Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
So, my disti is showing a $40.00 difference between an SDA2800BOX and an AXDA2800BOX, with the Sempron being the least expensive. Both are SocketA, which should I buy?
SD or AXDA?
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The Sempron 2800 isn't really in the same performance class as an XP2800. It's more like a 2500.
Choose accordingly.
Choose accordingly.
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
Mercutio said:
I chose the AXDA because I know what it is capable of doing.
Bookmage
What is this storage?
but sempron > duron?
and athlon xp > sempron?
i see the sempron runs on a 166mhz bus.
what would be the advantage of runnign a sempron over a duron or an athlonxp?
and athlon xp > sempron?
i see the sempron runs on a 166mhz bus.
what would be the advantage of runnign a sempron over a duron or an athlonxp?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
The biggest advantage would be actually being able to buy the part, Bookmage. AMD are discontinuing all the lower-end and mid-range Athlon XPs. In fact, it's probably worth making up a table:
Low-end Athlon XP parts: 2000, 2200, and 2400. All 256K cache, 133MHz FSB. All discontinued. Replaced by Semprons.
Semprons: PR 2400, 2600, and 2800. (There are two others, but these are the main ones, it seems.)
The Sempron 2400 is exactly the same as the old XP 2000 (256k cache, 1666MHz) except that it has a 166MHz FSB instead of the 133MHz. It's also exactly the same price. (Around $AU90x.) This makes it very good value. Currently it is in short supply and the wholesalers don't have stock. Should cook along very nicely at 166 FSB. On the desktop ... hmmm ... about XP 2400 equivalent. Not as good for games though, as it has a lower raw clockspeed.
The Sempron 2600 is, to all intents and purposes, a castrated XP 2500 with only 256k cache. Same clockspeed (1833), same FSB (1600MHz) but half the cache. A nothing chip, IMO. Or, looked at another way, almost an XP 2200 on a fast FSB — still a nothing chip. (The Sempron clocks 33MHz faster than the 2200.) Like the 2200, neither fish nor fowl. On the desktop it will have no real performance equivalent (or that's my guess). It won't match any of the Barton chips, but will out-perform all other 256k cache chips. Pricing is dumb: it's slightly more than the XP 2500 or the XP 2600. I won't want any at that price point. Unfortunately, it's the only one that you can get supplies of right now.
The Sempron 2800 is an XP 2400 on a 166MHz FSB. Same cache (256k), same raw clock (2000MHz), faster FSB. Probably could be quite a decent budget games performer, and even with the small cache, not bad on the desktop — but not at the current price point. Simply, it's too dear. No stock anyway, even if I did want to buy one.
Mid-range Athlon XPs: Discontinued! Alack! Alay! Oh woe is me! WTF am I going to sell instead of Athlon XP 2500s? Both the 2500 and the 2600 have been discontinued, as well as the 2700. This means that the smallest Barton will be the 2800 once current stocks run out. Shite! The XP 2500 has been the stand-out bargain buy for as long as I can remember — well back into last year. (The 2600 has been more or less equally good value for much of that time.) The 2500+ has been the best all-round CPU value since the K6-III/450+ or back before that the 300MHz twins, Celeron A and K6-2, or earlier again, the 686MX-200 and Classic 200, or back before —
(Stop ranting, Tannin.)
(Sorry.)
Anyway, I am sitting on 20 pcs of the 2500+ and won't be able to get any more. That should see me out to the end of September. After that ... it might get ugly. Maybe the Sempron 2800 will be re-priced to something reasonable. But it still won't have the big cache.
High-end Athlon XPs: Price has gone up!!!! Way up. All have risen by around $40+. This sucks big-time. They are no longer particularly good value. The 2800, the 3000, and especially the 3200 are off the radar so far as typical buyers go: at these prices, they just don't offer a compelling price-performance proposition.
Athlon 64: No change. The 3200 sems to be the one to have.
Low-end Athlon XP parts: 2000, 2200, and 2400. All 256K cache, 133MHz FSB. All discontinued. Replaced by Semprons.
Semprons: PR 2400, 2600, and 2800. (There are two others, but these are the main ones, it seems.)
The Sempron 2400 is exactly the same as the old XP 2000 (256k cache, 1666MHz) except that it has a 166MHz FSB instead of the 133MHz. It's also exactly the same price. (Around $AU90x.) This makes it very good value. Currently it is in short supply and the wholesalers don't have stock. Should cook along very nicely at 166 FSB. On the desktop ... hmmm ... about XP 2400 equivalent. Not as good for games though, as it has a lower raw clockspeed.
The Sempron 2600 is, to all intents and purposes, a castrated XP 2500 with only 256k cache. Same clockspeed (1833), same FSB (1600MHz) but half the cache. A nothing chip, IMO. Or, looked at another way, almost an XP 2200 on a fast FSB — still a nothing chip. (The Sempron clocks 33MHz faster than the 2200.) Like the 2200, neither fish nor fowl. On the desktop it will have no real performance equivalent (or that's my guess). It won't match any of the Barton chips, but will out-perform all other 256k cache chips. Pricing is dumb: it's slightly more than the XP 2500 or the XP 2600. I won't want any at that price point. Unfortunately, it's the only one that you can get supplies of right now.
The Sempron 2800 is an XP 2400 on a 166MHz FSB. Same cache (256k), same raw clock (2000MHz), faster FSB. Probably could be quite a decent budget games performer, and even with the small cache, not bad on the desktop — but not at the current price point. Simply, it's too dear. No stock anyway, even if I did want to buy one.
Mid-range Athlon XPs: Discontinued! Alack! Alay! Oh woe is me! WTF am I going to sell instead of Athlon XP 2500s? Both the 2500 and the 2600 have been discontinued, as well as the 2700. This means that the smallest Barton will be the 2800 once current stocks run out. Shite! The XP 2500 has been the stand-out bargain buy for as long as I can remember — well back into last year. (The 2600 has been more or less equally good value for much of that time.) The 2500+ has been the best all-round CPU value since the K6-III/450+ or back before that the 300MHz twins, Celeron A and K6-2, or earlier again, the 686MX-200 and Classic 200, or back before —
(Stop ranting, Tannin.)
(Sorry.)
Anyway, I am sitting on 20 pcs of the 2500+ and won't be able to get any more. That should see me out to the end of September. After that ... it might get ugly. Maybe the Sempron 2800 will be re-priced to something reasonable. But it still won't have the big cache.
High-end Athlon XPs: Price has gone up!!!! Way up. All have risen by around $40+. This sucks big-time. They are no longer particularly good value. The 2800, the 3000, and especially the 3200 are off the radar so far as typical buyers go: at these prices, they just don't offer a compelling price-performance proposition.
Athlon 64: No change. The 3200 sems to be the one to have.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Sort of. There's a decent gain to be had in jumping from 3000 to 3200. The only difference between the two chips is the doubling of on-die cache.
Personally I don't know if that's worth the $50 price difference between the two chips, but then A64 prices have plummeted in the last few weeks; there's only a $20 difference between the 3200 of today and the 3000 of August 1st.
Personally I don't know if that's worth the $50 price difference between the two chips, but then A64 prices have plummeted in the last few weeks; there's only a $20 difference between the 3200 of today and the 3000 of August 1st.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Tannin: The 3200 sems to be the one to have.
CityK: On what basis, price/performance ratio?
Errr .... What other basis is there? Assuming equal reliability and ease of use (both things you can take as read with almost ay CPU), that is close enough as not to matter to being the only thing that matters.
(Fair go, Tannin. In the other thread, you just admitted to buying no less than three X15s because they make Mozila faster. Where is the logic in that?)
(Err ... Good point, little one. I'll see if I can explain.)
The way I look at it, it is all about waiting. If the part you are considering provides a noticably shorter wait, then it's worth having. And the price doesn't particularly matter. I hate waiting!
Now a little while ago, I had that rarest of rare phenomenon happen to me: a CPU went bad. I have no idea why: it has never been overheated or overclocked, it just died. An XP 3000.
Now when I upgraded from an XP 2400 to an XP 2500, the difference was immediately noticable, and very welcome. But when I put the 3000 in, it was so marginal an improvement that I could barely notice it at all. Same cache, same FSB, it seems that raw clockspeed alone doesn't make any of my "main waits" enough shorter to light my candle. And when, some months later, the 3000 suddenly died, I didn't have a spare so I made do with another 2500. And you know what? I could still barely tell the difference. In fact it was so small that although I have a brand new (and effectively unsalable, given the recent price changes) XP 3000 at the office, I'm not even going to bother undoing two screws to swap the chip over.
The 2500 (smallest Barton) is miles better than any 256k cache 133MHz FSB Athlon, but none of the bigger Bartons achieve anything that the 3000 doesn't. (Well, the 3200 might, but I haven't tried one of those.)
Next time I upgrade, I'll go direct to an Athlon 64.
Err .. what was the question?
Yup. An X15, however, makes some really big holes in the "wait moments". No-one could describe them as value for money, but an X15 makes a real and noticable difference to the computing experience. Ergo, it's worth having.
Logical? Well, sort of .
I think it's bedtime.
(If you can't make any more sense than that, it's past bedtime!)
CityK: On what basis, price/performance ratio?
Errr .... What other basis is there? Assuming equal reliability and ease of use (both things you can take as read with almost ay CPU), that is close enough as not to matter to being the only thing that matters.
(Fair go, Tannin. In the other thread, you just admitted to buying no less than three X15s because they make Mozila faster. Where is the logic in that?)
(Err ... Good point, little one. I'll see if I can explain.)
The way I look at it, it is all about waiting. If the part you are considering provides a noticably shorter wait, then it's worth having. And the price doesn't particularly matter. I hate waiting!
Now a little while ago, I had that rarest of rare phenomenon happen to me: a CPU went bad. I have no idea why: it has never been overheated or overclocked, it just died. An XP 3000.
Now when I upgraded from an XP 2400 to an XP 2500, the difference was immediately noticable, and very welcome. But when I put the 3000 in, it was so marginal an improvement that I could barely notice it at all. Same cache, same FSB, it seems that raw clockspeed alone doesn't make any of my "main waits" enough shorter to light my candle. And when, some months later, the 3000 suddenly died, I didn't have a spare so I made do with another 2500. And you know what? I could still barely tell the difference. In fact it was so small that although I have a brand new (and effectively unsalable, given the recent price changes) XP 3000 at the office, I'm not even going to bother undoing two screws to swap the chip over.
The 2500 (smallest Barton) is miles better than any 256k cache 133MHz FSB Athlon, but none of the bigger Bartons achieve anything that the 3000 doesn't. (Well, the 3200 might, but I haven't tried one of those.)
Next time I upgrade, I'll go direct to an Athlon 64.
Err .. what was the question?
Yup. An X15, however, makes some really big holes in the "wait moments". No-one could describe them as value for money, but an X15 makes a real and noticable difference to the computing experience. Ergo, it's worth having.
Logical? Well, sort of .
I think it's bedtime.
(If you can't make any more sense than that, it's past bedtime!)
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
There is also the Sempron 3100+ with the Paris core which uses Socket 754. They are going for about $195.00 AUD ($135.00 US). Ironically, this chip is clocked slower (1.8GHz versus 1.833GHz) then the Sempron 2600+ Socket 462. As Tannin pointed out, the 2600+ is also a lot cheaper.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The Socket 754 Sempron is supposed to be the one to buy; the only one with a decent price/performance rating compared to current A64 and XP chips.
But given that an A64/2800 is still cheaper...
But given that an A64/2800 is still cheaper...
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Looks like AMD wants us to buy Celerons ... 
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
time said:Looks like AMD wants us to buy Celerons ...
How depressing.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
If bloody Intel had enough sense to package a Pentium M for the desktop ... I bloody would!
Ummmmm, the swimsuit competition?Tannin said:
(What's that? You say there's no swimsuit competition?? Well a fat lot of good this industry is!)
I forgot about there being two versions of the 3200. Come to think about it, isn't there two versions of the 3000 too?Mercutio said:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Tap Tap Tap
Is this thing on?
The 3000 and the 3200 are the same chip. They work at the same FSB and multiplier. The difference is that the 3200 has more L1 (IIRC) cache.
Is this thing on?
The 3000 and the 3200 are the same chip. They work at the same FSB and multiplier. The difference is that the 3200 has more L1 (IIRC) cache.
Yes, yes, yes, that's all good and all, but what I'm saying is that there is definitely two versions of the 3200 -- 3200@2200MHZ@512KBL2 and 3200@2000MHz@1MBL2....further, wasn't the 3000 initially a 1MB L2 chip too?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
I thought the 1MB cache ones were ... er .... a different model, the name of which escapes me at the moment. Mega expensive.
As for swimsuits, I can't see the point. I tried one once, but why bother? You still get your fur wet. Besidez, Tannin laughed at me when I put the top bit on back-to-front. How was I supposed to know that the clip thingie goes at the back? Seems illogical to me. OK for me, of course, but too hard for humans to reach.
As for swimsuits, I can't see the point. I tried one once, but why bother? You still get your fur wet. Besidez, Tannin laughed at me when I put the top bit on back-to-front. How was I supposed to know that the clip thingie goes at the back? Seems illogical to me. OK for me, of course, but too hard for humans to reach.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm currently in love with the DTR chips.
With the 35W 2700+ (1.6Ghz w/512k @ 1.2v) going for $169 I will never build another 32-bit system. I don't do buget PCs anymore, as there is no margin. Every office/HTPC gets one of these beauties, and everyone else gets the 3400+ or FX-53. All my servers have been Opterons on Thunder boards for some time now.
Choosing the 35W chip for standard PCs without the intent of overclocking, especially when the price could nearly get a 3000+, might not make much sense to most; but I'll use some Tannin logic and say that A64-anything provides a nice snap compared with AXP-anything. Not to mention that combining these chips with "Ultimate edition" cards by ATI provides silent office PCs that fetch a very nice price tag. My last purely "office" rig sold for $2500.
With the 35W 2700+ (1.6Ghz w/512k @ 1.2v) going for $169 I will never build another 32-bit system. I don't do buget PCs anymore, as there is no margin. Every office/HTPC gets one of these beauties, and everyone else gets the 3400+ or FX-53. All my servers have been Opterons on Thunder boards for some time now.
Choosing the 35W chip for standard PCs without the intent of overclocking, especially when the price could nearly get a 3000+, might not make much sense to most; but I'll use some Tannin logic and say that A64-anything provides a nice snap compared with AXP-anything. Not to mention that combining these chips with "Ultimate edition" cards by ATI provides silent office PCs that fetch a very nice price tag. My last purely "office" rig sold for $2500.
ddrueding
Fixture
MSI K8T Neo FSRs, of course
I love these things. They work perfectly with the latest BIOS. Autodetects everything.
I love these things. They work perfectly with the latest BIOS. Autodetects everything.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
I'm pretty happy with my latest round of upgrades:
- For my main machine in Novemberish I went with the K8T Neo with a 3000+ (A64), which was $200, now is a bit less ($150+)
- For Christmas my wife and parents both went with an Athlon 2500+, and both work great.
- For my main machine in Novemberish I went with the K8T Neo with a 3000+ (A64), which was $200, now is a bit less ($150+)
- For Christmas my wife and parents both went with an Athlon 2500+, and both work great.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Adcadet
Storage Freak
mubs said:
It's been a while, Adcadet. So, do you still prefer duallies or is a fast single CPU equal or better?
Sorry about that. I'm guessing this is the question you're referring to. My observations are as follows:
- Dual Celeron 300 MHz (BP6, baby!) from a P2-450 - I thought the dualie was faster by a wide margin in terms of running multiple programs at once, but I think I was also going from Win9x to Win2K.
- Dual P2-700 (the FSB was bumped up to 113, IIRC) vs. friend's single P2-800 (at stock 100 MHz FSB, but same 512 MB RAM, same motherboard, graphics card, except I was running Cheetahs vs. his IBM 75 GXP - yes, we built at the same time) - I again thought mine was much better when launching and running multiple programs, although in retrospect I suspect it was the Cheetah 18XL vs. IBM 75 GXP more than anything else, and perhaps the extra FSB speed.
- Dual Athlon MP 1.2 GHz with 512 MB RAM (266 MHz) to a Athlon64 3000+ (512 MB RAM, 400 MHz FSB) - the single Athlon 64 system feels a bit faster 99% of the time (in gaming for sure - only one process is sucking significant CPU cycles, and I can't do anything else when playing a game). However, when running a few CPU-intensive apps the dualie seems less responsive, although it seems to complete each individual tasks quicker. The other day when working with muliple 15 MB photoshop files the system became sluggish and I wished I had a dualie, but other than that I don't notice. Most of my wait times (I belive Tannin just commented on this in defending his use of X15's) seem to be HD-limited and not CPU-limited. Games seem a bit faster.
One other note - MP3's. Ever since I hit college in Sept. '97 I've been big into MP3's. If I'm at my computer I'm listening to an MP3 (usually streamed today). Back then playing an MP3 in Winamp took a little bit of power - I forget the specifics, but a friend's P-166 would stutter when doing multiple things. Today MP3 playing is trivial. I'm pretty sure the other "killer apps" that I started using big-time in college (email, web surfing, IMing) today require only a fraction of the relative horse power they required back in the day. And I'm sure my emailing, web surving, MP3ing hasn't gotten much more demanding in the past 6 years (although, with tabs in Moz/Firebird I can be much more efficient.
So in conclusion, in my limited experience, it seems a single faster modern CPU is faster than a duale (well, one you can buy in my price range) most of the time; but while a single CPU machine can get individual tasks done quicker, they're not as responsive when running multiple CPU-intensive programs as a dualie. If you have no patience and do some very long-running CPU-intensive stuff (video editing, DVD encoding come to mind), a dualie will help keep the blood pressure down - this sortof described me in my younger days. If you mainly do one or fewer CPU intensive tasks for a long period of time, or a few short CPU intensive things (encoding <10 MP3's, a few quick Photoshop manipulations) and have a bit of patience (I think this is the older, more mature me), you'll be fine.
HD's seem to make a big difference as well. I'm sure a decent CPU and higher-end HD of today (7K250, 8 MB cache 7200 RPM drives, Raptors, and higher) would beat the pants off my much more expensive dualies of old, even if my SCSI gear (Cheetah 18XL's) could keep up.
Bookmage
What is this storage?
I'm almost tempted to say you're comparing apples and oranges with the Athlon comparison, but then I realize, Dual MP's probably would be system of choice unless you went Dual Opterons. The Athlon64 is going to feel faster with higher clock speed and faster bus. Compare the Dual MP's to a T-Bird 1.4Ghz or a P3 1Ghz (which I still run) and the MP's will feel faster. How about running the dual 2800+ MP's on the Barton core? And what about a single faster modern CPU compared to a faster modern Duallie like dual Opterons or dual Xeons? I'm sure modern duallies run plenty fast.
My dual P3 733MHz didn't really feel any faster than my single p3 1Ghz. However, I could run more programs on the duallie without it bogging down my system. These days though, I would agree that a single modern faster CPU is more than enough processing power for the average user. Even an average user who has a TB of storage space and plays music videos all day while surfing the web and checking email and writing up a report in Office. However I would prefer duallies + SCSI for the multitasking environment. In these days when I have several instances of mozilla with a couple dozen tabs open, while playing mp3s/music vids and checking email while vncing my server and burning DVDs, even the P4 w/HT gets a bit bogged down. I would like to play around with a Dual 35w Athlon-M and see how much faster it flies while staying cool and silent (well mainly less power/heat).
So based on your observations, would having more faster memory and a higher end HD be a better investment than duallies?
My dual P3 733MHz didn't really feel any faster than my single p3 1Ghz. However, I could run more programs on the duallie without it bogging down my system. These days though, I would agree that a single modern faster CPU is more than enough processing power for the average user. Even an average user who has a TB of storage space and plays music videos all day while surfing the web and checking email and writing up a report in Office. However I would prefer duallies + SCSI for the multitasking environment. In these days when I have several instances of mozilla with a couple dozen tabs open, while playing mp3s/music vids and checking email while vncing my server and burning DVDs, even the P4 w/HT gets a bit bogged down. I would like to play around with a Dual 35w Athlon-M and see how much faster it flies while staying cool and silent (well mainly less power/heat).
So based on your observations, would having more faster memory and a higher end HD be a better investment than duallies?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Faster disks, anyway.
Faster RAM really doesn't make any difference unless you're doing gobs of video rendering work.
Faster RAM really doesn't make any difference unless you're doing gobs of video rendering work.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
Bookmage said:
I think I agree with everything you said. Back in the day I could overwork a single CPU, whereas a dualie would stay responsive. Today I have trouble making a single CPU get sluggish, though there are clearly ways people can and do.
To answer your question, for me the single fast CPU + higher end HD seems to make a lot of sense given my usage patterns of today. Even though my Dual Athlon 1.2 vs. singel 3000+ is a generation difference, I think it illustrates the point that for what I do, a single fast CPU gives more bang per dollar than a dualie (which is the reason I didn't invest in a new dualie, though I wasn't too keen on getting 2 new Athlon MP's (which today run $120 for a single 2400). Now, if I were encoding MP3s all day long while watching DVD's and photoshopping, etc I would probably want a dualie to keep the OS and apps responsive, even if that meant doing a single task a little bit slower.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
The other thing is that information while on the go is now a must for me. Back in my college days I wanted computing power at home, and could care less about power while at class. Today I'm at school for 5-14 hour stretches (and next year I'll be doing some 30-hour "shifts"), so I need to get access to info at school. In college I could wait days between emailing people, and today I often have to get an email in and back out in a few hours because of my student group or work. So while a computer at home is still a must, it is also a must for me to have a laptop at school, an large IMAP email account through school (well, 2 actually, and gmail and yahoo mail), and a PDA for medical information for when I'm in the clinic or hospital. My new Tungsten C cost $275 (open box at Overstock, a great deal), money I could have happily spent on a new Atlas 15K, a bunch of RAM, a nice graphics card, or something else for my desktop computer, but the Palm is a much better use of my loan money.
Just goes to show - what you should buy depends increadibly on how you use your stuff.
Just goes to show - what you should buy depends increadibly on how you use your stuff.
Bookmage
What is this storage?
Yeah, I've stopped looking at the newest and fastest and started looking at the budget and lower power consumption. At the same time, I'm trying to keep up the same roles for my boxes. Server, daily and gaming. I'm trying to configure two Media servers for storage and can't decide if I should stick with the p3 733Mhz or consider upgrading to a low end Athlon-M or if a Via Mini-ITX has the power I need. Also I'm looking for a media client to run videos off of in the living room and think the Athlon 2800+ is overkill. Would a P3 1Ghz on some old matx mobo consume less power/produce less heat than an Athlon-M? And why is it so hard to find some 2u Rackmounts with 6 internal drive bays for around 100$?
sigh... the more technology accelerates, the more I want to stay in school...
Last year, my roomate put together a Dual Athlon MP system for around 800$. He picked up an MSI mobo, 1GB of ram and a new 550w Antec for it. It became his daily box and was mainly used for watching videos and torrents. The dual cpus really kicked in when he had lots of torrents running and those lots of requests/management issues on his system.
His system has been rock stable and he has been very happy with it. Course, his 0% 12 month interest helped too, but it made me look at getting a dual Athlon MP setup. However, aside from heavy I/O functions, it doesn't warrant the cost. I would love to see a Dual Pentium-M storage server consuming less than 200w and staying a cool 30C inside the case.
And before that, I would rather see a laptop with a 10 hour battery life on one battery. Even if it was a measly 500Mhz cpu. It would be much more useful than a 3Ghz powereater.
sigh... the more technology accelerates, the more I want to stay in school...
Last year, my roomate put together a Dual Athlon MP system for around 800$. He picked up an MSI mobo, 1GB of ram and a new 550w Antec for it. It became his daily box and was mainly used for watching videos and torrents. The dual cpus really kicked in when he had lots of torrents running and those lots of requests/management issues on his system.
His system has been rock stable and he has been very happy with it. Course, his 0% 12 month interest helped too, but it made me look at getting a dual Athlon MP setup. However, aside from heavy I/O functions, it doesn't warrant the cost. I would love to see a Dual Pentium-M storage server consuming less than 200w and staying a cool 30C inside the case.
And before that, I would rather see a laptop with a 10 hour battery life on one battery. Even if it was a measly 500Mhz cpu. It would be much more useful than a 3Ghz powereater.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
Bookmage said:
I'm guessing your not talking about network I/O or hard drive I/O. For those I thought the slowest modern CPU's would be just fine. I think I remember reading about a fairly massive download site running on a meansly P-100 back in 1998 or so. Granted, it had a hell of a storage subsystem (couple RAID arrays).
ddrueding
Fixture
Adcadet said:
Depends on if you are running software-based RAID-50 arrays or not...
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
ftp.cdrom.com
It was a P100 with 500GB of storage in 1995 or so. At its peak it was serving terabytes of files daily.
It ran freeBSD, and yes, it was a testment to what a commodity PC could do.
And yes, for those who don't know it, if your file server is built properly, a P100 with 64MB RAM can do just as much file serving as a 3.2GHz P4.
It was a P100 with 500GB of storage in 1995 or so. At its peak it was serving terabytes of files daily.
It ran freeBSD, and yes, it was a testment to what a commodity PC could do.
And yes, for those who don't know it, if your file server is built properly, a P100 with 64MB RAM can do just as much file serving as a 3.2GHz P4.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Thanks for the response, Adcadet. My duallie is nearly 4 years old and is still ok. When I built it, I was sick of the upgrade cycle and wanted something that would last a while. Mission accomplished.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
ddrueding,
What are you using to cool those mobile A64s? Thanks.
What are you using to cool those mobile A64s? Thanks.
ddrueding
Fixture
According to a thread linked to by a member here, the only heatsink able to manage the lower height of the mobile CPUs (no heat spreader) is the Thermaltake SLK-948U. I've had really good experiences with them in conjunction with Panaflo "L" fans on the 92mm size @ 5v. It still runs at under 100F.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
mubs said:
Yup, good reason. Just today I was really wishing I had a dualie. I was downloading some videos and unzipping some large files. OS slowed down considerably, and for a minute I had to rethink what I posted previously. If I had the money (lots, to be exact) I'd be in dualie land. But I don't, and I'm not sure I'll ever again be able to justify the cost. Well, maybe after the kids (who aren't conceived yet) go off to college, or maybe finish college.
ddrueding
Fixture
An interesting note on my DTR chips. I just built my new, very quiet, bedroom pc. I used what was supposed to be a 2700+ DTR chip @ 1.2v native. When I right-click on my computer and choose properties; the bottom section of the test displays as follows (I have a screenshot, but nowhere to host it right now).
Computer:
Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64
Processor 2900+
1.60Ghz, 512MB of RAM
Physical Address Extension
Why is it calling a 1.6Ghz A64 a 2900+? Considering 1.8Ghz is a 3000+ does this have more cache?
Why do I need PAE to handle 512MB of RAM? Isn't that for 4GB+?
Computer:
Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64
Processor 2900+
1.60Ghz, 512MB of RAM
Physical Address Extension
Why is it calling a 1.6Ghz A64 a 2900+? Considering 1.8Ghz is a 3000+ does this have more cache?
Why do I need PAE to handle 512MB of RAM? Isn't that for 4GB+?
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
My disti has now dropped the XP2000+ CPU, so the least expensive CPU they have is the SDA2400BOX. I think I'll be pricing that in the $70.00 to $75.00 range.
Bookmage
What is this storage?
Mercutio said:
built properly....
I would like to see an article expanding on this. Take a sub P3 system and configure it to run as a TB server on a budget. Something like a passive P2 450MHz with the cheapo 3ware 5800 running some version of *nix. A TB server using the least amount of power/heat/cost. Then a brief page on setting it to be available via ftp and windows share/samba. However, last I checked, Samba is still lacking in the 2k AD department which would be needed for shops running a 2K AD domain.
Hrm... maybe I'll have to run the second box as a straight 2K DC and a third box as a linux file server...
I was thinking the older cpu bus speeds might slow down transfer rates, but I guess not.