Show Us Your Rig

Bare Foot Kid said:

Hello Janno.





You'd better remove the part about 3 years before your gf sees it, it may come back to bite you.

BFKid,

you wouldnt believe the trouble im facing at the moment for buying the parts without asking permission...

thats life!

but for a serious question, do you think that in about 5 years this rig wouldnt be sufficient for almost everyting MS or EA can throw at it?

music software i`m using i can still use in 40 years if i wanted, so that wont be a issue...

janno said:

but for a serious question, do you think that in about 5 years this rig wouldnt be sufficient for almost everyting MS or EA can throw at it?

music software i`m using i can still use in 40 years if i wanted, so that wont be a issue...

In a couple years, or less, there's going to be this little thing called Windows 8, be prepared.

Bare Foot Kid said:

janno said:

but for a serious question, do you think that in about 5 years this rig wouldnt be sufficient for almost everyting MS or EA can throw at it?

music software i`m using i can still use in 40 years if i wanted, so that wont be a issue...

In a couple years, or less, there's going to be this little thing called Windows 8, be prepared.

win 8 will support 128 bits, but my guess is that even in windows 9 64 bit will be supported, so with this rig i can easely run at least for 6, 7 years without worrying if i need to upgrade everything.

then theres the fact that with windows 7 ultimate (64 on my main rig, 32 on all of the other (compaq 700ED, acer aoa 150bp, my dell optilpex 740, even my pentium III dell latitude c400 with 512MB RAM) run smoother then ever, and there is no need for me to upgrade to windows 8 or 9 to be able to run the software i`m using now.

as soon as there is a windows 8 beta release, i`ll probably build a 128bit rig just for the fun of it (ssssst, don`t tell my girlfriend)

janno said:

my current RAM at 800Mhz is compared to my new RAM at 1866Mhz is a great improvement, the new CPU has a greater speed, and of course the SATAIII will hlp quite a bit.

this all adds to a much impoved throughput of data...

Well, in my opinion your are basing these assumptions on the specs and what common sense might say.

For example, you are getting an Intel Core i7-930 CPU that is designed to run on DDR3 800/1066 RAM. So, while you are going to install 1866RAM..you won't be able to approach those kind of speeds without overclocking your box. And even at core clocks, DDR3 can move about 25GB/s through...which is far and above more than your hard drives and such would ever be able to supply it data anyway.

Same thing goes for SATA III interfaces. Technically, a SATA 3.0Gbps interface can move close to 300MB/s...however with the exception of about 2 SSD drives...there isn't anything on the market which even comes close to maxing out SATA II...let alone SATA III. So, while it looks great on paper, the end world real result won't be as dramatic.

janno said:

The big question is, why not??? why not go for the 12GB, instead of the 6 or 8 GB???

Why not??? Well if you don't ever make use of it...it's somewhat of a waste. That money could instead be put towards a faster CPU, different motherboard, another SSD drive, improving your network infrastructure, etc....all of which could actually improve your overall performance.

janno said:

as soon as there is a windows 8 beta release, i`ll probably build a 128bit rig just for the fun of it (ssssst, don`t tell my girlfriend)

Ummm....not likely unless somebody develops a 128bit capable CPU and hardware to go along with it. Windows 7 is the first time that 64-bit is coming more commonplace. We are going to be on 64-bit for some time to come. I'd almost be willing to bet that Windows 8 will still have a 32-bit version.

janno said:

but for a serious question, do you think that in about 5 years this rig wouldnt be sufficient for almost everyting MS or EA can throw at it?

No, i truly believe a box of that caliber would be able to run any mainstream OS that MS produces for 5 years easily. Probably closer to 10. We are techies and like to be on the bleeding edge and have big fancy computers....there is a difference between what we want and can afford to do...versus what we would need to simply be able to do something. That fact is often lost in these parts.

pparks1 said:

Well, in my opinion your are basing these assumptions on the specs and what common sense might say.

For example, you are getting an Intel Core i7-930 CPU that is designed to run on DDR3 800/1066 RAM. So, while you are going to install 1866RAM..you won't be able to approach those kind of speeds without overclocking your box. And even at core clocks, DDR3 can move about 25GB/s through...which is far and above more than your hard drives and such would ever be able to supply it data anyway.

Same thing goes for SATA III interfaces. Technically, a SATA 3.0Gbps interface can move close to 300MB/s...however with the exception of about 2 SSD drives...there isn't anything on the market which even comes close to maxing out SATA II...let alone SATA III. So, while it looks great on paper, the end world real result won't be as dramatic.

all that you say is true, and yet were talking about the same...

if the CPU is my Bottleneck, and my SSD doesnt have enough read speed, all i have to replace in about 4 to 6 years is the SSD, an maybe the CPU, and again i`m done for a few years.

for now i`ve got all that i need, and there can always be some improvements when theres the need for it, but for a great time to come, i`ve got it made...

pparks1 said:

Why not...well if you don't ever make use of it...it's somewhat of a waste. That money could instead be put towards a faster CPU, different motherboard, another SSD drive, improving your network infrastructure, etc....all of which could actually improve your overall performance.

i dont think that with this setup i can make a lot of performance improvements for the same money...

if you knew that i only spend about €200,- more on ram, and know that the next step in CPU costs me about €300,- (thats only a step up in speed, a step up in cores costs a whopping €600,-), a step that i really do not need to take), plus the other options you presented, i would be spending about €600,- or more to take it to yet another level...

pparks1 said:

Ummm....not likely unless somebody develops a 128bit capable CPU and hardware to go along with it. Windows 7 is the first time that 64-bit is coming more commonplace. We are going to be on 64-bit for some time to come.

look here

if there`s a option to use it, there will be hardware to use it on...

thats evolution for ya...

janno said:

look here

if there`s a option to use it, there will be hardware to use it on...

thats evolution...

Interesting link. Now google search for IA-128 and see what you turn up.

janno said:

if the CPU is my Bottleneck, and my SSD doesnt have enough read speed, all i have to replace in about 4 to 6 years is the SSD, an maybe the CPU, and again i`m done for a few years.

If only it were that simple. In 4 to 6 years...when it comes time to replace that CPU...it's undoubtedly going to be a new socket and that new socket would require a new motherboard and most likely that new motherboard will require a new RAM standard as DDR3 probably won't be the bomb in 4-6 years. Therefore, you would be replacing the RAM as well in 4-6 years....so investing in it now, doesn't exactly future-proof you.

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I've just been in this field and working with computers for 20+ years. I've seen it happen, I've built a lot of the years. I get a little passionate when I see people who are really trying to go the extra mile in hopes that it really pans out....but down the road...in a few years....we are all left with all dinosaurs that we want to replace as something new and shiny has come along and we aren't king of the hill anymore.

pparks1 said:

Interesting link. Now google search for IA-128 and see what you turn up.

so that`s the same way 64 bits came on to the market (main stream that is, it excisted for much longer ofcourse), say 8 years ago...

and what are we all using now?

janno said:

so that`s the same way 64 bits came on to the market (main stream that is, it excisted for much longer ofcourse), say 8 years ago...

and what are we all using now?

64 bit support has been around since the days of XP. AMD and Intel came to market with products that supported 64-bit in 2003 and 2004 respectively. It took 6-7 years for the market space to transition over once the architecture existed. With Windows 8 around 2 years away...and the fact that we don't have the 128bit hardware yet...I'm quite confident that we won't all be on 128 bit when Windows 8 comes out.... It's going to take some time...of course....if Windows 8 is delayed by 5 years or more...who knows.

pparks1 said:

If only it were that simple. In 4 to 6 years...when it comes time to replace that CPU...it's undoubtedly going to be a new socket and that new socket would require a new motherboard and most likely that new motherboard will require a new RAM standard as DDR3 probably won't be the bomb in 4-6 years. Therefore, you would be replacing the RAM as well in 4-6 years....so investing in it now, doesn't exactly future-proof you.

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I've just been in this field and working with computers for 20+ years. I've seen it happen, I've built a lot of the years. I get a little passionate when I see people who are really trying to go the extra mile in hopes that it really pans out....but down the road...in a few years....we are all left with all dinosaurs that we want to replace as something new and shiny has come along and we aren't king of the hill anymore.

yes... and, no....

take for example my Dell Latitude C400 PIII laptop with 512MB RAM an 40 gb HD.

it runs W7 easily, with 8 years of age that`s not bad.

ofcourse it has no 3d support, but Office, AdobeCS3, it all runs...

so this is a machine that 8 years ago didnt have the highest specs, and just being a simple laptop, can still run W7 with no problems.

I`m not saying W8 or W9 will bann 64 machines, but i`m guessing my other specs can easily take whatever MS has in store for the coming 2 or even 3 editions of windows, supporting 64 bits a long time to come...

so yes, there will be issues, and no, i dont think i will have to upgrade because of them, for the simple reason that if it runs now, it will run al long as the parts dont fail. dont forget, im using it as a music production rig, and i dont have to upgrade to new versions of windows to produce music...

pparks1 said:

janno said:

so that`s the same way 64 bits came on to the market (main stream that is, it excisted for much longer ofcourse), say 8 years ago...

and what are we all using now?

64 bit support has been around since the days of XP. AMD and Intel came to market with products that supported 64-bit in 2003 and 2004 respectively. It took 6-7 years for the market space to transition over once the architecture existed. With Windows 8 around 2 years away...and the fact that we don't have the 128bit hardware yet...I'm quite confident that we won't all be on 128 bit when Windows 8 comes out.... It's going to take some time...of course....if Windows 8 is delayed by 5 years or more...who knows.

in ten years, we`ll have a chip mounted inside our craniums, and be linked to the World Wide Web, without even an need for any device to interact with it.

then ill pass my new rig to my kid, and show them how the old man used his computer before the revolution.

i`m willing to bet that within 5 years we`ll have a rig that is not only capable of 128 bit, but implementing it on a greater scale that 64 bit is implemented now in current systems (don`t forget, 64 bit is not even being fully used today)