24h Left: Performance Bottlenecks?

Laptop Specs...
Chassis: Clevo D901C
OS': Win Vista x64 (gaming/school) and Linux x64 (school/cracking-endeavours)
Screen: 17" WUXGA (1920 x 1200)
HDDs: 200GB 7200RPM (x3) or 320GB 7200RPM (x2) or 500GB 10,000RPM (x1)
RAID: 5 or 1 (mirror) or none (not 0)
GPU: Nvidia 8800m GTX-SLI (2x 512mb)
RAM: DDR2....4GB or 8GB....667MHz or 800MHz
CPU: QUAD-Core Q9550 or XEON QUAD-Core X3660, see LINK (thanks Benx009)
Network Card: A/G/N

Laptop Usage...
Gaming (high-end, e.g. Crysis, Starcraft 2, Civilization IV, FEAR, BioShock, Half-Life 1/2, primarily FPS and RTS games) and general college stuff. Also, as to my "gaming", I will often (20% of the time) be using this machine as a server to host games (approx. 15ppl online), so I had given some thought to the XEON Quad-Core processor as well, for this reason (see the link above, it takes 10 seconds to view the differences). I'm also a white-hat (a.k.a. the good guy) hacker in practice and will be utilizing this in a self-contained/designed network to practice my cracking and general network intrusion skills. This will include Brute-Force tactics (which, I believe depends primarily upon the cpu).

The Rush (24h Left...not even...)...
I've got 24 hours (if I decide to buy from PCMicroWorks who have a $500 rebate that ends tonight at midnight (due to July 4th Weekend, this makes them the CHEAPEST retailer of the 30+ Clevo D901C retailers listed by Gophn on his Clevo Guide (the next cheapest for my configuration were xoticpc, powernotebooks, lynnbay, darksmileysystems, and gen-x-pc, at around $4200 to $4300 each. The other retailers ranged from around $4600 to $7k+ for the same configuration). PCMicroWorks is offering it at just under $4k, which saves me at LEAST $200. Hence the "24h Left" in the title of this thread, lol.

As to the Question of the "Performance Bottlenecks"...
Generally it is going to be either the CPU, the GPU, the RAM, or the HDDs.
HDD: As my intention for using this computer is for high-end gaming (e.g. Crysis, Starcraft 2, Civilization IV) and mostly online gaming, I would imagine that the HDD will NOT be my bottleneck. But, that is for you guys to determine, as hardware is not my forte, yet.
RAM: I've given thought to DDR3, but I figured DDR2 is fine (DDR3 is not overly available by the retailers I'm looking at, is more expensive, and from what people have told me is not especially faster. Though, it should run cooler and I have no doubt that this machine will have overheating issues). This also begs the question of 800MHz versus 667MHz. Sorry for this next potentially confusing question/statement, but I read somewhere that either the chipset/motherboard or the penryn processor (Q9550 and maybe the XEON is, too?) are 667MHz, so I don't know how well these components "interact" and if I'd be better off getting a matching 667MHz RAM. I only say this, because I know to use things like the "dual channel" properly in two seperate piece of RAM, they need to have the same MHz. I also have the option to go from 4GB to 8GB (however, this would cost me an ADDITIONAL $1k approximately over 4GB, which I'm not sure is worth it, unless the bottleneck is extreme). Also, a side-question, but just "how much" cheaper is it to just install RAM on ones own?
GPU: Seeing as I am getting the Nvidia 8800m GTX in SLI configuration (2x 512mb), I don't think there is any greater option currently available to me. So it would REALLY stink if this somehow turned out to be the bottleneck, but I doubt it will be. If it is, however, then I'd like to know what other components I can "scale back" on to save $, lol.
CPU: I have three choices. a 3GHz or above Core 2 Extreme Processor (which, I did not include in the "laptop specs...", because I felt it made this computer less future-proof than the the other two options. A Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/45nm/1333MHz/12MB), which is a PENRYN. Or a Intel XEON QUAD X3360 (2.83GHz/45nm/1333MHz/12MB). These two chips are compared SIDE-BY-SIDE at this link and can be easily discerned in a matter of seconds, as it presented visually. I would probably go for the Q9550 (penryn), however, I plan to server/host games sometimes, so perhaps the server-intended XEON (?penryn?) would be worth the additional $100 (if the difference is minimal, however, then I will stick with the Q9550, as I'm sure driver-updates will be an easier issue and it will also cost less).

So That's The Scoop...
Hope you guys can help me out with this one. I will also be posting up another thread shortly (first, I'm going to browse the NBR archives for info, though) regarding the scoop on the differing retailers. I'm not going to rush trying to save an ultimate $200 if it leaves me rushing too a poor decision and getting poor tech support or something. As well as another thread (unless I find out enough information on my own) about the varying abilities in RAM manufacturers products (e.g. OCZ, Corsair, Kingston, etc) in regards to how long they last, how well they dissipate heat, and so forth.
Feel free to add in any other additional information that you think I should consider in regards to getting the most in performance for this machine, before I buy it. Thanks ahead of time! And btw, I might be out for a long time tomorrow, so don't sit around waiting for a response from me immediately, as I might be rushing to sort through what info is left and make a decision on this $-saving deal.

 

Well, in gaming, the GPU will still likely be your bottleneck, but that is sorta like saying you shouldn't get a certain car because it goes 0-60 in 2.5 seconds instead of 2. That laptop will outclass many desktops.

 

Best config is with the XEON.

RAM wise, if you can wait, I think the price will go down in a couple of month, maybe a bit longer. Just like the previous 2GB module and the 1GB module and so on before that. So get the largest + cheapest RAM you can get from them, then by 2x 4GB module later when 4GB modules are cheaper.

As for the HDD, you can get the RAID all you want, but I think SSD is the best performance wise. You can always get an external for everything else. Including backups. Or since that machine can support 3 HDD, get SSD primary and 1 huge HDD for storage.

 

Sirmetman
Really...the GPU? I'm curious what brings you to that conclussion, as well as what I should/can scale-back on in other areas given this scenario?

F4ding
CPU: What brings you to the conclussion of going with the XEON processor? I know you spoke about ECC memory earlier and thought there might be a few more differences. I'd personally imagine ECC memory in the case of a RAID configuration might be a poor idea, however. Given the fact that now I'm tying up the processor in fact-checking the storage, when I already have the RAID doing that for me without tying up the processor). However, I don't know how intensive this is, it might be too little a difference to matter and might save me the need of getting mirroring raid options (1, 5), which I like the idea of. Especially if the processor is not the bottleneck of my system.

RAM: I was thinking of upgrading it myself, if there is any significant savings. Also, I agree, the 4GB (2 for 8GB) will be dropping in price significantly soon and I am willing to wait to make that savings. I might consider getting a 1-stick of 4GB, as oppossed to 2 sticks of 2GB, however. This way I can simply buy another of the stick later on and not have to deal with re-selling the two 2GB sticks.

HDD: I don't REALLY need a lot of HDD space. 500GB is more than enough. I was playing with #s.
3x 200GB (raid 5) leaves me with 400GB space.
2x 320GB (raid 1) leaves me with 320GB space.
1x 500GBB (no raid) leaves me with 500GB space.
I only really need 300GB (so, I could theoretically get a non-raided 320GB HDD). I already have an external HDD I use at home for back-ups and storage. If I remmember correctly, it holds between 500GB and 750GB, more than I'll ever need. I like to start "fresh" (reformats) every so often, so as to clear up junk that slowly accumulates (like registry keys and dead shortcuts and uninsstalls that never fully uninstall, etc).
In regards to SSDs, those are FAR to expensive and offer too little in capacity. I'd imagine a 10k or 7.2k RPM HDD is sufficent in boot-time. And, gven the high capacity of those drives (particularly the 500GB ones), I would predict the increased platter density would increase seek times. I have no wish to mix SSDs with mechanical HDDs.

 

i believe ecc ram is more expensive. prolly around 10-20% more depending on ram and other features. possibly more with ddr3 and 4gb. and i think it's a little bit slower, so you might take performance hit in games.

 

seriously with the Q9550 and the Xeon being essentially the same processor with a different set of optimal instructions (general vs. server optimized), if you dont plan on hosting games all the time and even if you do, it wont be a dedicated server for the game (i assume), IMHO i dont think its worth the extra cash to get the Xeon over the Q9550.

as for the 4gb vs. 8gb/667mhz vs. 800mhz, since this is based on desktop chipsets/components that dont have the limitation of the intel mobile chipset (FSB rated to 800mhz, but chipset only supports up to 667 mhz for now) i would say go with the 4gb 800 mhz ram, unless you plan on upgrading to DDR3 once it becomes more readily available at a lesser price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148111 (4gb 667mhz desktop ram) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231182 (8gb 800mhz desktop ram) to compare the cost of ram buying it yourself.

and unless you are concerned with data security (which in raid 5 is almost moot because the copies of your files and folders wont all be going to the same drive as backup. http://www.accs.com/p_and_p/RAID/BasicRAID.html i would say get the 2 320 gb 7200 rpm in raid 0. more room for storage and with all the games mentions, you'll probably want a lot of that.

 

I'd go RAID5 myself, as it gives you more storage than RAID1, but still good single drive failure protection, unlike RAID0. As to the GPU being the gaming bottleneck, well, game makers spend a lot more time these days on pretty pictures rather than huge worlds with tons of things going on at once, so it makes sense that the GPU would bottleneck before the CPU. In any case, I'd just get a really nice system, and enjoy it. I don't see a point to trimming things back at your price level anyway.

 

how do you figure that? because without a set parity drive, if one drive fails, kiss all 3 drives goodbye. you'll have to set a backup program to backup all 3 drives at least once a week to an external which leaves raid 5 practically moot. if it was raid 4, then i could see how he would have single drive failure protection because the parity drive is set to ONE drive, not spread out over all 3 drives.

 

Pukemon
Yeah, ECC and DDR3 and 800MHz all cost more. I would also imagine ECC is a bit slower, too. Some of the previous info I wrote before about ECC was inaccurate, I misunderstood F4dings original post. F4ding meant that the XEON processor might REQUIRE ECC memory (thus raising the $ requirement even higher, ugh). I don't fully understand how hardware works together, though. If the RAM were ECC (cyclic redundancy checks and all that good stuff), would that equate to the information in the HDD being more accurate? If so, I'd consider this a worthwhile purchase OVER Raid 1/5 configurations. This way I can get a larger capacity, higher RPM single-organized drive (500GB at 10k RPM). Thus, equalling out the $ aspect, regardless of whether or not I get the XEON processor. This all depends on how intimately RAM and HDD communicate, however.

Diablo85
CPU: No, it will not be a dedicated server (things change, though). I appreciate this arguement and agree with your logic. I'm probably trying to be too much of a "perfectionist" when it comes to designing this machine. I'd imagine the difference between the two is minor when it comes to the tasks I will generally be performing. At the moment, I sway in favor of the Q9550.

RAM: Desktop Ram going to work in a laptop? Lol. I can get DDR3 now, for not significantly more (I don't think), but from talking/reading posts on the forum, I've come to the conclussion that I would get little-to-no benefit of using DDR3 memory, with the exception of reduced heat and power requirements. Which, admittedly is a concern for this high-end laptop, but I don't think RAM contributes sooo significantly to the overall heat of the machine for me too worry (at least, I hope not).

HDD: Your comments regarding the RAID confused me. I understand (well enough) the differences between the raid configurations. Raid 0 was NOT a consideration. As this is a laptop and I don't expect my games to be demanding on my HDD much, I don't see the value of having a potential instability on my HDDs. Raid 1/5 were my only considerations. I've heard a lot of good/bad about Raid 1/5 (especially Raid 0), however. So, I've been giving thought to just skipping the whole Raid stuff and getting the one large 500GB 10k RPM HDD (More space, faster RPM, increased platter density, stress-testing galore, easy 1-step-replacement-back-up-device, lol). I just haven't seen any retailers offering the 500GB HDDs, even though I hear they are compatible with the machines. I need to look into this (also means lesser warranty on the HDD, sigh).

 

Sirmetman
In regards to FPS (first person shooter) games I can deffinatly understand your point of view. But, what about RTS (real time strategy) games? These will often be single-player (unless we're talking Starcraft 2), so I'd imagine the HDD, but more importantly the CPU, come into demand here.
I'm gonna forget the trimming, you're right. The real point of this thread was too find out if I wasn't being stupid and overlooking some hardware aspect before I proceeded. I wanted to get all my final thoughts basically out in the open and make sure it seemed right to everyone else.

As to the RAID discussion, I'll let you two duke that one out for the moment. I am highly reconsidering the RAID concept anyhow. Especially as I do understand a fair bit about back-ups and security. If I was getting RAID, though, I agree with taking 5 over 1 (and I would never consider RAID 0 on a gaming laptop).

 

i think you're better off getting the q processor and regular ram. you won't be using your laptop as dedicated server, just a gaming server so no benefits there. also, i would only worry about hdd temperatures. might just want to buy 1 or none hdd's and buy western digital hdd's because they run cooler than other drives and will be quieter. you sacrifice a little performance but lack of heat gain should make up for it, especially in the 9262 where hdd temperature is a concern. the money you save buying your own hdd's should be spent towards a good laptop cooler and cheap 12v 4 inch electrical fan. can be had for less than 10 bucks.

 

the links to desktop ram are in there because it uses desktop cpu/and chipset, so i thought that it would use desktop ram slots too, as i have never owned a sager or clevo system, so i wasnt sure. but either way, the cost to upgrade ram yourself is significantly cheaper than having it installed by the manufacturer.

EDIT: about the raid 0 info that i mentioned...i misread your options...for strictly gaming, i probably wouldnt consider raid 0 an option, but at the same time, unless i didnt have an option to have raid 4, i wouldnt use raid 5.

 

Pukemon
CPU: I think it's 99% settled at this point, I'll just go with the Q9550 processor.
RAM: I'm still really thinking about the RAM idea, however, I'm going to look more into that on my own some.
HDD: I was thinking Western Digital Raptor, Seagate, or Hitachi (I was going to compare them side-by-side later). They do come in SATA II (3GB/s) options though, correct? I didn't want to get SATA I (1.5GB/s). I'll keep in mind your opinnion on WD when I research more into it later, however.
Heat Issues: Yes, I suspect heat problems will occur on the Clevo D901C when I am playing intense games on high/max. Here are the steps I am taking to work on this.
A. Using a thermal paste/ceramic (likely Arctic Silver 5) on the heatsink for the CPU/GPU.
B. I've read through the undervolting guides on here (and elsewhere) and plan to undervolt the CPU, thus increasing longevity of the CPU, reducing heat, being more "green", and increasing the battery life.
C. Obviously, cleaning out the computer routinely will be wise (for any machine, really), particularly for this machine. I'll air-can the vent every 2-4 weeks. As well as unscrew/open the chassis every 3-6 months and clean it out more thoroughly.
D. I am holding off at the momment on the Laptop cooler, but I have been inquiring about it on NBR already, trying to figure out what ppl would recommend for this chassis design, so as to work the best with the vent/fan locations on it. At the moment, I'm thinking the Zalman 2000, but that is likely to change.
E. I've also looked into 7-in-1-card fans that you "plug in" to the card-reader, as well as the USB slot. These devices EXTRACT hot air from the machine (through the 7-in-1-card reader) and some of the models have a 180 degree rotatable-fan, so you can direct the heat in whatever direction you'd like. Take a look at this and this, for example. I've yet to determine just how beneficial these devices really are, however. I'm already inquiring about them.
F. Much like the HDD, I'm also considering which RAM manufacturer I buy from (e.g. Corsair, OCZ, Kingston) in regards to voltage/heat-dissipation. I would consider a "heat pad" for the ram sticks, but that might be going overboard and I don't have any experience with that stuff.
G. If I can get the manufacturer to do it (I don't want to), I'd get the wires between the devices more taught/organized, thus optimizing air flow in the machine. I dunno how much more beneficial this will be, however. I dare not do it myself, for fear that even a smallest nick on a wire or whatever could mess everything up, lol.
H. When you say an electrical fan....you just mean a regular simple fan? Lol. Yeah, I guess I could do that.

Diablo85
I've never seen a machine offer Raid 2/3/4, only 0/1/5. In fact, the "24h left" thing with this company ONLY offers Raid 0/5. Leaving me with only "5" for an option if I go with them.

 

I think you mean heatspreaders. They're cheap and relatively effective, so you're not going overboard. They're real easy to install.

AS5 for the cpu, and AS ceramic for the gpu (conductivity issues).

There aren't really any benefits of going for sata II over I, i dont know of any hard drives that can reach the max bandwidth of a sata I port. Of course there are SSDs. Instead of the raptor, go for a WD6400AAKS, they have a bigger capacity, faster bandwidth, cheaper, but have a slower access time.
Have a look at my benchmarks:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=269066

 

D'oh, you are right. "Heatspreaders". If you think it's easy (worthwhile?), then I guess I'll look into it more.
Thanks for clearing up the paste/ceramic for the cpu/gpu, respectivly. But, what if they share the same heatsink (I don't know if they do or not, however)?
Ha-ha, no intentions of getting an SSD (maybe an upgrade 3 yrs from now). Admittadly my knowledge of HDDs is small (more than the typical person, at least). I'd imagine the access time i pretty crucial though, like when starting-up the computer (or anything for that matter). How much of a difference are we talking in bandwith/access-times? I'm able to understand your benchmark, but I've never compared many before (I've had my hands full learning other stuff, lol), so I can't tell how good that really is in comparisson to other HDDs. :/

 

unlikely that the cpu/gpu will share the same heatsink. they might share the same heat pipe, but you should still have a seperate place to put the ceramic on the gpu die and the AS5 on the cpu die.

 

I know some computers share heatsink. As to whether or not this one does, I do not know as of yet.
Would you two recommend doing the AS5 myself, then? Two of the retailers I had in mind would do the AS5 for me, but won't do the ceramic for the gpu. Since, it would appear I'll have to do it myself, perhaps I may as well get the AS5 done myself, too. Potentially cheaper (unless you don't use the whole pack?) and I don't have to worry about those retailers "rushing" it, thus leaving in accidental air-bubbles or anything like that (I've already read a bunch of DIY guides for it, I would of course refresh myself on the info, however).

Alright, I really need to get some sleep. It's 5:30am, lol. I hope to come back to TEN PAGES of good text when I return.

 

Yes apply the thermal paste yourself, as it is likely to be much cheaper, and very easy to do. LOL don't use the whole tube of paste. On my C2D, best temps were reached with a thin line of paste down the middle of the cpu. There should be a guide on the arctic website, showing you how to best apply AS5 to your specific cpu.

As for the hard drive, the WD, is one of the fastest out there. have a look at http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hard-disks/average-read-transfer-performance,658.html#

Only a few drives can beat its bandwidth, and its access time, is near the top of the 7.2Ks,
obviously if you've got the money, a velociraptor is best

 

most laptops can't take heatspreaders for the ram. the cpu and gpu in the clevo 901 rarely have heat problems. and when it does, it's likely to be dust or a processor not seated properly or something. i believe the 901 has 4 fans. the hdd's that usually run warmer are in the compartment where you stack two on top of each other.

 

Yea, you don't need the heatspreaders for the RAM. As for the HDD, I still think you should go SSD for the system drive, and regular mechanical HDD for storage, but that's just me. With regard to price, I think OCZ just recently announced 64GB SSD that reads and writes around 80MB/s to 100MB/s that they claim will sell for around $300. Maybe I'm a bit off with that numbers.

Either way that's just me. Because if you think about it, no matter what CPU/RAM you get, the bottleneck is still the HDD. Although if you go with RAID 0 you might get as high as 120MB/s, although access time a little bit lower than the SSDs.

 

Jisaac
Alright, I'll consider doing the pastes myself then, but seeing as not everyone thinks I'll have heat problems (I think I will), I might just go ahead and let them (can't imagine it hurts, unless they do a really dumb job of it) and forget the ceramic for the GPU.
Interesting on the HDDs. Do you know if a velociraptor is going to fit in this machine, though? (I forget if the Clevo D901C uses 2.5" or 3.5" HDDs). I tried looking around for a 500GB version, but didn't see one (admittedly, I didn't look hard and the charts do show a 750GB, lol). I saw a 300GB velociraptor on newegg for $300, so it's around $1 a GB. Which, is about the same price, maybe a little less, than the other 2-3 HDDs I was considering. I think the price isn't too bad, personally.

Pukemon
Indeed, it does have 4 fans, which is a ton. I've also read that the more problematic heat area for the HDDs is where they are stacked, too. Which is why I'm pulled in all directions.
ONE HDD = Less Heat in total, single storage device to be transferred in the future possibly, lower total voltage consumption, less internals to worry about, no having to mess around with Raid 1/5 (which, I've heard an equal # of ppl say makes their machines very sluggish).
TWO HDDs = Still okay heat dissipation, more voltage consumption than 1 drive, slower RPMS than single drive, lesser platter density, no worrying about overlapping HDDS), can get Raid 1 (though 5 is better).
THREE HDDs = Heat problem potential (stacked drives), most voltage consumption (lower battery life), slower RPMs than single drive, least platter density of all, but does have Raid 5 (which, is a mixed-bag like all the Raids).
RAID 1/5 = Maybe I shouldn't even bother. It's more to worry about and less simple. I've heard lots of ppl having trouble with it (including some gold tech support guys at Dell, they hate Raid, apparently, they get a lot of complaints from ppl about how it makes their machines too sluggish). And no one has addressed the fact that the HDD shouldn't be the general bottleneck in most of my games (except maybe the RTS games).

Pukemon/F4ding
Yeah, I will hold off on even attempting heatspreaders, until I've run some software to monitor heat temps. That is why I thought it might be going overboard until I find out for sure what my temps will be like.

F4ding
It might be a silly thought, but I like uniformity of the HDDs I use, this way I don't have to think about "hmm, which HDD is reading from...the slow 1 or the fast 1..." I'll feel like constantly optimizing where the data is located if I did that, lol. As such, I don't want to use an SSD unless it can support 300GB (I don't think there are any yet that go so high, but if they do then I'm sure they must be like $1,000+, too expensive),
The #s you threw at me don't help me much. I'm still a nub in regards to comparing HDDs. :/ If you could provide comparative examples (like velociraptor and the 200GB SATA2 7200RPM drives offered on xoticpc.com), then that would REALLY prove beneficial for me.

For Everyone
HDDS in general = How would you guys compare a 32-64GB SSD (which, would require the existence of another large HDD, like an 320GB 7200RPM, which many of the retailers do NOT offer, they usually limit it to a 200GB 7200RPM, meaning I would need THREE HDDs, ultimately) to a mechanical 500GB 10,000RPM HDD? Also, how much work is it to determine which HDD (SSD versus mechanical) will get all the OS files and the files in general needed for boot-up time? Unless the difference is staggering, then I think the ONE HDD approach is better (especially since the SSD way means I likely won't have my 3-4yr tech-support covering ANY of the HDDs, except maybe the SDD).
Also: Anyone have any idea how large the filesize is for Windows Vista 64bit? As well as the "standard" between the LINUX OS' (Ubuntu, red hat, etc)? If you guys REALLY think it is worth it, then I'll contemplate dealing with leaving the OS' on a 32-64GB SSD and the rest on the mechanical drives. But, I dunno, it seems like too much upkeep. Simpler to just get a single 10k RPM drive and not have to worry about RAID either (no way I'm getting RAID with an SSD, wouldn't be worthwhile).

 

With regard to SSD here's a few links from engadget:
Battery life
New OCZ, 64GB for $260, 128GB for $479 (Write/Read~80MB/120MB) access time much faster than HDD
WD Scorpio 320GB for $180

There are many others if you search.

 

I can't open the first two links. They crash my browser. :/

I have looked into the velociraptor, however. They are 2.5", however, they are 15mm thick, which is more than the typical 2.5" HDD (9.5 mm thick), making them incompatible in standard 2.5" slots. They are equipped to icePACKs (or whatever WD calls them), which are essentially heatsinks, making them usable in only 3.5" drives. I have checked the Clevo D901C and it utilizes three standard (9.5mm thick) HDDs, making the velociraptor a no go. Dang.

I've also been using this graph to determine the HDD failure rates of varying manufacturers (Samsung, Hitachi, Western Digital, Seagate, and Maxtor). Which, makes me want to exclude Maxtor from my selection of HDDs. The others are within acceptable limits, however (I was primarily considering WD, Hitachi, and SG anyhow).

Edit: I'm beginning to think that there are no 500GB 2.5" (9.5mm thick) HDDs out there. Let alone at 10,000 RPM or above.

 

I searched newegg.com and the highest I could find is 320GB, 7200rpm.

 

GAH. Dang it. My computer just crashed just before clicking "post", darn it. Took forever to write that darn thing....had like 20+ links....all gone....*Sigh* (remains cool). Alright, I'm not going to rush the purchase (don't worry about the 24h left). There are, however, still 3 general pertinent questions to be answered.

1. RAM: To ECC or not to ECC, that is the question. I've done some looking around on prices and such and I'll likely be spending between $100-$120 on the retailers 4GB (2 x 2gb) RAM (so, it'll be covered by a 4yr warranty), which will be DDR2-800MHz. However, I could get 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2-800MHz ECC RAM from between $150-$350. I wouldn't get a warranty (beyond manufacturer) if I went for the ECC memory, I would also be paying more (not much more, however, if I get the lower priced ones). I could also sell a 2GB (1 x 2GB) DDR2-800MHZ (which I have to buy at the least, for about $70 from the retailer), to make some $ back. How beneficial is ECC really going to prove to be, though? Worth it for these considerations?

2. RAID: The only choices are 1 (mirror) or 5 (NOT 0, 2, 3, 4). That or I simply don't get RAID at all. There is FAR too much opinnions going on for RAID. I need someone to lay out the facts here (I've looked around myself and I always get opinnions, blah). Some say RAID (1/5) is useless. Others say RAID (1/5) is the greatest. Some say RAID (5) speeds up performance. Some say RAID (1/5) slows down your computer immensely. Some say RAID (1/5) can be usefull, but not worth it if you are doing periodic back-ups (which, I do). What is the real scoop on this? I have one source of "opinnion" that I believe, which is the Gold Tech Support at Dell. I've spoken with them on numerous occasions (always good conversation) and they dislike RAID a lot, as they get a lot of people calling in about how RAID (non-0) slows down their computers immensely. I can't imagine why it would, but there are others who say this, too. I don't really want the RAID for the safety nearly as much as I want it for the potential speed boost (from what I've gathered, only 0/5 would give me this, but I do NOT want 0).

3. HDD Bottleneck: This is where I lost all the info/links I had gotten an hour ago, so bear with me here.
A. At the momment my intentions are to get THREE 200GB 7200RPM HDDS (for $165 each, thus $495). I believe they are Hitachi TravelStar 7K200, but I am not certain (might be a Seagate Momentus). My goal is to have between 400GB and 600GB of HDD space (preferablly 500GB or more). I also want to have as FEW HDDs as possible (thus to reduce heat and increase battery longevity). From what I gather, the bottleneck for the HDD itself is likely going to be the RPM. All the retailers I've viewed offered a Maximum RPM of 7200. However there are some 10k and 15k RPM 2.5" notebook HDDS around. As well as a 250GB and a 320GB available. To get TWO of each (meeting my 500GB preference) would cost between $280-$360 (a significant savings over the $495 for 3x200GB, though I'd loose out on the warranty). I particularly like the Seagate Savvio 10K.3, with 10,000RPM, 300GB, SAS2 (6GB/s), and government-grade FDE (Full Disk Encryption). I don't think the Savvio has hit the market yet, however (not sure when it will, either).
B. All that being said, what about the SSDs? These things can get expensive (over $3k for 128GB). Obviously, if I'm getting an SSD it will be intended for the OS and the remaining memmory for commonly used applications. Now, there are some "relatively" cheap ones out there like this one, which has 120GB for only $575. Unfortunately, they are cheap for a reason, it stinks (more than half of the reviewers sent it back within a week, because it crashed over-and-over). The crashing problems seems to be a big issue for a LOT of the SSDs out there. So, is it the manufacturers or is it because this technology is in its infancy still (which, means the prices should drastically reduce within the next year or two, but we are talking about now, not next year, lol). Vista Ultimate (64-bit) is approx 15GB in size. Then you have to factor in the security-updates and whatnot, so we can round it to about 20GB for current/future. I also intend to have a dual-boot with a Linux OS (fedora, red hat, ubuntu, etc), I haven't decided which yet, however. The Linux OS' vary in size from around 2-10GB would be my estimate. As I might switch around the Linux OS I use, I'd stay on the safe side with 10GB. So, I would need approximately 30GB SSD for JUST the operating systems on their own. This isn't taking into account the fact that Windows likes to "reserve" memory (e.g. trash bin), either. There are also things like virtual memory (paging file) to consider (though, this could be done on the mechanical HDD, it would likely be far-better on the SSD). There could also be big expansions (security/programs/etc) for the OS', too....This can go on-and-on. So, it would probably be smart to get a 64GB SSD or greater ($800+ from a good manufacturer most likely).
C. So...Mechanical HDDs or SSD + Mechanical? Besides the question of which SSD to get (if at all), the mechanical choice seems far-more pertinent. Beyond the 200GB 7200RPM HDDs all the others will NOT be covered by warranty, which seeing as I'll have 4yrs on the machine, understandably worries me. I can't get the SSDs covered in warranty by the retailers, either (even if they do last for around 75 years or so, ha-ha). There are too many considerations to be had here. Difference between SSD and mechanical 7200RPM, 10kRPM, 15kRPM HDDs. How to keep the files organized between the drives appropriately. The real value of SSD over RAID, as I don't intend to move my laptop very much. How much cooler it REALLY is. Etc. I'd imagine the read/seek would be the most important variable, followed by write/heat, then etc.

I know this post was long, lol. These are my final questions (that I can think to ask) before purchasing this notebook. Then I'll be happy.

 

i would just get the regular ram. ecc is mainly for servers and where performance is not absolutely necessary. as for you hdd situation, i suggest getting western digital 5400 rpm's for your double bay because of heat concerns. and getting a hitachi 7200 as your primary. i think 500 gig hdd's are supposed to be out in the near future. oh and 320 gig 5400 rpm hdd's perform similar to 200 gig 7200 rpm hdd's because of the density.

 

Do you have a source that shows that (the 2 5400s vs 3 7200s)? I'd be greatly interested in reading more on that. Could save money, heat, and battery life. Though, it eliminates the efficiency of RAID-5, if that is decided upon. I don't believe Raid-1 adds any efficiency.

 

Follow this link

Directron is a pretty highly rated company. Check with resellerratings.com.

That's 128GB of SSD with SATA 2 for $520. ETA July 13th. Rated 120MB per second/90MB per second read/write. Of course the access time is <0.1ms. Compare that to regular HDD which is 50 to 60MB/s read maybe less sustained, add to the longer access time ~3ms.

If you do RAID maybe you can get around 120MB per second read. I'm telling you, either wait a while or preorder now from Directron. The only bad thing is that one or two posters are saying that newer better speed SSDs are coming out soon too (~400MB/s read speed)..

 

i'm just clarifying in case you misunderstood. 1 320 gig 5400 ~ 1 200 gig 7200 rpm. i hardly ever can find a link in search. i think k-tron and chaz know. platter rpm isn't everything. the more dense data is on a platter, the faster it can be read. the ratio works out to be about 1.5-2.0~1.0 if you understand that. the ratio varies a little depending on what brand you're comparing because some do perform better speedwise. WD is above average in performance. hitachi usually whups the others butts. but WD will be cooler and more quiet. stay away from fujitsu if it doesn't come with earplugs. seagate is kind of the middle of the road on all stats and probably the most arguable on how it compares to other brands.

 

That is....wow. I know with manufacturing pushes the SSDs are dropping in price rapidly (and they are getting to have larger storage), but how the heck did OCZ manage to from a 64GB SSD at $800 to the 128GB SSD you just linked, for only $520!? This...baffles me. Especially since the cheaper one is better in read/write/etc, too! Am I missing something here? Lol.

I will have to wait if I go for an SSD. I also don't plan to HAVE to use 400GB+ immediatly. If these devices prove any good (and, I have confidence in the previous OCZ SSDs, I've seen a lot of good reviews for them, in comparisson to Super Data, Ridata, Transcend, and many others). I'll keep an eye on the OCZ 128GB you pointed out for tech reviews. It seems most people who complain about SSD failure complain within the first week, anyhow (at least for the competition).

3x SSD = $1,560 = Too expensive.
2x SSD = 1,040 = ...A lot, but possibly...
1x SSD + 1or2 HDD ($165 ea) = $685or$850 = ...Mixed feelings, but acceptable price...

I've got a stigma about differing drives (mixing ssd & hdd). I'd consider doing the 2x SSD and taking a hit in space (256GB versus 328GB/528GB). Then, if I really need the added space (I have a feeling I "want" the space more than I "need" the space, but I'm not certain) then I can add-on a 3rd SSD later-on (1-2 years), which by then, will either be way faster (like the 400mb/s read speed you mentioned) or way cheaper or even both. What do you think of this approach (sees the $ figure slowly ballooning before his very own eyes).

I'd be interested to know "how soon" these 400mb/s read speeds will be achieved in the SSDs. After all, they could be mad expensive, only up to 64GB, not designed for laptops (2.5" 9.5mm height).
Also buying a computer based off of its parts is like trying to time the market. It's rarely worth it. (note: I'm a hypocrite for that statement, though. I think this economy is going to be going down A LOT more before we see it rise, so I've "timed" myself and am not purchasing nasdaq/s&p500/etc, because it will eventually "balloon" when it reaches a certain point and it would suck to miss that opportunity).

 

why not 1 ssd as primary and 2 hdd's secondary?

 

That's not a bad idea. Get what you want/need now, add as necessary later.

As to the 400MB/s speed, one maybe two guys mentioned that their cousin's grandfather's uncle who works at some Korean company R&D says so in one of the forums I looked at earlier. I wouldn't get all too excited about it. It could be mad expensive as you mentioned, and not huge at all capacity wise. The point is it's all could would and should. Nothing conclusive.

However, if we're talking about now, well, there you go, that's 128GB for around 100MB/s right now. I think I'm getting the 64GB. $280. Well worth it.

 

Pukemon
That was a choice (it was listed).
Maybe I'm being foolish in wanting all the drives to be the same. I'm thinking about it though and the price increase of the two SSDs over the 1SSD + 2HDDs is the difference between $1,040 and $850. $190 more.
Everything is better, however. The only "loss" I can conceive of is...
The loss in warranty (I would have 4yrs, but with the SSDs I'll only have 2 years. If it lasts 2 years though, then it likely isn't going to be having any problems, as that was part of the design intent. Less likely to break/corrupt as well, of course).
The loss in storage capacity. 256GB versus 528GB.

After I finish this "back-up" of my HDD to my external HDD, I am going to take a look more closely at the file sizes of the programs I plan to transfer over. As well as some glimpses of the program sizes of some of the games I intend to purchase. It'll give me a better idea. I already figured out the amount to reserve for the OS' earlier.

F4ding
I agree. At that price the 64GB is great.

 

are you guys using the ssd as primary and then hdd's as secondary? with windows vista you could easily take up 64/128 with the quickness and then using your hdd's as secondary, well windows doesn't always play nice when you start putting programs on a logical or secondary drive.

 

Well, my thinking is this. I'm going to do one of the following four things...
1. 3 mechanical HDDS. 200GB, 7200RPM. Will cost $495 ($165 ea). 4yr warranty on each drive. Total 600GB space.
2. 1 SSD ($520) & 1 200GB/7200RPM HDD ($165). Will cost $685. 2yr warranty on SSD, 4yr warranty on HDD. Total 328GB space. Extra drive possible.
3. 1 SSD ($520) & 2 200GB/7200RPM HDD ($330). Will cost $850. 2yr warranty on SSD. 4yr warranty on HDDs. Total 528GB space.
4. 2 SSDs ($1,040). 2yr warranty on SSDs. Total 256GB space. Extra drive possible.


I figure for the OS' I'm going to want to put aside at LEAST 40GB. I can't imagine all 128GB being used up by Vista, however. Even if it did, I've still got 128GB for everything else. Seeing as I don't hold onto media much (I external-drive it if I really-really want it). I also don't hold onto programs I don't use for a long time (I uninstall them and keep the compressed installer, either in my laptop or in the external-hdd). I still need to determine my space needs exactly. But I figure beyond the obvious less heat, less weight, faster speeds, etc. If I go fully-SSD it should be really quiet, which would be cool. By the time I "hypothetically" need that 3rd drive, the SSDs ought to be larger/cheaper/faster. Seeing as reformat my computer every 4-8 months, I can just time my purchase to install the OS' on the superior SS, when/if that time arrives.

 

Oops.. Unneeded post, ha-ha.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=3401797

 

Thanks for the link. Informative, though a bit off-topic at times, ha-ha.
Sigh....I'm swayyed in too many directions atm.