An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
The case is a fine choice, but you can go cheaper like a Cooler Master Centurion 5.
Also, I know I am the one that recommended the Opteron, but if you really want to go cheaper get the 3000+. The Opteron does overclock better and has more cache, but the 3000+ is still a good overclocker. Remember that if you do get to 2.8GHz it is essentially an FX-57 (the Opteron). From what I have seen it is not hard to hit 2.8GHz, but of course YMMV.
Get the EPoX 9NPA+ Ultra. Get the SATA Hitachi 7K80 (you chose IDE).
Quote:
Also, there is a reason they call the Hitachi Deskstars \"Deathstars\". They tend to die after 6 months to a year of good use.
Wow, it is really annoying when people spread such BS.
I agree with everything but the bolded part. To be flat out, the 2MB cache sucks.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
Look what I found. For 1.76$ more than the Hitachi 7K80, which is ATA133 and 2MB cache, you can get an 80GB SATA150 8MB cache Western Digital Caviar SE:
I agree with everything but the bolded part. To be flat out, the 2MB cache sucks.
The SATA has 8MB. So, I basically gave the same recommendation you did. The Hitachi is the best budget drive, it offers the best price/performance ratio.
I agree with everything but the bolded part. To be flat out, the 2MB cache sucks.
The SATA has 8MB. So, I basically gave the same recommendation you did. The Hitachi is the best budget drive, it offers the best price/performance ratio.
The SATA is faster than the Hitachi, has more cache, and only costs about 2$ more. I would get the SATA Glen, not the Hitachi.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
I agree with everything but the bolded part. To be flat out, the 2MB cache sucks.
The SATA has 8MB. So, I basically gave the same recommendation you did. The Hitachi is the best budget drive, it offers the best price/performance ratio.
The SATA is faster than the Hitachi, has more cache, and only costs about 2$ more. I would get the SATA Glen, not the Hitachi.
That made absolutely no sense at all. I recommended getting the Hitachi 7K80 with 8MB cache (which is SATA) which is faster then the WD and you say \"I would get the SATA Glen, not the Hitachi.?\"
I agree with everything but the bolded part. To be flat out, the 2MB cache sucks.
The SATA has 8MB. So, I basically gave the same recommendation you did. The Hitachi is the best budget drive, it offers the best price/performance ratio.
The SATA is faster than the Hitachi, has more cache, and only costs about 2$ more. I would get the SATA Glen, not the Hitachi.
That made absolutely no sense at all. I recommended getting the Hitachi 7K80 with 8MB cache (which is SATA) which is faster then the WD and you say \"I would get the SATA Glen, not the Hitachi.?\"
The link which Glen gave is IDE. I thought you were referring to that. Otherwise, at least post a link to the SATA Hitachi.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
Glen, for memory, I would still recommend the HyperX. For 10$ more, you could have performance RAM which can overclock much better. This is a huge price/performance ratio, since most ValueRAM-Performance RAM price differences are MUCH higher than 10$.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top