the quadro fx 3400 will be grinding it; with that said, it is a DECENT card, just big and hot).
The BIOS the computer is running is more sophistocated than most I've seen, and it can always be flashed to the newest version IBM released (of course that can be dangerous, I'd only do it if necessary). I have the 2005 version I believe, there is a 2006 one, and maybe more since I last checked.

ch_123 · « **Reply #51 on:** Tue, 20 April 2010, 04:12:55 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;173601

That's the argument apple used for a long time during their PowerPC years "we have a faster rated clock speed, so OBVIOUSLY it's faster!".
You can have the fastest clock speed you want, but there are other factors such as FSB, L2 cache, and whatnot.

Ehmm... It's actually completely the other way around... The dual-core G5s only clocked up to 2GHz.

Quote

My prescott is 64-bit, whereas my cheapo lenovo-branded-IBM T60p is only 32 bit. Thanks crapovo for using cheaper components!

That's because the initial generation of Intel's dual core laptop CPUs was 32-bit only. How is that Lenovo's fault?

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #52 on:** Tue, 20 April 2010, 20:53:23 »

Quote from: ch_123;173698

Ehmm... It's actually completely the other way around... The dual-core G5s only clocked up to 2GHz.

That's because the initial generation of Intel's dual core laptop CPUs was 32-bit only. How is that Lenovo's fault?

No, intel and apple were both gloating over MEGAHERTZ whilst AMD realized clock rate was only ONE factor of performance.

Anything bad that happens is lenovo's fault.

InSanCen · « **Reply #53 on:** Wed, 21 April 2010, 01:20:59 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;173964

stupid reply.

I give up...

JBert · « **Reply #54 on:** Sat, 24 April 2010, 17:42:16 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;173613

Wow, the Radeon 5570 takes 45 watts, and the Quadro FX 3400 around 350 watts!!! No wonder why it runs so hot (and noisy too).
EDIT: that's wrong, but, no other stupid sites would tell me the exact power consumption of the FX 3400.
EDIT: it's 101 watts, thanks wikipedia.

That's one power hungry sucker. I think I may get a Radeon 5570; I've never been a big Nvidia fan anyways. Plus I could free up a lot of power for other things. Not to mention, the quadro fx 3400 is so long.

The Radeon 5570 doesn't seem too expensive, and it's an older card too.

Look, I hate the power consumption, heat and noise nvidia cards produce as much as the next guy, yet I still prefer them for their drivers.
As far as I know, they are still the only ones with a performant/complete OpenGL implementation and games for Linux support.

Also, Quadro's are optimized for graphical design. Hardware has progressed a lot in those 5 years since your card was released, but keep in mind that the consumer ATIs are optimized for gaming where you want a high FPS instead of a reliable display of all parts in your design.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #55 on:** Sat, 24 April 2010, 17:53:34 »

Quote from: JBert;175587

Look, I hate the power consumption, heat and noise nvidia cards produce as much as the next guy, yet I still prefer them for their drivers.
As far as I know, they are still the only ones with a performant/complete OpenGL implementation and games for Linux support.

Also, Quadro's are optimized for graphical design. Hardware has progressed a lot in those 5 years since your card was released, but keep in mind that the consumer ATIs are optimized for gaming where you want a high FPS instead of a reliable display of all parts in your design.

The ATI fireGL in my thinkpad runs great for 3D graphics. Didn't IBM used to own the fireGL cards?

I think a new ATI card will beat the quadro fx in all regions.

EDIT: My two favourite graphics card brands are actually Matrox and 3dfx: but ATI is more economic.

News:

Author Topic: SCSI and SATA simultaneous? (Read 14044 times)