Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mfurse

New DFI Lanparty UT NF590 SLI-MR2/G

Recommended Posts

what is that black heatsink above the chipset directly behind the first pci express slot?does it get hot?need a fan on it in real world applications such as heavy 3d gaming etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is that black heatsink above the chipset directly behind the first pci express slot?does it get hot?need a fan on it in real world applications such as heavy 3d gaming etc?

 

I imagine it doesn't get terribly warm since they're just passively cooling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the price of new hard drives, both sata and pata nearly the same, I don't see that as a real problem or issue.

 

Some users like me probably scored on some pretty cheap harddrives earlier this year that were PATA. Guess I'll have to go out and buy some more SATA -> PATA converters. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, only if these PATA are like 250+ gb... if not why not get new ones? I would also buy these external HDD enclosures (USB2.0 or Firewire) to keep using the PATA externally and as a backup unit.

 

Lots of options, its whats upgrading is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, only if these PATA are like 250+ gb... if not why not get new ones? I would also buy these external HDD enclosures (USB2.0 or Firewire) to keep using the PATA externally and as a backup unit.

 

Lots of options, its whats upgrading is all about.

 

They're 250GB still in shrinkwrap.. sitting there.. wanted to be used... oh why hasn't the NF590 out yet. (hits head on desk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were getting a large hard disk I would rather get 3 120GB STAT Hard Disk's as a RAID 5 then one 300GB or 200GB S/PATA hard disk. The bigger the disk the longer it takes to find the data, also these large disk's dont have a high rpm and also have a low ish cache. I have also herd of romers of them being very unreliable. One more thing also, due to testing this stuff the damege sector rate goes up prity fast with large hard disks.

 

If you ever get any hardware (HARD DISK'S!!!) Try and use Pc-Check V6.05 as this is ideal for all types of hardware tests. (The Best.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were getting a large hard disk I would rather get 3 120GB STAT Hard Disk's as a RAID 5 then one 300GB or 200GB S/PATA hard disk. The bigger the disk the longer it takes to find the data, also these large disk's dont have a high rpm and also have a low ish cache. I have also herd of romers of them being very unreliable. One more thing also, due to testing this stuff the damege sector rate goes up prity fast with large hard disks.

 

If you ever get any hardware (HARD DISK'S!!!) Try and use Pc-Check V6.05 as this is ideal for all types of hardware tests. (The Best.)

well

 

not sure what planet you been living on, but unless you have a serious (ie: $250+) RAID controller card with lots of onboard memory and the ability to do RAID-5, doing RAID-5 on an integrated RAID controller is...well it's just downright dumb.

 

you can get about 40MB/s throughput full time on a single disk, regardless of size (and slightly more if it has more cache or faster spindle speed).

 

2 disks in RAID-0 you are looking at 80MB/s and nearly 350MB/s bursts on SATA II

 

RAID-5...good luck getting over 20MB/s bursts and about 6-10MB/s full time throughput (that's with 10,000RPM Raptor drives too).

 

You can be assured I have tried this on the currently available controllers on our boards, and only someone who likes a lot of pain and suffering would go with this option.

 

Parity is a great thing, but not at the price the onboard controllers make you pay, and not for the price that a REAL RAID-5 controller card will set you back (there is NO GOOD REASON to run RAID-5 on a regular machine...RAID-5 is for mission-critical performance on a high-end server that runs a db/webserver etc).

 

 

While you might want a couple 120GB disks for RAID-5, the rest of us that haven't overdosed on ganja would easily choose a 250GB 16MB cache drive to run by itself.

 

Not sure where you are thinking that the larger the drive the more time it takes to access any given data when in reality the ms count is nearly the same across all drives, and when it comes to ms, you will never notice the difference.

 

In RAID-5 though, you will love sitting there watching your program open for 30+ seconds while the rest of us have already loaded the level and are killing each other with rocket-bombs and tank-planes etc.

 

 

as for the damage per sector rate going up...lol...maybe you can provide us with some real hard evidence of this happening? I've never heard of such nonsense myself, but maybe someone else has been eating the same brownies you have and can enlighten a heathen like me about this?

 

 

oh

 

and

 

large disks don't have the same high RPM and large cache?

 

please my friend, pass the bong over here as we would all like to partake in your D&D module too.

 

 

 

(yes, it is harsh, but when you post a bunch of nonsense, someone has to make sure that anyone reading your nonsense knows it is exactly that...nonsense....because people tend to believe anything they read on the internet without checking the facts, which is something you have not done the latter of, and are definitely guilty of the former)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pass the crack and the mary jane my way. I want some! RAID-5 on a desktop is just silly.

 

IMHO opinion the best desktop solution is 3 inexpensive 120gb hard drives running in a RAID 0 setup with one 250gb drive as a backup and storage drive. Just have to be religious about your backups, but there are plenty of apps. out there that let you schedule automatic backups.

 

Still kicking myself for the money I paid last year for a set of 74gb Raptors. Would have been much better off with the setup mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying out the new Seagate 7200.10 250GB, 16MB 7200RPM drives...I ALMOST bought a Promise Fast-Trak PCI-E SATA II RAID card for them too...but then I thought...now that's just overkill jeez ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it true that the next amd processor will work on the new DFI Lanparty UT NF590 SLI-MR2/G , upcoming 65nm Brisbane CPUs ? AMD has revealed that AM2 mobo will accept AM2 or AM3 CPU ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool.... forum looks nice, guys. Haven't seen it since the change(s). Also good to see that you have found your "center", A_G, and are now happy.:P heh heh.

 

Read this whole thread, and my eyes are bleeding from it. But, I have deduced this info from it: Asian chicks at tech shows can be more of an attraction than the products; the "stacked" SATA in the front of the board would be cool; and RAID 5 sucks on integrated RAID controllers; and Tuesday will be the most supreme day of the week.

 

@Jacky_bad_mofo, I'm gonna say that we won't know for sure until these products are actually out. AMD in general has been pretty good about CPU's of the same socket working in most boards with that socket, but they could always follow Intel and start having to have new chipsets for each new core. That's a little more extreme than what really happened, but it's not far off.

 

As far as hard drives go, I bought 3 WD 2500KS (250GB, SATA3.0, 16MBcache) for about $250. In RAID 0 they will keep up (and sometimes beat out) a 2x Raptor array that costs about $300, and have over 4 times the available storage. But, I am in agreement that RAID 5 is overkill for regular home use.... even for extreme home use. Say you wanted a Raptor array in RAID 5, 3 drives deep. 2 are striped and one is the parity drive.... that's about $450 for 120Gigs of space. Plus, the CPU usage goes through the roof on these onboard controllers. I was playing with RAID 5 on these 2500KS's, and moving a big file shot CPU usage into the 40% range. I got a little different transfer speed than what you said, H_G, I got about 70MB/s in HDTach.... but that number doubled by putting the drives in a straight RAID 0 array. I get about 140MB/s. Very good trade-off, and if I back up every now and then, it will all be good.

 

hdtachraid03x2500ksnz6.th.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...